1. I'm DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE C OXSTITIJ-T 1 T TIl 0OAi I,.t, 5 OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Convened. at the City of' Lansing, Wednesday, May 15th,. 1867. OFFICIAL REPORT BY WM. BLAIR LORD AND DAVID WOLFE BROWN. VOL. II. ,f/ jjJ JOHN A. KERR & CO., PRINTER,S -TO THE STATE. ...~~~~~~~ 1Is7. .. - - - 4- - - I .t . z I r I,, .' -.. -4L il 'I ,VOL* II. 't ,-2 LANSING: I I -11 .0 CO0N-VE NTIO0N DEBATES. TUESDAY, [LANSING, MICHIGAN. J July 9, 1867. 4 THIRTY-SIXTH DAY. TUESDAY, July 9, 1867. The Convention met at eleven o'clock A. M., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mr. SPENCER. The roll was called and the following members answered to their names: Messrs. Andrus, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Burtch, Case, Chapman, Coolidge, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Divine, Elliott, Ferris, D. Goodwin, Hixson, Holmes, Lawrence, Lothrop, Lovell, McClelland, McKernan, Miles, Mussey, Musgrave, Norris, Pratt, Pringle, Rafter, Richmond, Root, Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, T. -G. Smith, W. A. Smith, Sutherland, Thompson, Tyler, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, White, Willard, Withey, Woodhouse, Yeomans and the President-48. Mir. WOODHOUSE. My colleague, (Mr. LONGhEAR,) is detained from the Convention to-day. I would, therefore, ask leave of absence for him for to-day. The PRESIDENT. There is not a quorum of the Convention present. No motion can be entertained, except a motion for a call of the Convention, or a motion to adjourn. Mr. NORRIS. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly, (at ten minutes past eleven o'clock A. M.,) the Convention adjourned. TH I RTY-SEVENTH DAY. WEDNESDAY, July 10, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mr. McINTIRE. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENOE. Mr. BARBER. I ask indefinite leave of absence for my colleague, Mr. LUcE, at his request. He informs me that he is necessarily detained at home in consequence of sicklcess in his family. Leave was granted. Mr. WALKER. I have been requested to ask leave of absence for Mr. WILLLIAMS, on account of business that no one else can attend to for him. Leave was granted. Mr. COOLIDGE. I received last evenig a message from my colleague, Mr. ALEXANDRR, informing -me that by a fall he was disabled from being here; VoL 2 —No. 1. but he hopes to be here in a day or two. I ask leave of absence for him for the remainder of the week. Leave was ranted. Mr. W. E. WARNER. I have been requested to ask leave of absence for Mr. VAN RIPER, on account of important business. Leave was granted. Mr. PRATT. I ask leave of absence for myself until to-morrow, for the purpose of attending a meeting of the trustees of the Michigan Asylum for the insane, at Kalamazoo. Leave was granted. Mr. W. E. WARNER also asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for Mr. DEsNoYERS, on account of sickness. Mr. McCONNELL. I ask indefinite leave of absence for my colleague, Mr. HARRIs, who- is detained at home on account of sickness. Leave was granted. Mr. LAWRENCE asked and obtained indefinite leave of-absence for Mr. WINANS. Mr. MILTTES. I ask leave of absence for Mr. CONGER for to-day. He expected to be here last night, but has not yet arrived. Leave was granted. Mr. MILES. I also ask leave of absence for Mr. HAZEN on account of sickness. I think he had indefinite leave of absence at the time of the adjournment, week before last. Leave was granted. Mr. M. C. WATKINS asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for Mr. MURRAY, on account of sickness in his family. Mr. NORRIS asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence: for Mr. NINDE. Mr. WHITE asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. DUNCAN for to-day. Mr. McKERNAN asked and ob tained leave of absence for Mr. BURn TENSHAW until Friday next. Mr. SUTH ERLAND asked and ob tained leave bf absence for Mr. TURNER until to-morrow. Mr. CASE. I believe Mr. ESTEE had indefinite leave of absence, just before the late recess of the Convention. If not, I would ask now that he be granted indefinite leave of absence. Leave was granted. Mr. LOVELL.' I wish to inquire whether the indefinite leaves of ab sence which were granted before the recess, expires with the recess? The PRESIDENT. The Chair supposes that when a member has been granted indefinite leave of absence, it would be at his option to return whenever he chose. The Secretary informs the Chair, however, that so many were granted indefinite leave of absence previous to the late recess, that he thought it best to call the roll through, and did so. Mr. LOVELL. My colleague, Mr. HOwARD, had indefinite leave of absence when he went away. As I was returning here, he informed me that owing to professional business, he would be unable to be here for two or three days this week; and he requested me, if there was any revocation -of the leaves of absence which had been granted before the recess, to have his leave renewed. I would therefore ask leaye of absence for him until Frida&y next. The PRESIDENT. His leave will be continued, unless there shall be some order of the Convention to the contrary. ?Mr.: LOVELL. In that case I do not desire to ask leave of absence for him. Mr. BLACKMAN. I desire to ask indefinite leave of absence for Mr. LAMB. Leave was granted. Mr. BLACKMAN. I also ask indefinite leave of absence for my colleague, Mr. DUNcoMBE. Leave was granted. Mr. HOLT. I ask indefinite leave of absence -for Mr. HAIRE, who, I am informed, has lately met with a severe accident, which resulted in breaking one of his lower limbs. Leave was granted. PETITIONS. Mr. TYLER presented the petition of Mrs. Annah Hoit, Mrs. Mary Ann Willington, Miss Sarah M. -Schermerhorn, and 38 other women, and Mr. Alvin Hoit, Mr. Wm. J. Schermerhorn, and 29 other men, of Colon and vicinity, St. Joseph county, asking equal suffrage to men and women; which was referred to the committee on elections. Also, the petition of Massena G. Thurston, John Vaughn, Mrs.:Desire A. Cutter, Mrs. Iuldah H. Dexter, and 59 other mi and women, of: Colon and viciotU, St. Joseph county, asking the retention, in substance at least, whit is section 47, article 4, of the 2 CONSTLITUTION AT CON VENTION. Uednesday, present Constitution, in the new instrumerit; which was referred to the committee an intoxicating liquors. Mr. YEOMANS presented the petition of Hon. Hampton Rich, Rev. G. S. Barnes, C. Oscar Thompson, W. D. Arnold, A. C. Caldwell, G. S. Cooper, Harvey Harter, O. N. Boltwood and ten other citizens of Ionia county, praying that the present Constitution be so amended as to forever disfranchise any and every person who may.directly or indirectly engage in the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors.. Mr. BILLS presented the petition of B. L. Baxten and others, of Tecumseh, asking that section 47, article 4, of the present Constitution, be inserted in the .new. Also, the petition of J. P. Slayton, J. L. Waldo and 170 others, of Tecumseh, asking - to have inserted in the Constitution the following clause: - The Legislature shall not, by grant of license or otherwise, authorize the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors to be used as a beverage, but shall by law prohibit the same." Also, the petition of Wm. R. B. Powers, E. Hause, David Jones and David MeNair and 22 other voters of Tecumseh, asking that the manufacture and sale of ntoxicating liquors be prohibited by law; which petitions were severally referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr. DIVINE presented the petition of Mary -Vasey and 21 other ladies of Lexington, Sanilac county, Michigan, in favor of retaining in the new Constituti6n section 47, article 4, of the present one. Also, the petition of Elizabeth A. Stecker and 63 other persons, citizens in the town of Sanilac, in Sanilac county, on the same subject. Also, the petition of Lucinda Law, and 76 other citizens of the town of Samilac, in Sanilac county, on the same subject. -Also, the petit,on of Mark Willis and 69 other citizens of Sanilac county, on the same subject. Also, the petition of Hon. L. L. Mixson, Rev. J. A. Baughman, and 25 other citizens of'Lexington, Sanilac county, on the same subject. Also, the petition of Mrs. C. H. Moore, aid 107 other ladies of Lexington, Sanilac county, on the same subject. Also, the petition of Rev, Charles Spooner and 15 other citizens of the town of Lexington, Sanilac county, on the same subject; which petitions were severally referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. - Mr. SHELIDON presented the peti tion of A. D. Gilmore and 47 others, for prohibiting-sale of spirituous liquors as a beverage; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr.WHITE presented the petition of Mrs. George Henika, Mrs. Isaac Buskerk, and Miss Etta Van, Miss Jossie White, and 38 other ladies, residents of Wayland, Allegan county, praying that section 47, article 4, of the present Constitution, be retained in the new; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr. MORTON presented the petition of N. Homer and 39 others, in favor of a license law for the sale of intoxicating liquors; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr. THOMPSON. I find upon my table this morning a petition signed by O. C. Gale, Harmon Fowler, A. Vanalstine, and 57 others, in relation to the traffic in intoxicating liquors. I am unable to tell, from the reading of the petition, whether it is for or against a license law. I will not, however, move its referencet-o the committee on phraseology, but will ask its reference to the committee on intoxicating liquors. The petition was received, and referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. PUBLICATION OF THE DEBATES. Mr. BLACKMAN. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the committee on printing be instructed to take measures to secure the printing of the debates and proceedings of this Convention within a reasonable time after their occurrence; and in case the printer at present engaged to print the same cannot hasten their publication, that said committee be instructed to take such steps as may be deemed necessary to procure the same to be done by other parties if the same can be done so as to secure the more speedy execution ot the work. I offer this resolution not so much with the idea that it is the best step that could be taken in the matter, as for the purpose of bringing the matter before the Convention for its consideration. During our recess of ten days I find, by reference to my files, that the State printers have printed just three days' proceedings, in addition to what we had- when we left. That brings them to within eleven days of the time when we took our recess; there are yet eleven days' proceedings to be printed. I believe at the time the order was made for the publication of these debates, -it was understood that- they would be laid upon our tables within a day or two after the journal of proceedings. We have, at considerable expense to the State, ordered the State printers to send copies of these debates to all the publishers of newspapers for the information of the public, sup posing that these debates would be reprinted in those papers for the information of the readers of those papers, Certainly the publication of the debates will be of no practical use whatever if they are not to be published within three or four or five weeks of the time when they occurred. It is not to be supposed that the papers will republish them at that late day, after having published what information they usually do of our proceedings immediately after their occurrence. At the rate that we have been running behind in the publication of these debates and proceedings, we can only imagine where we shall be at the time we get through our labors here and the question might be very pertinently asked, who will be here to attend to the correction of proofs, etc.? If we are to have a session of the Legislature this coming winter, our State printers would then be probably in the same predicament, that we understood them to be in when they first failed to keep up with publishing the debates of this Convention. The reason was that they had not got through with publishing the session laws at that time. And next winter the excuse for delay in publishing what Way be needed for the Legislature, will be that they have not got through with the debates of this Convention. The reporter, by his contract, is to examine the proofs of these debates. Unless the printing is done much more rapidly than it "now is, he will have to remain much longer than he expected in order to fulfil that part of his contract. That, however, is perhaps not a matter that concerns members particularly. I make these suggestions for the purpose of calling the attention of members to this subject. If there is any advantage to be gained by having these debates published at all, it seems to me they should be published within some reasonable time. Mr. MORTON. As one of the committee on printing, I desire to state that I talked with the foreman of the State printing office, and from what I learned from him, I am inclined to think that some members of this Convention are responsible, at least to some extent, for this delay. I understand that when we adjourned, on Friday, of week before last, several members went to the printing office, and expressed a wish to'have the publication of the debates delayed, for the reason, I suppose, that they desired to see their reported speeches, before they are finally printed. Now it is impossible for any printing office in the State to set up a number of forms, and to keep on hand proof sheets of:a large quantity of type, in order to allow members to look over their debates as reported. 4 July 10,o 1(.DEAE - _ I :~ 7 - -... Had no members of this Convention gone to the printing office, and said any thing to the printers, it is probable that the debates and proceedings would all have been up by this time. I told the foreman, when I went away, that under the circumstances, as members wished to have an opportunity to correct the reports of their debates, probably it would be best for him to go on with something else-to complete the Manual of the Convention, if he could, during the recess. I do not think the resolution offered should be adopted. I hope the mover of it will consent to have it laid on the table until he can visit the printing office himself, and ascertain exactly how the matter stands. Mr. BLACKMAN. I have no objection to any course being adopted with the resolution, either by laying it on the table, or disposing of it in any other way. I offered it in order to bring the matter before this Convention, to ascertain -if there was any reasonable excuse for this delay. Mr. COOLIDGE. For. the purpose of avoiding further discussion on this subject, and believing that the committee on: printingwill look after thismatter properly, I move to lay the resolution on the table. The question was taken upon the motion to lay the resolution on the table, and upon a division there were ayes 24, noes 15. M-r. DANELLS. That, I believe, is not a-quorum. Does it not require a quorum to vote? The PRESIDENT. No quorum has voted; the Chair will put the question again. The question was again taken upon the motion to lay on the table, and it was not agreed to, upon a division; ayes 25, noes 26. The question recurred ulpon the resolution. Mr. NORRIS. I move that the resolution be referred to the committee on printing. The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state that, should the resolution be adopted, it would by its terms carry the whole subject to the committee on printing. Mr. NORRIS. Then I withdraw the motion to refer, and will let the question be taken upon the resolution., Mr. THOMPSON. I desire to state that I called, as a member of the committee on printing, at the office of the State printer yesterday. I do not understand that the gentleman from Monroe, (:Mr. MORTON,) has called there since his return. I called there to ascertain the cause ofa this delay, and was informed by the foreman substantially as the gentleman from Mon roe has stated; that this delay was fo the purpose of giving members an op portunity to examine their speeches before they were finally printed. The foreman did not state definitely to me that they might have been up with the debates, and would have been, but; for this delay to accommodate members He did not state that any member had requested the delay, but, as I understood him, the debates had been delayed for the purpose of giving members an opportunity to examine the proof sheets. I hardly think the printer needs this spur, and still I am not tenacious about this resolution. Mr. BURTCH. It seems to me that it is assuming considerable responsibility for members thus to undertake to impede the public business. Gentlemen will bear me witness that I came in here and made a little talk some time ago; but I did not go down to the printer and ask him not to print the proceedings before -I could see them, for fear-there would be something wrong. If there is anything wrong in my speeches hereafter, I will see about correcting them.: Mr. BILLS. It will be recollected by many members of this Convention, who will revert in their minds to the time of our adjoumrnment, that our debates were then some twelve days behind in their publication. The excuse which is now: urged for the delay in their publication, certainly could not have been an excuse for- the tardiness previous to that time; because members were here then, and could have corrected their speeches without delay. What the members of this Convention desire, is, that these debates be published, and put upon our tables, within a day or two after they occur. It was thought that could be done when we entered into this contract. If we are not to have them delivered tous m that way, then for one, I should almost desire to discontinue their publication altogether. If the printers are to fall behind at this rate, then at the conclusion of our session here, there will be nearly one-half of ourtdebates unpublished. If they are to take until the next winter months for the publication of the debates, and to publish them in the absence of all the members, we will have no guarantee of their correction. MKembers certainly Will not remain here for the purpose of correcting their speeches, and our reporters woulda be unwilling to dio so. We might as well discontiue altogether the publication of these debates, as to have them published in this manner. We are under obligation and engagement to send these debates from time to time, to a neighboring State, and I desire that they shall be pubished, sQ as to enable us to fulfill that engagement. If we cannot have them for that purpose, then letus dispense with the publication of them altogether. I would as soon have-a last year's almanac to read, as these debates published and laid before us, six months after their delivery. We want to have them now during the progress of the business of this Convention. Mr. BUJRTCH. I diiffer': with my friend from Lenawee, (Mr. BmLs.) I think these debates ought to be published, and if they cannot be furnished in time for the people of the present day, they can be furnished for- future ages. [Laughter.] The resolution was then agreed to. PUBLISHING ABSENTEES IN. T HE JOURNAL. Mr. BLAiCKi MAN. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the Secretary of this,Convention be directed to cause to be printed daily, in the journals, the-names of absentees, distinguishing between them as follows: First, The names of abeentees on account:of sickness. Second, Ot those: absent: with leave, for other causes. Third,- Those absent without leave. -: Mr. PRATT. I- move the resolution belaid- upon the table.: - The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. MUSSEY. I move that the The Convention accordingly resolved Covninnwrslv(tefit on miteoftewol,nte1eea orer ThI oinwsare o itefitcomteeo h hl,(r bRNL ntecar, n eue h cosdrtotfgnrlodrN.1 PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE. The CHAIRMAN. When the committee last had the article entitled " Bill of Rights," under consideration, it'had proceeded therein as. far as section twenty-three of that article, which is as follows: - "The property of no person shall be-taken 'for. public use without just compensation therefor." The gentleman fi-om Wayne (Mr. MCCLELLAND) had offered an amendment to the section, to add the words, " to be paid or. secured as shall be provided by law." To that amendment the gentleman from Berrien (-Mr. ALEXANDER) moved to add the words, ' and such compensation shall be without any deduction for benefits to any property owner." The recollection of the Chair is, that the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, was entertained as an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne. -It seems, however, to the Chair, that it does: not, neces n e d d s 0 0 a e e s t, DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. IJuly 10, 1867. 3 CONSTIT'UTIONAT, CONVENTION. sarily relate to the matter embraced in the amendment. If there shall be no objection the question will be first -taken upon the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Wayne. The Chair stated it the other way, because the gentleman who was acting as chairman of the committee of the whole, so entertained it. No objection being made the question was considered asbeing upon the amendment of Mr. MCCLELLLND. Mr. McCLELLAND. I will state briefly the reason why I offered this amendment. " I understand that the Legislature have in several cases authorized - the taking of property, without compensation therefor being paid in advance. I believe that is the rule that prevails now in this State in regard:to telegraph companies. My object in offering this amendment is to obviate that evil, and to prevent that course' being pursued hereafter. At first I proposed to use the word "paid," simply; but on consultation with one or two gentlemen in reference to this subject, I thought that perhaps it would be better to say, "paid or secured," because in many cases it is impossible to pay in advance of taking the prop erty, on account of the owner of the property being absent from the State, and in many cases not being known even to those who take the property. Whether in such a case as that, a leg islative enactment authorizing this money to be- paid into court for the benefit of these parties, would be suf ficient, I am not now prepared to state. If that should be done, as a matter of course thatwould be a payment. I have no objection myself to having the words " or secured" struck out, if any member has any particular objection to them. My opinion is that the prop.ertyof no one should be taken without compensation paid in advance. This provision is to; supply the place of three different provisions in the Con stitution of 1850. As my amendment relates to the condensation of one of the provisions in the Constitution of 1850, I have thought it best to propose it in the form in which I have submnit ted it. I should object to the amend ment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) as proposed to my amendment, because it is legislative in its charcter. -: ~]Mr. GIDDINGS. I was about to suggest that, under the present practice as established by the law, when a party owning- property is absent from the State, a tender of the payment can be Tade, and a court can direct what shal be done with the funds, or the "dam age mpney," as it is called. I believe it is genbally directed to be deposited in some bat2(mg institution, subject to the order of the owner of the property. My impression is that the term secured," is a good one to be used in this connection. Mr. MUSSEY. I think there is another reason why the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne should prevail I will say that I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien will not prevail. The reason for the amendment now pending is that, in laying out public highways, or private ways, the damage may be assessed, and the owner of the property may take exception to the amount of the damage allowed. Hence, it could not be paid before the property is taken possession of, because the amount of the damage is not settled between the parties. Therefore, unless the amendment prevails, the owner of the property, by appealing from the amount allowed, may delay and prevent the road from being established for an almost indefinite time, and that, too, when it might be quite essential for the public convenience. But, when the compensation is secured, the road may be constructed, and the amount of damage can be settled by the court, if the owner of the property chooses to take the question there. Mr. GIDDINGS. I alluded par ticularly to the damages -allowed in the case of railroads; I did not allude to any other cases... Mr. MUSSEY. I desire to have them all included. Mr. PRATT. This subject is found in the present Constitution in three different articles; in the article on cor porations, in the article on the legisla tive department, and also in the article entitled" Miscellaneous Provisions." The committee on the bill of rights, after consulting with the chairmen of the committees having in charge those various articles, concluded that they would confine their labors to the sim ple announcement of a fundamental principle, and leave the matter of details to be carried out by the respective committees that have this matter in charge. I understand that all these matters in regard to compensation, and the manner in which the taking of prop erty shall be determined, will be pro vided for by the three committees to whom I have alluded. It will be found that inl the present Constitution the details occupy considerable space. For instance, by reference to page 124 of the Manual, section fifteen of article fifteen, the-present Constitution pro vides as follows: "Private property shall not be taken for public improvements in cities and villages, without the consent of the owner, unless the compensation therefor shall first be determined by a jury of freeholders, and actually paid or secured in the manner prescribed by law." On page 131 will be found, section fourteen of the article entitled "Miscellaneous Provisions," as follows: " The property of no person shall be taken for public use, without just compensation theretor. Private roads may be opened in the manner to be prescribed by law: but in every case the necessities of the road, the amount of all damage to be sustained by the opening thereof, shall be first determined by a jury of freeholders, and such amount; together with the expenses of proceeding, shall be paid by the person or persons to be benefited.". There is another section also bearing upon this subject, in the article entitled " Legislative Department.": Mr. McCLELLAND. My amendmnent is taken from section fifteen, article fifteen of the present Constitution. That section provides that "the compensation therefor shall first be determined by a jury of freeholders, and actually paid or secured in the manner prescribed by law." Mr. PRATT. My recollection is that there is another section bearing upon this subject; but I do not have it before me at this moment. Mr. McCLELLAND. There is another section which will be found on page 128 of the Manual. Mr. PRATT. I thank the gentle man for referring me to that section. It is section two of the article entitled "Miscellaneous Provisions," and is as follows: "When private property is taken forthe use or benefit of the public, the necessity for using the same, and the just compensation therefor, except when to be made by the State, shall be ascertained by a jury of twelve freeholders, residing in the vicinity of such property, or by not less than three commissioners, appointed by a court of record, as shall be prescribed by law." The committee on the bill of rights did not dleem it wise to go into this matter of detail, but thought it better to leave that entirely to the respective committees who had that matter in charge. They thought it better for us simply to make the announcement of fundamental principles, similar to that in the bill of rights, and the Constitutions of the various States. It will be almost impossible to perfect the details, and make them such as will meet every case. I would prefer to have this section remain as it is. Mr. BILLS. It will be understood that we now propose simply to incorporate a provision in the bill of rights. It seems to me that the section reported by the-committee, embraces all that is needed on that subject. I suggest whether it is not sufficient to cover all the principles in the former Constitution? It announces a principle which shall govern our Legislature; that no property shall be taken from a private individual withQout compensation. I 4 Wednes'da*,' J~~~~~~y~~ 10 187 DEBATlf-E S A.D PRKEDINs. 5 -i would be satisfied to leave that as the sole provision to be embraced in the Constitution upon this subject; and to leave all the details which we find in the present Constitution, and which may be needed upon the subject, to be provided for by We Legislature. -'This section reads-. The property of no person shall -be taken for public use, without just compensation therefor." This is a perfect enunciation of the principle which we desire to recognize as the governing principle to control our Legislature. To express this in the bill of rights is, in my judgment, sufficient for all purposes of the Constitution; leaving it for the Legislatuire to make such provisions, and such details of methods by which compensation may be granted for property thus taken, as to them shall seem wise. With that view, I greatly prefer to retain this section precisely as it now stands without any amendment. Mr. McCLELLAND. We have had a great deal of difficulty in regard- to this subject in cities and villages in this State, as iswell known to all members of the legal profession. In consequence of that difficulty there was inserted, by an amendment submitted to the people by the Legislature, the following provision in the present Constitution, to be found on page 129 of the Manual:-. Provided, The foregoing provisions shall In no case be construed to applyto the action of commissioners ot the highways, in the official discharge of their duties as highway commissioners."'' I understand that the section now under consideration is the only-provision on this subject there is to be inserted in the Constitution of 1867, in lieu of some three or four different provisions scattered through the Constitution of 1850. I think, therefore, it would be well for us to fix it with so much certainty that there. can be no mistake made in regard to it by the Legislature. I ask, then, why not incorporate -here substantially the same provision that is contained in the Constitution of 1850, in regard to cities and villages, and why not extend that to all the rural districts, as well as to the cities and villages? — - My friend from- Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) says that he considers this section, as it stands in this article, all that we need. I would ask the gentleman when this compensation is to be paid? The compensation may be fixed by virtue of an act of the Legislature. I But when is it to be paid; before you take possession of the property, or after you take possession of it? As I understand the law now in regard to telegraph companies in this State, those companies take possession of property before the compensation is paid. I take the, ground that we have no right to take possession of any man's property with- out due compensation being actually paid previous to taking possession of 1 -it. That is the ground I take. If we assert a principle, even -i-n the bill of rights, we should couch it in such perfect language that the humblest understanding in the community may know what it means. Mr. PRATT. I desire to say one word in reply to the gentleman from WOayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND.) He' says that he understands this section is to be the only provision on this subject in; the Constitution. I think the gentleman is not authorized to make that statement. I understand from the consultation I have had with the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) who is chairman of the committee on miscellaneous provisions, that it is the intention of that committee to report a section which shall cover this entire ground. That is one reason why the committee on the bill of rights contented themselves with simply announcing the principle found in the Constitution of the Uniited States. I think the matter of detail also belongs to the committee on cities and villages. Mr.. McCLELLAND. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. PRATT. Certainly. Mr. McCLELLAND. I would ask the gentleman what is the use of dividting up this matter, and putting it in three or four different sections, as.we did in the constitution of 1850?7 -That very thing has tended to confuse the Legislature, as I am informed; leading to grave difficulties upon this subject. Mr. PRATT. In reply to the inquiry of the gentleman, I would say that in framing a bill of rights, my idea is that we should confine ourselves to the announcement of fundamental principles, and leave the matter of details to be determined upon by the respective committees to which they properly belong. Mr. BILLS. The gentleman from Wayne referred to the position taken by myself in regard to this matter; and inquired if this should not be so plain that the humblest individual may fully comprehend it? In reply to the gen tleman, I would say, that it seems to me no qualification is needed in order to simplify it. It reads: "The prop erty of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation therefor." The very language of the section itself recognizes that principle; recognizes precisely the view which the gentleman takes; that no property shall be taken until paid for. But here the question might arise, how paid for? If I buy a house, and give my note for it, in law the property is paid for. Then if, in carrying out the details of this provision by the Legislature, it shall be deemed desirable to provide that property shall be taken before the money is paid, still provision could be made by which the payment of the money should be secured to this individual. If it was the property of a non-resident, and he is not accessible to the authorities-who desire to take the property, provision might be made by the Legislature that the money for the property shall be deposited, or its payment secured, subject to the call of the non-resident, or to the call of the party who might not be accessible at the time the compensation might be due. All that, however, I would leave to the Legislature; I would put no part of it in this Constitution. It seems to me that the principle which the gentleman desires to have established is fully secured by the language of this section, as it now stands. I think the qualifitcation of it, as he proposes, does not provide more satisfactorily for carrying out the recognized principle that no property shall be taken without being paid for, than does this section as it now stands. Mr. MUSSEY. I would ask the gentleman from LenaWee, (Mr. BILLS,) a question before he -takes his seat. I would inquire of him if, without some such amendment as is now proposed, any such provision for paying as he has suggested would be deemed a payment under the law.? This section says that just compensationi. shall be paid therefor. I take it that a man is obliged to accept nothing as a payment except lawful money of the United States. Mr. BILLS. The language of the section is, that the property of no person shall be taken for' public use without, just compensation therefor." Now, it is perhaps a somewhat nice question whether compensation can be anything short of legal tender. Mr. MUSSEY. Exactly. Mr. BILLS. I think the Legislature would findno difficultyin providing for the compensation, inasmuch as this section does not prescribe the specific time within which- that payment shall be rendered. The Legislature may so adjust the law in regard to it, that the compensation for the property of non-residents for instance can- be deposited beforehand, or the security for its payment made before'land. That is a question about which gentlemen might differ. My own con viction would be that the Legislature could make such provisions. Mr. MUSSEY. I think the supreme court would make more trouble than the IiLgslature,.-.:" 9 p 0 .i a r i s 'DEBATES....&ND PROCEEDINGS. -5 Jul 10, 1867. y i .... IO IIdneIIa.I Mr- BURTCH.- It strikes me that this difficulty may be-obviated by making a -small addition to this twentythird section. That section now readc, "the property of no person shall be' taken for public use without. just compensation therefor." I would propose to add to the section the words and. paid or deposited with the count treasurer." Mr. HH ENDERSON. My opinion is that the experience- of the past has demonstrated the fact that there is a necessity for some such provision as is contained in the amendment proposed by-the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND.) Yet at the same time I do not think we want to incorporate such a provision in the bill of rights; I believe there is a place for everything of that kind. I believe, also, that if there is any portion of the Constitution in which we should content ourselves with the simple enunciation of fundamental principles, it is the bill of rights. I believe the details governing those casescau be provided -for.-in the article on miscellaneous. provisions, or in the article on legislative department, or in ,some other article more appropriate for it than this. In this article we should content ourselves with the simple enunciation of the principle that property shall not be-tak-en without compensation. I hope, therefore, that this section- will be allowed to remain just as it is.. Mr. WITHEY.- I- want to suggest, in reference to.. the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne; whether it would not be-better to leave this section to-stand just as it was reported by the committee, in view of the fact that it is in precisely the language of the Constitution of the United States; and whether.there is anything gained by inserting the words proposed by him? In Article V of the amendments of the Constitution iof. the United States will- be found these words: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'" That is the language of the -Constitution: of the United States, and it is substantially the language:of this:secion.:This reads, "'The property of no person shall be taken for public use'without just compensation therefor." iIt seems to me that we cannot enlarge the principle by the language which the gentlemaan proposes to —add to this; section. I It appears to me that the ILegislature will have power-under the section as reported by the committee, to do all that they could do with the amendment proposed; by the gentleman from Wayne. The question- was then, taken upon -the amen~dment of Mr. -c.LELLAND tO add to section twenty-three thew.rs,ar " to be paid or- secured as shal be provided by law;" and it was not -agreed to. The question recurred, upon the amendment of Mr. ALEXANDER to add to this section the words, "and such compensation shall be without deduction for betefits to any property owner." The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. WILLARD. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee that reported this article why the word "therefor," was added to it? I see by reference to Constitution of the United States that that word is not there employed. Mr. PRATT. The gentleman, I believe, is a member of the committee on phraseology, and ought to be able to answer that question himself. If there is anything wrong about the phraseology of this section, I would -be glad to have it corrected. Mr. WILLARD. I think that-would be useless, and I move that it be struck out. Mr. GIDDINGS. I hope we will not strike out anything here, just because it does not happen to be- in the Constitution of the United States. Mr. WILLARD. It Seems to that the word is useless; that it is mere tautology. ]Mr., LOVEILL. I suggest that.the committee on phraseology ought to discuss these questions of phraseology in their own committee room, and-not bring them here before the comnimittee of the whole.: I hope the committee will vote down this motion to amend, and leave that committee something to do. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I rise for the purpose of sustaining the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. Wii;LA D,) tostrike -out the word " therefor." The word is perfectly superfluous, is of no use, and' I hope: it will be stricken out. Mr. WALKER. While;o we are engaged in- correcting the grammar of this section, I move to correct the grammar of the amendment, so that it will read " stricken out," and: not "struck out." : Mr. WILLARD. I am ontent with the expression as- it is. I think i hate undoubted authority for the use of the word "sti-uck," as the perfeci partieiple of the verb "strike."' Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. It is no matter how it is done, so it is done: ~ The question- was then taken on .striking ot the word- (therefor/:and it was: not agreled to, pon a division, ayes 14, noes-not counter' - :- The:article entitled "-Bil of Rights," as amended by the! committee'0f the whole, was then laid aside,' to. be re:portedto the..onvention.' ~..' -'i, -ORDER OF BUSInESS. The CHAIRMAN. The next business in order is -the article entitled "Military Department.'" Mr. P. D. WARNER. I move that this article be passed over informally, as the chairman of that committee, (Ir. STOUGHTON,) is not now present. The CHAIRMAN. It will be passed over if there is no objection. No objection being made, the article was passed over informally. The CHAIRMAN. The next article is the one entitled "Elections." Mr. VAN VALKENBURGHI. A member of that committee is absent who desires to be present when this article is taken up and considered. I hope it ,-may also be passed over for the present, if there is any other business which the committee of the whole can consider. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds upon the files two articles, entitled " Elections," one reported by the majority of the conmmittee on elections, and-the other reported by the minority of that committee. There is also on the files an article entitled "Legislative Department." Mr. HENDERSON. The chairman of the Committee on the legislative department, (Mr. CONGER,) is not now present. Inasmuch as both of the gentlemen who reported articles from the committee on elections, (Messrs. VAN VALKENBUr,GH and CROcKER,) are present, I'think it would be better to consider the, article on elections, than to take upthe article on the legislative department in the absence of the chairm, an of that committee. Hr. MUSSEY. I was about to object to passing over the article on the military department. It' is a short .article, and unlss there is a necessity for the chairman of that committee to be present when it is considered, I think we might as well take it sup,now. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair'will entertimn any motion in relation.to tohe -business.of tile committee which any -member may make. - -' Mr. P. D. WARNER. I hope this cmmittee will not take. back its action in regard to the consideration of the article entitled "Military Department." -We have here now the reports of both branches of the committee on elections; the members who represent both of- those reports aye in their places, and but a single member of the committee is absent., If it is policy for the committee of the whole to wait the return of every member of any standing committee, before the article re ported by that standing committee shall be considered, then I think it will be a.long.time before we get thirgh,with -the businesd for which i f 6 CONSTITUTIQN A T'i CONVENTION.' 'Wednesdav, I DEB:AT AN PRO tE'I GS. .~ ~ ~ ~~..I.. - we were sent here. I see no necessity for postponing the article on elections. Mr. BILLS. I move that we now take up the article on elections. Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to s-ay one word. I hope that we will:not proceed to consider the article on elections, out of courtesy to one of the the members of that com'mittee who desires to be present at the -time of the discussion and consideration of that article. I observe that the chairman of the committee- - on the legislative department, is now present. I would very much prefer that we might take up the article entitled "Legislative Department." Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. So far as I am myself concerned, I have no objection to proceeding with the consideration of the article on-elections. I have redeemed my pledge to the member of that, committee; I have asked to have that article postponed for the present. I will now abide the order of the committee of the whole. Mr. P. D. WARNER. As the chairman of the committee on the legislative department (MIr.- CONGER) is now in his place, I should have no objection to proceeding with the consideration of the article on the legislative department. The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. BILLS) to proceed to the consideration of the article on elections. Mr. COOLIDGE. I move to amend 'that motion by inserting "legislative department," instead of "eleCtions." The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. COOLIDGE, and it was agreed to.,' The motion, as amended, was then agreed to. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. The committee of the -whole then proceeded to -.the consideration of general order, No. 14, being the article entitled "Legislative Department." The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary will-proceed to read the article through; after which, it will be read by sections, for amendment. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I; move that the first reading of the article be dispensed with, and that it be now read by sections for amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The opinion of the Chair is that the rule of the Convention cannot be suspended in committee of the whole. The rule-of the Convention requires that each article shall be read through, before it is read by sections for amen.ment. The only way to secure the object proposed by the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) would be for the committee ~o rise, report to the Convention, and ask the suspension of the- irule, requiring the article to be read through, and then resume othe consideration of the subject.' ino motion is made to that effect;,:th Secretary will'proceed with the reading of the article. The Secretary accordingly read the article through; and-then proceeded to read- the article by sections foramendment. The first section was read as follows: :SECTIoN 1. The legislative power is-vested ima'Senate and House of'Representatives,. No amendment was offered -to -this section. NUMBER OF SENATORS. The next section-was read as follows: SEcTION 2. The Senate shall consist of thirty-two'members. But after the year 1870, the Legislature, may increase the number to thirty-three,. by authorizing the election olf two Senators in that portion of the State now included within-the limits of the Thirty-Sec:ond Senatorial District. Senators shall be elected tor four years, and by single districts. At the first election after the adoption ot this 'Constitution,- Senators in the odd numbered districts-shall be elected for two. years, and in the even numbered districts for four years. Such districts shall be numbered from —one to thirty-three inclusive; each oft which shall choose one Senator. No county shall be divided in the formation of Senate districts, except such county shall be equitably entitled to two or more Senators. No amendment- was offered to this section. NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES, ETC. The next section wasread as follows: SECTION 3' The House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred members. Representatives shall be chosen ior two years, and-by single districts. Each representative district shall contain, as nearly as may be, an-equal number of inhabitants, including civ-ilized persons of Indian descent, not members of any tribe, and shall consist of convenient and contiguous territory. In every county entitled to more than one Representative, the board of supervisors shall assemble at such time and place as may be provided by law, and divide the same into representative districts, equal to the number of Representatives to which such county is entitled by law, and shall cause to be filed in the offices of the Secretary of State, and clerk of such county, a description ofsuch representative districts specifying the number of each district, and the population thereof; according to the last enumeration. :Mr. MoCLIELLAND. I move to amend this section by inserting after the words "shall consist of convenient and contiguous territory," the following: "But no township or city shall be divided in the formation of a representative district. When any township or city shall contain a population which entitles it to more than one representative, then such township or city shall elect by general ticket the number of representatives to which it is entitled." This section will then read as does the corresponding section in the Constitution of 1850. The provision was adopted in the Constitution of 1850, as I understood aftthe time —although I was then residimg'i a different county 'from the one.in:,which I:-atpresent reside-becau~e Q! the unity of interest existing in the principal city of Michigan. It was then considered a- good rule that wherever there was a unity of interest existing, the object: of:' the Convention being to carry that -idea out in the Constitution, it should -not m any way be interfered with. This has been the rule from 1850 to the present time in-the city of Detroit: I do not knowwhether it has been'extended:to other cities of the State:or not. But I apprehend- that the cityof Detroit is now-united-in regard to this matter. I think it would-be.a great disappointment to the- people-of that city to have a different principle established. I, therefore, move this amendment, and hope it will: be adopted. By reference to page 61 of the:Manual, it will be found that I have, used the exact language employed in the present Constitution. My fri-iend from Saginaw (Mr. MILLER) says that there is no use in the word "towaship" in my aImendinent.. Perhaps that may be so; but some cities also constitute-townships, and that is the reasonI have-retained that word. Mr. CONGER. I desire to state that the committee who reported this article with some unanimity, were- of the opinion that there was no particular reason why a city should not be divided in the formation of representative districts, any more than a county. A city is divided into wards; the interests of the different parts of the city are as diverse, at least, as are the different parts of a county. It seemed to the committee, and it seems to me, that a representative systepm by single districts comes nearer to the expression of the immediate will of the constituents of each representative, than would any other systeinm. The com'mittee could see no reason why a different rule should be adopted in regard to a county-from that adopted in regard.to a city. Practically there would be no-inconvenience whatever in dividing a city into representative districts, its own boundaries and sub-divisions for municipal purposes rendering it at least as easy of division as a,township and a county.\ In accordance with a principle which the committee have adopted, and which, with the exception referred to by the gentleman from Wayne, has been the: controlling principle in the State for years past, that is, having representation by single districts as far as may be,:the: committee left 6ut-of this section the provision of the present Constitution to which the gentleman has referred. It seems -to me that it is more in accordance with the general systema dopted -for other parts of-the State. It seemed to the committee that it was perfectly.practicable, and that it would inurt to the I July lo-, 1867. 8~~~ COSIU-N~ COVXI- Wdedy benefit of all parts of the State, and would work injury to none. These are the reasons in brief for thechange proposed by the committee. It is a change which to a very large majority of the committee seemed to be very desirable. The idea of the section is that each subdivision of a city, as well as of a county, shall have, as far as possible, the choice of its own representatives uncontrolled by the feelings and sentiments of other portions of the people composing other districts under our system. I cannot myself see any reason why the city of Detroit, or any other city entitled to two or more representatives, should not be divided for representative purposes, just as well, and just as easily as any county may be divided. There are many counties in the State which are divided for representative purposes. Representation by single districts in the counties, so far as I am aware, has proved very satisfactory to the people. Mr. D. GOODWIN. I can see no reason for making the proposed change in the provision existing in the present Constitution. That provision has not been found to operate injuriously, nor am I aware that there has been any complaint at any time in regard to it. In reference to the city in which I re side, I know that it has operated well and satisfactorily. I am sure that the remarks made by my colleague, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) would be found tiue, that the people there would be very much dissatisfied with such a change as is proposed. There has never been any dissatisfaction with the provision as it now exists; on the contrary, it has been gratifying to the people there, to elect all the representatives from that city on one ticket. I apprehend the same feeling may exist in other cities, when they become largeenough to be entitled to two or more repre sentatives. In reference to the division of coun ties into separate representative dis tricts, I apprehend the same rule would not, apply, that should be ap plied to cities. The great object of the division of counties, as I under stand it, is that the electors may be more directly acquainted with the character and qualifications of the person who might be presented for their suffages. In consequence of the district being smaller than the entire county, they would be able to vote more intelligently, and thereby make a better selection for their representation in the State Leg islature. In regard to a city, where the population is more compact, and where almost every man is acquainted with at least every prominent man before the public, the same rule would not apply. And then we hats no cil from uy quarter, so far as I am aware, for this proposed change. It certainly has been found to operate well in the city -to which particular reference has been made, and it is entirely satisfactory to the people there. I trust the rule will be continued, and that we shall incorporate in the new Constitution the same provision upon this subject, which has existed from 1850 to this time. That provision has been in operation during all that time without creating any dissatisfaction among the people more directly interested in it. Mr. FERRIS. The object of making the inquiry which I did of the chairman of the committee on the legislative department, (Mr. CONGER,) was, that we might have the views of the committee, and their reasons before us in our deliberations upon this section and the proposed amendment. I must say, and I will say here in my place, that I am more than satisfied with the reasons the chairman of that commit tee has given. Like others who are -[members of this Convention, I have been disposed to hesitate about leaving out portions of the old Constitution without good reason assigned therefor. But in this case I am satisfied that the reasons are substantial and solid, and should be controlling. In making up our representation we divide the Staie into districts, small in size, in order, first, to have a unit of representation; secondly, and that is of far greater importance, to have a full representation in the Legislature, of the various shades of opinion throughout the State. Let it be borne in mind that this representation is a representation of the people, not of property, not of cities, not of counties, not of townships. I am in favor of the section as it stands, because it is based upon the principle of the repre sentation of the people. I am in favor Of it, also, because it applies to our cities-the very same rule thatwe apply to the country portions of the State. As the chairman of the committee has suggested, I do not know -ny reason in the world why, in making up our representation in the Legislature we should apply a different rule to the population of the country, because it is the people who are-to be represented in the Legislature. Take the case of the city of Detroit There is no doubt in my mind that there are various shades of opinion existing in that large and growing city. There is no doubt in my mind that the controlling political influences of that city dcr:not represent the controlling opinions in several portions of the city. Now, if these portions of that city, whose opinions are overborne by the mass of opinion within its corporate limits, are sufficiently large to constitute a representative district, then surely, unless we apply this rule of division, and give to these minority opinions a just representation in the Legislature, we, in fact, deprive them of representation. We place them under a disadvantage which other portions of the people do not labor under. If I understand the proposition of the chairman of the committee who reported this article, this portion of the present Constitution was left out of this article, for the very identical reason of giving the inhabitants of our large cities the same representation in regard to their diversities of opinion which was possessed and exercised by the people in other portions of the State. Now, this is important, not only in regard to the city of Detroit, but it is very important in regard to all our cities. For all of us know, there is no question about it, that the political complexion of our cities is controlled greatly by that portion- of the people who are, to speak it in plain terms, the very scum of political society in those cities. That class of the population is congregated together, not spread all over it, but congregated in particular portions of the city. I can see that great benefit is going to result to our .cities by the adoption of the section reported by the committee, and by the rejection of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAnD.) It would emancipate portions of our cities from the control of that class to which I have alluded. The representation of the city of De troit is, and always has been of a high character in the Legislature, as it is upon this floor. I am certain, however, that the change proposed by the com mittee will not affect injuriously the character of that representation, but will strengthen and add to the ability and worth of that representation. Without taking up the time of the committee further, I will say that I am in favor of the section as it stands. Mr. LOTHROP. I do not know whether any city in this State other than Detroit is now directly interested in this question. However, but a few years can elapse before they will be. I really hope that this Convention will not follow the lead of my friend from Kent, (Mr. FERRIs,) and put us under their generous guardianship. The gen tleman is going to redeem us from our selves. Now, we have had something of this kind already done by the Leg islature. We have been redeemed by inquisitorial boards, andall that sort of thing; and it is what we do not care so much to have. Now, as to this matter of representa .8 CONSTITUT,ION.A Tr, CONVENTION. . Wednesday, July 10, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDIG. 9 tion, I desire to remind gentlemen of this Convention that the rule proposed in the amendment of my colleague, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) is the rule that has prevailed with us for seventeen years, and if there is the first objection to be made to it from any quarter, I have yet to hear of it. We have had no petition of any kind upon the subject from that city. I go further, and say that I have never heard a suggestion from any one in opposition to this rule there. Now, it happens, at this very moment, that the city of Detroit is represented in the Legislature of this State by gentlemen of one political complexion; and in this Convention it is represented by gentlemen of another political complexion; yet I have never heard the first objection to this rule by either Republican or Democrat. There is a unity of interest in a municipal body like a city, which does not prevail in a larger district like a county. That unity of interest is best represented by bodies of men who represent it entirely. But cut it up in the way of representation, and have one representative from ward one, and a different representative from ward five, and you lose much of that unity of representation and unity of interest. You cannot divide the city by wards into districts; it would be found impracticable, unless there was a vast diversity in the population. You must carve out arbitrary districts without regard to the division into wards. And these must be carved over and over again, because year by year the population of the wards fluctuates. There are some wards that give a vote of but four or five hundred, while there are those that give a vote of fifteen hundred or two thousand; there are some wards containing five or six times the territory contained in other wards. This is a matter that somewhat concerns us in Detroit. The Constitution we now have provides a method of representation, and that method we desire shall not be changed. Why should it be? We have heretofore proceeded on the sound principle, that when we find a provision of the Constitution working well, we would not undertake to change it, but would retain it in the Constitution we are now framing. If this present practice works well with us, and we are content with it, and it is the best system, (at least, we think so,) then why not leave it with us? I say here deliberately that, whether the city of Detroit is to be represented by men of my political complexion, or by men of another p0litical complexion, I prefer it shall be represented by gentlemen chosen on a general ticket for the city. I know that better representatives, of higher Vol. 2-No. 2. character on the whole, will be sent to our legislative body under that system. And, whether they represent my ism, or another man's ism, I prefer that they should come here to represent the city. Suppose that you divide the city of Detroit into single represenitative districts; those districts have no existence except for that particular purpose. But the city of Detroit stands as it is, one representative for a particular municipal purpose. What is a representative district in a city? It has no other existence except for the election of a representative. But there is a unity of interest in a city which has been represented by men who receive the suffrages of all the people of that city. And a system which will permit that to be done is no invasion of the principle of popular elections. Mr. CONGER. I am free to say that, in my view of this section, the question of mere temporary politics would not control at all, as has been very well remarked by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) That is a changing question; one party might control at one time, and another party at another time. So far as that is conconcerned I think it is a consideration which should not enter into our calculation at all of what is best to be done in this subject; nor did it, I think, enter into the minds of the committee at all. The simple question with the committee was, as far as I understood the views of the majority, that if the single district system was better for the State than the general ticket system, then it was well to apply the single district system to the whole State alike. It has been the custom in some States to elect the whole Legislature by general ticket. I venture to say that no gentleman in this Convention would advocate that system for the State of Michigan. I venture to say that any Constitution that had such a provision in it would be condemned by the universal voice of the people. The reason is that the people desire, so far as practicable, to have the election of their own immediate representatives in their own hands, and in as small districts as is practicable. -a It is said that, since the old Constitution went into effect, the city of Detroit has elected its representation by general ticket. That is true. And it is also true that there has been complaint about it; that there has been in conveniences resulting from it in the Legislature of this State, as is well known to those who have been here. Other gentlemen from other portions of the State have received communications from citizens of Detroit upon matters interesting to them, because they had no immediate representation of their interests, separate from the interests of the other portions of the city, which for that purpose were antagonistic to them. Gentlemen will remember a dispute that arose about the tenth ward some years ago. This present Constitution divided the city of Detroit into senatorial districts; a division no more practicable than a division into representative districts. For seventeen years the city of Detroit has been divided into senatorial districts. There have been subdivisions there for that purpose, which have no other name or place in the city, except for senatorial purposes. In order to carry out the principle advocated by those who favor the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCLELLAID,) this article should also be amended so as to provide that the Senators to which that city is entitled, should be elected by general ticket. I will state, in addition to what I said when up before,'that — there is another reason why, in my opinion, the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne should not be adopted. Although there might not be other cities which would be entitled to so many representatives as the city of Detroit, perhaps no city entitled to more than one, yet it might be desirable in the division of counties for senatorial purposes, that a portion of a city should be set off with a part of the county for one district, and another portion with another part of the county for another district. That might very well occur in such counties and cities as Jackson; also with the county of Kent, where it might be convenient to have the city of Grand Rapids so divided. Yet the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne would prevent a division of cities for such a purpose, however convenient it might be, but require the county to be so divided as to include all of the city in one district. I do not speak for the committee in this respect, but I say that for myself I feel quite desirous that this section should stand as it has been reported. It has received a great deal of attention from the committee, and commends itself, at least to my judgment, as the proper principle to be placed in the Consti tution. Mr. D. GOODWIN. I have the honor to be a member of the commit tee on the legislative department. There was considerable discussion in that committee upon the change here proposed, and I there opposed the change. I did not see then, and I do not see now, that the reasons urged for this change are such as should prevail against the prevailing senti ,Tuly 10,-1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 9 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. ment of the' people of the city —of De. troit, and against the fact that the provision now sought by my- colleague (Mr. McCLELLAND) to be incorporated in this section,.has been in operation for seventeen years without any complaint being made of it. So far as regards the remark of the gentleman from Kent (Mr. FERRIs) that the people should be represented, I must say that I think that principle is secured as much in the case when fifty thousand people elect five representatives, -as it would be if each ten thousand of the fifty should elect oneperson. It is just as much a popular representation when the votes of the people are given for a number of representatives' together, as in Detroit, as if they were given by different portions for one alone. In the city of Detroit the popuilation is so compact that the selection of representatives can be made by the people, with as full and accurateknowledge on the part of the electors of the character of the individuals whose names are presented to them, as if the city were, divided into smaller districts. And, as has been remarked, the character of the representatives from such cities is found to be as elevated,, the individuals elected are found to be as intelligent, and, as well quaalified,- as if they were selected from single districts; probably of a higher character than they. would be in that case..I trust the' amendment of my colleague,-wi-l prevail, and that the principle established in the present Constitution, and which has been found to operate so justly, will be continued. -Mr. P. D.- -WARNE!L- I regret somewhat that this discussion has been permitted to run.in the direction which it has taken, - I consider that the propo sition offered by the.- gentleman from Wayne,-(Mr. MCLELAND,) embodies an important principle, that is directly opposed to another important principle which has received the entire approbation of the people of the State of Michigan. I desire to refer to this matter as embodying a principle, and not as-being a question connected with the local interests of any city in the State of Michigan, or as embracing any political character whatever.. I. do not desire to refer to it in that connec tion. I believe that the principle of representation by single districts is one which not- only has been tried in the States of Michigan, but has. been universally approved by the people of the State..If it is a principle that is just in its operation upon the people, then why make a.distinction in favor of any particular locality,'by withholding from the locality the same privileges that are awarded to every other? Detroit is the only city that maynow be interested in this amendment. But it appears from statements which have been made here that there are other cities, at least one other city in the State, which in order to accommodate its own interests has been obliged to ignore the strict and absolute requirements of the Constitution of 1850, and make such.an apportionment of the city and the county in which it is situated as would inure to their convenience. There being, therefore, other cities besides- Detroit that are, or may be interested in this question, I am opposed to placing any restriction upon the other localities, by which they may be restrained in any measure whatever from accommodating their own convenience in the:arrangement of their representative districts. -While- I am in favor of giving to these other localities this privilege, I am not in favor of adopting such a rule: as will not require the city of Detroit to conform to the general regula. ,tions adopted in reference to the entire State of Michigan. I do not say this from any- hostile feeling towards the people of Detroit. I hold that this Convention should establish a principle which -is equal and just in its operations over :the entire State, and in establishing such & general principle, which I believe to be- just and equal, I claim that the interests of no locality, not even the city of Detroit, will suffer in any manner whatever. I, therefore hope the amendment will not be adopted. Mr. LOTHROP. We must. be excused for: feeling a little interest about this matter, because it is one in which we feel a personal interest. I am not going to discuss the single district sys tem, for there is:.no controversy about the matter.-. The object of the single district system, as' I understand it, is to bring the electors and the representatives more closely together. The reason for carving up a large: territory into small districts is to give to the representative a local character. That I agree is oftentimes a- matter of great importance; otherwise the representative might be one of whom his' constituency would know very little or nothing. - It is important that in our branch of the Legislatures the representatives should be brought near the constituencies they severally represent. My colleague, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,') has explained that:. this. important objectc is secured even under the present arrangement in regard to the city of Detroit. That city:is -of itself a &: comparatively smalllocaity; in territorial extent it is not larger than the town of Lansing here, or not much larger. And as was correctly said by him, every constituent knows his representative; he, knows every man who is likely to be presented as a candidate for that position; therefore there is no occasion in. that city to establish the principle of single districts. In regard to the senatorial system, I will say in reply to the chairman of the committee, who reported this article, (Mr. CONGER,) that though that senatorial system has been applied to us, in Detroit, it has not been done with our consent. But the principle upon which the Senate is made up, is not the same as the. Principle upon which the House of Representatives is made up. It might have been better for us had our .Senators been elected as our Representatives are. But it seemed proper to those who had control of this matter, to run senatorial lines through our city. For what purpose? Not to bring the constituent and the Representative more nearly face to face, but for other purposes.: For instance, one portion of the city is embraced:in a senatorial district, which comprises also three or four towns of the county. In that way the principle of the district system, is in fact violated, because, instead -of making a narrow district, the district is much enlarged. The city of Detroit has in, this way been carved up, and the several portions attached to three different senatorial districts, I believe; or at any rate, to two. In no case have we had a single entire senatorial district in the city until recently. For the -purpose of making up.senatorial districts, our cities have been carved up and attached to townships. That, however, is not so important, because the:principle of senatorial. districtsis different from that which should apply to represensative districts. So far as representatives are con cerned, they should represent localities. A representative from the city of Detroit does not speak for any par ticular ward, but for the unit repre sented by,:and embraced in the city organization. And when the gentle man tells me:that one ward of the city has an interest distinct-from the inter est -of another ward, I reply to him, that those interests are properly repre sented in our municipal legislature. But.when. those interests come -into the Legislature of the State of Michigan, the city of Detroit, in the eye of the law, and also in fact, has but one interest. The gentleman also says that com plaints have-been heard in reference to this arrangement in the- city.of De troit.- In what form those complaints have been made I am unable to tell. It may, undoubtedly, be true that some person may have: written here, -and stated that he was not represented. 10 .Wednesd'ay-, t DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. There will be men in the city of Detroit, until the last trump shall sound, who will not be represented,. and. who should not be represented, because their views do- not deserve representation. I mean by that no disrespect to any one, but I make the remark because they will comprise but individuals, and individual views can not be and should not be represented in the Legislature. I aver here upon this floor that there has been no opposition in the city of Detroit, to the principle now applied to that city. The united sentiment of that city is that we do better by having our representatives elected on a general ticket. It is not difficult to understand this; a representive ticket elected at large is put in nomination by a convention representing the whole city, and acting as I think, freer and with purer motives, with a higher..intelligence, than would any single ward caucus made up of such popular elements as are generally represented in those caucuses. My friend may have some acquaintance with that system; I had in former times; as the boys say "Iknow it like a book." I say it is better for all parties in the'city of Detroit that the delegation to represent >that city in the Legislature, shall be proposed through a general conven tion of the people of that city, and be elected on a general ticket. We are directly interested in' this matter There is no violation of any theory in favor, of the single district system The constituent and the representativE .stand. face to face. The great interests to be represented are the interests o the city of Detroit as a municipality and not the interest of any single sec tion of that city. I earnestly entrea gentlemen of this committee not, fron any mere theory or abstract notion, to inpose upon us a rule which will be unwieldy and unwise. Mr. DANIELLS. I hope, if thi amendment prevails, that we will hav one that will apply to my county. I think-I am interested very much as th gentleman from Wayne, [(Mr. McCLE] ISD')' -seems to be. Our county. i composed of two representative die ticts. The one I live in has unfor tunately incorporated intit a town tha does not give one single Republica vote. At any rate, it did not give m a vote last spring. [Laughter.'] Now if we can make the county a unit, w can elect two Republican representa tives every time. I think the grea difficulty with the gentleman from Wayne in regard to dividing the cit of Detroit into separate election di tricts is that some representative might be elected not exactly according to-. his taste. I do not say whether shall vote for his amendment or no but if it prevails, I tb hink I shall ofer one providing that the'same.'ruile -shall; apply to Clinton county, for we re' in the same predicament-" there which my friend from Wayne seems to thiln he would be in, if the section, as reported" by the committee, should be adopted.' He says -the State has already inter-' fered somewhat With their city govern ment, and he does not like it. If Iam to believe the report of the Mayor of that city, and other gentlemen of the city who came'here and made repre sentations to. me, and.'I presume to other members of this Convention, I think there might be some more -inter ference to good advantage. They said -that they could not.'now enforce salu tary laws there. I think, if:this is the case, it is time the city'was seen to L more than it already has been. I hope this amendment-will not'pvail; but iif it does, I have one which I shall' offer to apply to our county. t Mr. McCLELLAND. It is the easiest thing in the world to make as[ sertions, but sometimes it is a very r difficult matter to prove them.- It'is the easiest thing in the world for a rfian to make an argument from premises selected by himself. Now, if the gentleman who last'-spoke'(Mr. DANIELLS) had but referred to the polit ical complexion of the members of the Legislature from the city of De-' troit, for several years past, he never would have lugged politics.into this . controversy. We have refrained from' e- that heretofore, and we intend to do it, s hereafter, unless we are pressed into it f by gentlemen here. If the glove is , thrown down, we are willing to take it up and defend ourselves; but, until the -glove is thrown down, we n shall not mention anything of this o kind here.'.'': e Look at the delegation from the city of D.etroit last winter in the Legis islature of this State. It was one,of re the ablest delegations ever sent from I that city; one of the ablest'in the ,e State. Politically, that delegation did ,- not represent our sentiments and our is views; but still they represented us, s- and we were satisfied with that reprer- sentation; we were in the man, satisfied, alt though they were opposed to us in m politics. We believed.'that -they m represented the great interests'of x, that city.,',, - {e Th'e gentleman says that he has been a- informed-by the organ of ithe at municipal government of the.cit m of -Detroit - that"-the laws could y not be executed in the city o Detroit. Why? - Because the State o es Michigan will not allow us to enforce ag them. I say to you that so'long as you have this elective system in a city like )t; Detroit, you never can execute the laws. that do you see in every other city of his Union where you. carry out this ective- system,' so that' every officer in he: city, from'the-highest to0the lowest 'elected-? I will guarantee that the prtion'.of'the population which do not sir-e to have the laws executed will ' -many cases,. control the'city. hat is the reason of' it. And -'would like'..the gentleman to ompare notes'writh'the gentleman from ent, (.Mr. FERRIs,)'. who is in favor of e-people all the'.-time. I'would ask te'.'gentleman' from Kent if he is'in fv.or of'the whole people' of'the State :" Michigan -.controlling the city of tetrit,"' instead.of the'people of'that cty'?..... - -As has been very well asked here, and there is hardly any necessity'of ,my repeating it, what was:the origin of this single district system?:It originsated in the'State of.- New. York, and we. adopted it here because it came from. the State of New York. In the Convention of 1835, and in the Con-' vention of. 1850, we —could hardiy do anything that contravetned'- that which had been -.done in the State of' New York.'. This system comes from the State" of New York. I was opposed to it','in principle,'at the time it was first adqpted here, and I am opposed to it in principle now, and should oppose its en'tire adoption, f it were a new question. But our people have'- become accustomed- to it, and they are satisfied with-it, just as they are satisfied with a great many other things that are in all probability at first, wrong in themselves. Just exactly like a great many laws that'we pass; they are bad at first, but- people adapt themselves. to those laws, become accustomed to them, and then they are opposed to their repeal. And for the best reason in the world, because it would not then be useful to repeal them.' This principle is now in operation here, and I am not going to discussi.k -i - -t. But:I will say, merely in passing, that when you had the system which was in operation. under the old Constitution of 1835, there was hardly a county in the State of Michi'gan which had more than one representative, that did not- generally send one.-first-class mant from the county to your legislative i halls. Without meaning any disre spect whatever to the Legislatures sin.ce 1850, I will say that the Legisla [~~~~~~~~~~ tures previous to 1850, would, to say the least,.compare favorably'in ability, experience, knowledge -and integrity with those which have. taken their places in this hall since.that time. 11 July 10, 1867. 12 COSTITUTiOAL COVENTIO Wedne8day, They were elected by general ticket for the county, not by single districts. I will tell you one of the evils which would result to us in the city of Detroit, from this single representative district system. We now select representatives from all the different classes and professions there. One man probably represents a certain vocation; another man represents a certain profession; one represents one kind of business, another another kind of business. And when our five representatives (I believe that is the number we are entitled to now) come here in this hall, they unite and combine the experience of the whole. That of itself gives them weight as it should, and it gives them power as it should. And so it would be with a large county having three or four or more representatives. You would take them from all the different branches of business; at all events they would represent those different branches. And when you conibine their knowledge and experience, you would have a power in the Legislature which you do not get under the single representative district system. Again, we say. that this system has been in operation for seventeen years, and even if this section is adopted it will continue in operation until 1870. Now, where there is no protest or remonstrance against it, where the people, apparently at least,-for I know of no opposition to it at all-where the people there are unanimous in favor of continuing this system;, why not let it alone? The gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARN,ER,) says that the system in operation in Detroit is opposed to the single district system, which has been approved by the whole people of the State. Now, I ask him where he gets his proof of that? As I said, it is the easiest thing in the world to make an assertion, but it is very difficult sometimes to prove it. The present Constitution does not adhere in every instance to the single representative district principle..The single representative system was abandoned in regard to the city of Detroit and other cities and certain townships, by the Convention of 1850. And yet the people of the State of Michigan approved the Constitution of 1850, and as a matter of course they approved what the gentleman in all probability would consider an innovation upon the single representative district system. The proof does not therefore sustain the assertion of the gentleman at all. I ask any gentleman upon this floor to point out to me a single protest, from any-portion of the State, against the principle in operation in the city of Detroit. And here permit me to say that I do not know that it is the most delicate thing in the world for a man to come forward here and say, "I knQw the people think so and so, and so and so;" especially when there are so many members of this Convention who would rise and say that they believe the very opposite. If the people were so very much in favor of this single district system, and detested so much this general ticket system that we have in Detroit, and if that general ticket system had ever operated to the injury of the State, or any portion of it, is it a credible thing to believe that there would have been no protest against it sent to this Convention? We would have had petitions presented to us upon the subject, asking for an abolition of the privilege that we have there enjoyed from 1850 to the present time. As has been well said before, we do not ask this privilege on account of politics or party. We ask it not only for the benefit of the city of Detroit, but for the benefit of the State at large. We are carrying out that which should be at the bottom of the single district principle; we unite the interests of the peotle and their knowledge of the candidates for the different offices. Every argument that has been made to sustain the single district system is applicable to the system which we have in Detroit. And, therefore, I cannot see how gentleman can consistently oppose the amendment which I have offered. Mr. SHEARER. I am in favor of the amendment, from long experience in the county of Wayne, and in the city of Detroit. The city -of Detroit is so situated, with its large and small wards, that it would be almost impossible to subdivide those wards and bring out the best talent of those wards as representatives to the Legislature. I have nothing to say in regard to politics in this Convention, unless somebody treads upon my toes. I have not said a word upon that subject here, and do not calculate to, unless I am forced to do it. For the last thirty years the city of Detroit has been represented as much by the whigs as by the democrats, as much by republicans as by democrats, in the Legislature. So that as far as the political horizon in that city is concerned, it has nothing to do with this question. In all the acquaintance I have had with the city of Detroit, I have never seen that "'scum," which the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIs,) speaks of. If he has seen it there, he has seen more than I have, and is more observant than I am in reference to "scum." We mprit expel, in a city like that, where we have all classes of people collected together, to have foreigners from all lands. But the people of Detroit are not to blame for that, any more than the people of Grand Rapids are responsible for the character of the people that will by-and-by make her a tremendous city. We must expect, in cities, to have all classes of people. I have been acquainted with the city of Detroit ever since it was a small village, or town. And I have never been in any city of the United States, where there is so much civility, so much intelligence, so much good conduct and courtesy, as I have seenin the city of Detroit. I have been acquainted in Boston, New York, Albany, and old Troy, Utica, and Buffalo, and almost all the cities of the East; but I have never seen a better regulated city than the city of Detroit. Hence, it is hard for me to see that city trampled down by such epithets, by such — slanders. If -the scum of which the gentleman from Kent speaks is in the city of Detroit, all I can say is that I have never seen it, although I have been there on public business more or less for twenty years. This is not the first time that I have heard that city traduced in the legislative councils of this State. Even when the Legislature convened in the city of Detroit, men living in far distant parts of the State gathered there, and spent their whole time and their best energies, and made their strongest speeches, to trample down the city of Detroit and her people. I have seen it for nearly thirty years. I wish the thing was stopped. If gentlemen are not satisfied with the people of the metropolis of this State, then they should let them alone. I do not believe in these personalities; I believe they are wrong in principle and very degrading. Now, in relation to this amendment, I am in favor of it. When you go to subdivide tlie city, you will create antagonisms in that city, when their welfare and their interests should be one. But let the people come together, when their interests are but one, and they can select their best men to represent them in. the Legislature. Should the ticket be a Republican ticket or a Democratic ticket, that makes no difference at all. I do not believe in this little party idea of trampling down a principle that has stood for seventeen years, and cutting it up, and carving it, for the purpose of making a little political capital. It has not about it the mark of statesmen or wise men. I do not find fault with the committee for doing it. But I believe we should allow those laws to remain, which from 12 - CONS-.ITUTIONAT4 CONVENTION.' Wednesday) DEBATES AID PROCEEDINGS. the beginning down have operated well, and had no fault found with them. I am opposed to amending and changing principles and laws, just for the sake of some little party gain, because I consider it wrong in principle. We should not undertake to change the excellent laws which were enacted by our fathers. We have been too versatile and changeable in the State of Michigan. We can hardly let a law stand upon the statute book until it gets dry. When there is a good law we should let it stand. I have sometimes almost wished that old Solon would come to life again and make some laws that would stand for ages. We have been so varying in making laws that the people do not understand now what the laws are in Micbigan. Even those who do understand something about them, have to burn a great deal of midnight oil to finds out what the law is, and what it was last year. Every law that has been of any utility to the people, has usually been carved and cut up, until even the Supreme Court of the State have been at a loss to make out what the law is. I am a farmer and no lawyer; but I believe the good judgment of the State of Michigan finds fault with this cutting up of good laws. And this proposition now to cut up Detroit into single representative districts, and bring antagonistic interests into operation so as to defeat the true sense of the people in the selection of their representatives to the Legislature, is altogether wrong. I am in favor of the amendment, and hope it will prevail. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. MCCLELLAND, to insert after the words "shall consist of convenient and contiguous territory," the following: " But no township or city shall be divided in the formation of a representative district. When any township or city shall contain a population which entitles it to more than one representative, then such township or city shall elegt by general ticket the number of representatives to which it is entitled." The amendment was not agreed to, upon a division, ayes 15, noes not counted. Mr. MORTON. I move to amend by inserting after the close of the third sentence the following: "But the electors of any representative district in the State, may elect a representative to the Legislature, residing in any other district of the same county." Mr. P. D. WARNER. If the gentleman will turn to the fifth section he will find this proposition is covered by that section entirely. That section provides that "Every Senator and Representative shall be a citizen of the United Statss, and a qual ifed elector of some county embraced in the district he represents, or of which said dis trict shall be a part. A removal from his county, or the counties comprising his district, shall be deemed a vacation of his oflice." Mr. CONGER. I would ask the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) who is also a member of the-committee that reported this article, if he does not recollect that there is a provision exactly similar to that which he has offered in another section? Mr. MORTON. If that is so, then I withdraw my amendment. But I wanted to allow the citizens of Detroit to go out of their district, to select a candidate from some other district, if they did not want to elect one from their own district. Mr. VAN VALKENBURtGH. I move to amend this section, by striking out the words, " persons of Indian descent not members of any tribe," and inserting in lieu thereof, " all male Indians twenty-one years of age, natives of the United States." Mr. CONGER. I would ask the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VANV~JKENBURGH,) to withdraw his amendment, and allow that subject to be considered-by the Convention in connection with the article entitled "Elections." If the section of that article in relation to that subject is adopted, as reported from the committee, then it would be necessary to amend this section. But perhaps it would not be well to discuss this subject in connection with both this article and the other. I have no choice about it myself, other than the suggestion I would make, that it might save time. If the proposition in the article on elections is adopted, then this section can be made to correspond with it. Mr. VAN VALKENBUIRGH. I have no objection to complying with the suggestion of my friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) I offer this amendment in order that this section might be made to conform with the article reported by the committee on elections. I wil, however, withdraw my amendment for the present. Mr. LOVELL. I have hardly any occasion to say anything now, as the amendment of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) has been withdrawn. I intended to say that if his proposition was pressed upon us, I should have to include all the inhabitants of the British Islands. I would just as lief have white foreigners voting in this State as red foreigners. M~Ir. WINSOR. I move to amend this section by adding to it the provision which is contained in the present Constitution, and which affects a great many counties in the northern part of the State, as follows "Provided, That each organized county or counties hereafter organized, with such territory as may be attached thereto, shall be en. titled to a separate representative when it has attained a population equal to a moiety of the ratio of representation." I offer this amendment in order to test the sense of this Convention upon this subject. The change made in this section by the committee that reported this article will, if adopted by the Convention, deprive some half dozen counties in the northern part of this State of the representation in the Legislature which they now enjoy. I was in hopes that this matter would be left just where it was in the old Constitution. I believe that all sections and all parties were well satisfied with it. It has worked well in those new counties, and secured in the Legislature a separate representation of their interests, which they certainly need, if any section of the State needs it. I hope that my amendment will be adopted. Mr. MUSSEY. I would ask the gentleman from Huron, (Mr. WINsoR,) if his amendment prevails, whether it will not create a difficulty? This section provides that the house of representatives shall consist of one hundred members. The law as it now stands, and as it wnill probably continue if this section should be allowed to remain as it is, provides for one hundred members. If this amendment prevails I can hardly see how it can be carried out, without increasing the number of representatives to more than one hundred. We already have the full number which this section allows. New counties will be very likely to be organized from year to year and from time to time. Under the proposed amendment they would be entitled to a separate representation; while the Constitution itself only provides for a new apportionment once in five years. It seems to me that it is not expedient to adopt the amendment. MIr. WINSOR. I believe the same state of things has existed in the past; allowing a new county organized in the northern part of the State, having a moiety of the ratio of representation, to have one representative. That is done simply by taking one representative from some county in the southern part of the State, which had the smallest fraction of the ratio of representation. Mr. MUSSEY. I beg t di'ffer entirely with the gentleman. The Constitution provided that the House of Representatives should not consist of more than one hundred members, The first House under that Constitution, I thiiuk, consisted of sixty-four or sixtysix members; but the number was increasedfrom time to time, until 1861, when the full number of one hundred members was reached. It was understood at that time, that thi~ provision, July 10, 1867. .'13 I 0 14 OTITUTIOAL COVETIO. Wednesday, which the gentleman from Huron, (Mr.. - WINSOR,) now seeks to have- inserted in.' the new Constitution, must remain inoperative: untfil. there -was another apportionment, or.until the Constitution was amended.'If there has ever occurred such an instance as the gentleman states, of-takminga representative from an old countyin order togive to a new county, it has never come to my knowledge; at all events, I- do not recollect it at present. — Besides, I think it would be very impracticable indeed, after the Legislature has provided for anew apportionment of representatives and has assigned them-to the several counties, disposing of the entire number of which the House of Representatiyes shall consist, to give a member to some new locality, and take one from some county. to which it has already been assigned. - I think the provision in the old Constitution was equitable and just; but as the matter-now stands, I could not vote for his amendment. Mr. WINSOR. I do not like to take up the time of the committee, but I desire to make a word or two of explanation. I think the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MuSSEY,) is mistaken in regard to the working of the old law. Under this article of the Constitution, it is true, as he says, that in 1861,.the number of the members in the House of Representatives was raised to one hundred. It is also true, however, that after that time, there was an apportionment of representatives; and that in that apportionment, one coun ty in the upper part of the Lower Pen insula gained a representative by the operation of this provision of the Con stitution, and the county of Calhoun lost one. I think there will be no dif ficulty in making that apportionment. I do not apprehend that in any case, a county would obtain a representa tive until an apportionment had been made by the Legislature. I think the representative contemplated in this section would depend upon the appor tionment made by the Legislature every five years. - Mr. CONGER. I will explain the reason for leaving out the provision of -the present Constitution just now moved. Section three,- article four, of the present Constitution, provides that "the House of Representatives shall consist of not less than sixty-four, nor more than one hundred members." Under that Constitution the House of Representatives commenced with con siderable less than.o01e hundred repre sentatives under the first apportion mont. It gradually increased in num ber, until in 1861 there were one hun dred members; before that time there had never been one hundred members in'the House oQf Representatives. At that time the full number one hundred was apportioned throughout the State in the rearrangement of the districts. The question now before the committee is in effect, whether there shall be an increase of the number of representatives over one hundred. At the present time, the House of Representatives is composed of one hundred members; and the committee on the legislative department have reported a provision limiting the number to one hundred. The subject was examined pretty carefully by the committee. I would ask gentlemen, in forming-their opinion about the propriety of such a provision, to look at the population of the present representative districts, as set forth in the Manual. It will be seen,- by referonce to the Manual, that by the apportionment at present existing, every new county in the State is provided with a representation far in excess of its actual population. I understand that the motive which influenced the Legislature in this apportionment was that these new counties were growing faster than the others that they were settling more rapidly-and although at the commencement of the apportionment their representation might be in excess of that given to the older portions of the State, yet by the time another apportionment was made, they would have a population equal to, and perhaps exceeding the population of the older counties. If that be so, then there would be no injustice to the new portions of the State, by the arrangement here proposed..If the same liberality prevails in the Legislature hereafter as heretofore, I think every new portion of the State will have a representation far in excess.- of its population at the time any apportionment is made. In limiting the number of representatives to one hundred, the whole matter was left to the Legislature, with the restriction that "each representative district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants." The phrase "as near as may be," was inserted in order to give the Legislature power to provide for the newer portions of the State, a larger repre sentation for their present population than they would otherwise have. I think that unless the number of representatives is to be increased, the amendment to this section proposed by my friend from Huron, (Mr. WIN SOs,) is impracticable, and inasmuch as the northern counties are so well provided for now, I think the amend ment is unnecessary. Mr. WINSOR. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question? Mr. CONGER. Yes sir. Mr. WINSOR, would-not this sec tion, in its present shape, deprive a number of the northern counties-of the representation they now enjoy, and force the Legislature in a new apportionment to unite, in some cases, two of those counties to form one representative district? Mr. CONGER. That might be so; I think it is so now. - Mr. WINSOR. It is not so under the moiety clause of the present Constitution. Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir; the counties of Iosco, Midland, Isabella and Alpena have but one representative. Mr. WINSOR. Those are not moiety counties, I believe. I drafted that bill myself. Mr. GIDDINGS. Would not this whole difficulty be obviated by fixing the number at eighty or-ninety as the minimum, and at one hundred as the maximrnum? Would we not then have room for the adjustment of these matters suggested- by the gentleman from Huron? Mr. CONGER. —.. I would say in answer to that, that this is a matter entirely for the committee of the whole. The number proposed by the committee, one hundred, is what seemed best to them. That is a matter about which I am not tenacious. The committee after some deliberation. concluded that the number, one hundred, was the best, though some of them thought the number should be larger, and one or two thought it should be smaller. As I remarked before, as the number of representatives to be fixed in the Constitution is not the question at this time, I do not propose to speak upon it. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. WINsoR, and it was not agreed to. No further amendment was offered to this section. ENUMERATION AND APPORTIONMENT. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 4. The Legislature shall provide by law for an enumeration of the inhabitants in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-five, and every ten years thereafter; and at the first session after each enumeration so made, and also at the first session after each enumeration by the authority of the United States, the Legislature shall re-arrange the Senate districts, and apportion anew the Representatives among the counties and districts, according to the number of inhabitants, in cluding civilized persons of Indian descent, not members of any tribe. But no re-arrangement of Senate districts, shall vacate the seat of any Senator. Each apportionment, and the division into representative districts by any board of supervisors, shall remain unaltered until the return of another enumeration. Mr. BLACKMAM. ~I would like to ask the chairman of the committee, (Mr. CONGER,) what was the reason for changing the year. in which this enumeration shall take place, from the year mentioned in the present Con stitution'? i r 8 CONSTITUTIONAT, CONVENTION. W ednesda,y 14 DEBATES AND PROCEE4DINGS. Mr. CONGER. The enumeration as taken now in reference to the enumeration by the United States authorities makes the aportionment of the State for the term of four years in one case and six years in the other. It was thought desirable that the interim between the two enumerations should be equal. I know of no reason for the change other than that. The reason why the enumeration before was made in the even year was, as I understand it, to privide at that time for an immediate apportionment and an immediate session of the Legislature. Mr. BLACKMAN. If we elect our members of the House of Representative for two years, will not the arrangement of the districts in the odd year sometimes produce a clashing in the apportionment of members? Mr. CONGER. This section provides that the enumeration shall be in 1875, and every ten years thereafter. The section provides that the apportionment shall be made at the first session of the Legislature after the enumeration. Mr. BLACKMAN. My question is this: If the apportionment is made at the end of the first year of the term of a representative, and not at the end of the term, would it not displace some members already elected for the existing term? I have not looked at this matter very closely in order to see how that would be. Mr. CONGER. The re-arrangement of the districts would not affect the seat of any member then elected; for this section provides that no apportion ment shall affect the seat of any Sen ator. This article also provides for biennial sessions. If that is changed, then there may be need for some change in this section. No amendment was offered to the section. QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE LEG ISLATURE, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 5. Every Senator and Representative shall })e a citizen of the United States, and a qualified elector of some county embraced in the district he represents, or of which said district shall be a part. A removal from his county, or the counties comprising his district, shall be deemed a vacation ot his office. No Senator or- Representative shall, during the time for which he may have been elected, be eligible to any office, which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased during such term; nor shall he be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the State, or any county thereot, authorized by any law passed during said term. Mr. WILLARD. I move to amend this section by inserting after the- words "the emoluments of which shall have been - increased," the words'-,by the Legislature." I suppose the -object of this provision is that members of the Legislature shall not create an office for themselves, or increase the emoluments of any office for the sake of being elected to it. But if the board of supervisors, for instance, should increase the emoluments of some small office, this section as it now stands would prevent a person, holding a seat in the Legislature at the time the emoluments were increased, from being elected at any time thereafter to such an office. Being a member of the Legislature myself, I feel a little delicacy in speaking upon this subject. I do not think that the members of the present Legislature, or the members of any Legis-lature which might be in existence at the time of the formation of a Constitution, should be rendered ineligible to any office, the emoluments of which might be increased by the new Constitution. I desire to say to the committee of the whole, that I am not myself expecting any such office; but there might be members of the present Legislature whom the people might desire to elect to some State office, the emolu-. ments of which will be increased by this Constitution during the term of those members. I hardly can think that it was the intention of the committee on the legislative department, to exclude members of the Legislature in such cases. I can see a reason why a member of the Legislature should be excluded from an office which was created by the Legislature of which he was a member,-or the emoluments of which were increased by that Legisla ture; I can see why he should not himself have a part in the creation of an office, or in increasing the emolu ments of an office, which he himself was to occupy. Mr. CONGER. It seems to me that a reasonable construction of the latter clause of this section would refer en tirely to offices affected by the action of the Legislature. There can hardly be any force to the construction unless it does refer to that. This provision may be somewhat deficient in grammatical construction; I have not paid particular attention to it in that respect. I think the last sentences of this section must be con strued together. If so, it would mean that no senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be eligible to any office created by any law passed during that term, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased by any law passed dur ing such term. It is possible the lan guage may need some correction. I think, however, that the court would hardly construe it to apply to any office not affected by the action of the Legislature. Mr. BLACKMAN. I think there is force in the reasons assigned by the mover of this amendment, for the amendment. It seems very plain that no person should be disqualified from holding an office merely because some other authority besides that of the Legislature had increased the emoluments of that office. I think the amendment proposed will remove any ambiguity, or difficulty in reference to the matter, and make it more correct, provided that is the intention of this section. The amendment of Mr. WILLARD was agreed to. Mr. MoCLELLAND. I desire to ask the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) if the committee on the legislative department have embraced in any portion of this article, the part of the section in the old Constitution which relates to members of the Legislature receiving certain appointments.? I refer to section eighteen of the article on the legislative department in the present Constitution; more particularly to that portion whi'ch reads as follows: "No person elected a member of the Legislature shall receive any civil appointment within this State, or to the Senate of the United States, from the Governor, the Governor and Senate, Irom the Legislature, or any other State authority, during the term for which he is elected. All such appointments, and all-votes given for any person so elected for any such office and appointment, shall be void." I would inquire if there is anything of that kind in this article? Mr. CONGER.- I think not. Mr. MOCLELLAND. Then I move fo amend this section by adding to it the following:. No person elected a member of the Leg islature, shall receive any civil appointment withlin this State, or to the Senate of the Uni ted States, from the Governor, the Governor and Senate, from the Legislature,, or any other State authority. during the -term Ifor which he is elected. All such appointments, and all votes given for any person so elected for any such office and appointment, shall be void." This question was fully discussed a few days ago, when the committee had under consideration' the article on the executive department; and, therefore, I have very little to say about it now. My own impression is that if we exclude the Governor of the State, I certainly would exclude the members of the Legislature. I have seen the same difficulty arise in this matter, in connection with a member of the Legislature, that I have in connection with the Governor. I think this provision of the Constitu tion of 1850 has been very salutary in its effects, clipping the wings of some very ambitious gentlemen in the Legis lature. I am, therefore,' disposed to insist upon it;in the Constitution we . are now framing. -. -: , .. - July lO' 1867. 15 16 CONSTITUTIONAL, CONVYENTION. Mr. CROSWELL. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) by inserting after the words "Governor and Senate," the words "except notary public;" so that a member of the Legislature may at least receive the appointment of notary pubtic. Mr. McCLELLAND. I have - no objection to that; but I would rather have the vote taken upon it. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. CROSWELL to the amendment of Mr. MCCLELLAND, and it was agreed to. The question was upon the amendment as amended. Mr. CONGER. I would be glad to have the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLE,LLANnD,) or any other gentleman of this Convention, give any reason why this clause should be placed in the Constitution, or why a person elected a member of the Legislature might not receive some civil appointment in this State; why he might not, if the choice of the Legislature of this State, be elected to the Senate of the United States; why he might not receive any civil appointment that the will of the people expressed through their representatives might desire to bestow upon him. I would like to have some gentleman give a sufficient reason why, because a man has accepted the nomination and been elected by his constituents as a fit man to represent them in the Legislature of this State, he should not receive any other civil appointment which the people of this State might see fit to bestow upon him. To me it has always seemed that this provision in the present Constitution was the result of some spirit of rivalry, or jealousy, or meanness, on the part of some members of the old Convention, who feared that somebody might receive an appointment of some kind, even as notary public, while he was a member of the Legislature. I never yet have heard, and have carefully endeavored to ascertain, any reason (why this should be done. I havenever yet been able to find any satisfactory reason why a man, who was worthy of a seat in the Legislature, might not receive an appointment from the proper authorities, or be elected by the people to some other office. I have never been able to understand why a ban should be put upon him for any other office in the State. If there can be any good reason adduced why it should be done, then I will join cheerfully with the mover of this amendment in support of it. If no good reason can be assigned for it, then I desire to see that old jealous clause of our Constitution kept out of our new one. Mr. McCOLFJLAED. I do not think that in the Convention of 1850, there was any member influenced by any motive, such as those which the gentleman is pleased to ascribe to them. That Convention was composed of gentlemen entitled to equal respect at least, with the members of this Convention. I do not now recollect who was the mover of this clause in that Constitution; perhaps the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKXENBURGH,) could tell better than I can. But I am confident it was put in the Constitution from the best and purest motives, in order to avoid corruption in the. Legislature. I have myself seen a great deal of difficulty in this State arise from contentions on account of these different offices. If the gentleman will consult the history of other States of this Union, he will find that an immense amount of trouble has been caused in legislative bodies, at one time and another, from this very cause. He must recollect the difficulties that have occurred in the State of New York, of which State I believe he is a native. He certainly must know the history of the election of several gentlemen there which induced, as I believe-I may be mistaken in this matter, but I think I am correct-the Convention of the State of New York to put such a provision as this in their Constitution. In this State, under the Constitution of 1835, even after a caucus had nomiinated one of the members of the Legislature for election to the Senate of the United States, many of the members of the party making that nomination, disagreed with the action of their party caucus, on the ground that according to the Constitution of 1835, they had no right to elect a member of the Legislature to such an office. This matter was discussed the other day in regard to the Executive. I think the same reasons can be assigned for this provision here, that were assigned for the similar provision in the article on Executive Department. It is to keep corruption and everything of the kind, out of the Legislature. Gentlemen may say that it is impossible that such things should take place; grant that it is impossible; notwithstanding that, it is our duty to throw all the guards we possibly can around the purity of the Legislature. Mr. BURTCH. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. I want to say a word or two on this subject before it is brought to a vote. The motion that the committee now rise, was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the Chair, Mr. PRINGLE reported that the *ommittee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had' under consideration the article entitled "Bill of Rights;" had made sundry amendments therein, which he had been directed to report to the Convention and recommend that they be concurred in, and that the committee of the whole be discharged from the further consideration of the article. The report was received, and the committee of the whole discharged, accordingly. Mr. PRINGLE also reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Legislative Department;" had made some progress therein, and had directed him to ask leave for the commaittee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. LOVELL. I move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion was sgreedto; and accordingly (at twenty minutes past 12 o'clock, p. m.,) the -Convention took a recess until 3 o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at 3 o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. BILL OF RIGHTS. The Convention proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled "Bill of Rights." The question was on concurring in the amendment made by the committee of the whole. Mr. WILLARD. I desre to state to the Convention that I heard the chairman of the committee who reported this article to the Convention, (Mr. PRATT,) say that he regretted very much he was not here at the time the article was considered. As he is absent to-day, I move that it be laid upon the table for the present. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into eommittee of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. PRINGLE in the Chair,) and resumed the consideration of the general order, being the article entitled "Legislative Department." Wednesday, July;0, 1867. DEBATES A\D PHOCEEDI~~S. 1. QUALIFIOATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE LEG ISLATURE. The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose this morning it had under consideration section five of this article, amended to reac as follows: "-Every Senator and Representative shall be a citizen of the United States, and a qualified elector of some county embraced in the district he represents, or of which said district shall be a part. A removal from his county, or the counties comprising his district, shall be deemed a vacation of his office. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he may have been elected, be elegible to any office which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased by the Legislature during such term; nor shall he be interested, directly orindirectly, in any contract with the State, or any county thereof, authorized by any law passed during said term." To this section the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. MCCLELLAND) moved an amendment, to add the following: "No person elected a member of the Legislature shall receive any civil appointment within this State, or to the Senate of the United States, from the Governor, the Governor and Senate, from the Legislature or any other State authority, during the time for which he is elected. All such appointments, and all votes given for any person so elected for any such office and appointment, shall be void." Pending which, the gentlemen from . m g 10 Lenawee (Mr. CROswELL) moved to amend the amendment by inserting; after the words "Governor anld Sen-. ate," the words "except notary public;" which amendment was adopted. The pending question is upon the amendment as amended. Mr. CROSWELL. I move to amend the amendment by inserting, after the words "during the time for which he is elected," the words "nor shall any member of Congress, or State officer, receive such appointment." Mr. McCLELLAND. I desire to give notice that if that amendment prevails, I shall move to insert, after the words "member of Congress," in order to oblige certain gentlemen on this floor, the words "especially Sena tors Chandler and Howard, and Rep resentatives Beaman, Driggs, Up son, Ferry, Trowbridge, and Blair." [Laughter.] Mr. LONGYEAR. I suppose that the gentleman from Wayne does not intend to include any ex-members of Congress. [Laughter.. The question was on the amendment of Mr. CnOSWELL to the amendment of Mr. McCLELLAND. Mr. CROSWELL. I desire to say in this connection, that I do not offer this amendment because I am in favor of it; I offer it to be adopted only in the event that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCL1L.T,AD,) shall prevail. If his amendment prevails, then I certainly shall be in favor of amending it as I Vol 2 —-No. 3. have proposed. If members of the Legislature are liable by their associations to be influenced in their action in this respect, it seems to me that the action of the Legislature might be equally influenced by members of Congress, and by State officers. If members of the Legislature should not have this privilege of being elected or appointed to any office, by reason of their influence, then it seems to me that members of Congress and State officers should not have the privilege by exercising a similar influence, of being elected to these important positions. Take a member of Congress, for instance; he may come here with his subordinates, and it would be almost impossible for the Legislature to resist the influence he could bring to bear, because of his control (for at least heretofore members of Congress have had control) of the federal appointments in the district which he repre sents. He could bring his postmasters, and collectors, and assessors, and their deputy collectors and deputy asses sors, and they would have an influence that would perhaps be almost omnipo tent, if we are to assume, which I do not believe, that the'Legislature willbe con trolled by influences of that character. It was said upon this floor the other day that the auditor general controlled a large portion of the press of the State. If that is the case, he certainly should not have the privilege of being elected to the United States Senate, or of receiving any appoint ment, beside that of auditor general, during the term for which he was elected. We have heard it said in this country that a man should not be elected to an office for a second term. By the adoption of the amendment to the amendment, perhaps we should se cure hereafter rotation in office; for I ap prehend that then no member of Con gress, or at any rate no Senator in the United States Senate, could be elected for a second term. We should, per haps, all have a chance of some time becoming Senators in the United States Senate, if my amendment, and the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, so amended, be adopted. Mr. McCLELLAND. I. did not know, and I should not have credited for a moment, that we had anything to do with members of Congress, had it not been asserted, as it has been by the President of this Convention. It is something new to me. That is all I have to say in regard to that matter. I know their power and I know their influence. I know that that power and influence have been felt in the body that preceded this body here in this hall. In regard to State officers, I have to say this, that if the gentleman is really serious, he, as President of the Convention, should have selected a different place for this restriction; he should Dave proposed it in the article on State officers, for it does not properly come in here under the head of Legislative Department. This restriction which he has proposed should have beeu put either in the article on State officers, or, as a restriction upon the executive, in the article on the Executive Department. Mr. MORTON. I hope that all these amendments will be defeated. Not that I am not willing to see the Legislature restricted by proper rules; but I think this distrust of men, this saying that they cannot be trusted with power, without abusing it, is one great reason why that power is abused. The people of the State have now been educated to think that every Legislature must be a corrupt set of knaves. I think these restrictions have a bad effect upon public men. I do not not think the Legislature of Michigan de serves to have such an opinmion enter tained of them by their constituents. This distrust of men as being dishon est, in my opinion, is well calculated to make them so. I take it for granted, that if representatives and senators do that which is wrong in the Legislature, the people are as much at fault as they are, and are as corrupt as they are in sending them here. It is public opinion that must correct this abuse. When men have betrayed the trust confided to them, they should be made to feel the weight of public indigna tion; that is the only remedy for that evil. What does this idea of tying up the Legislature mean? It can mean noth ing else than that men are not fit for self-government. I think we should take a different view of the matter. I do not think the Legislature of Mich igan deserves such treatment at our hands. I think that in the State of New York, it could not be questioned that some legislators have proved corrupt, if they have received bribes. If we ever get to that condition in this State, I hope there will be a remedy provided for it, and that the peniten tiary will be used for the accommoda tion of those men. But at the present time I do not think it is right to place such restrictions as these upon them. Mr. BLACKMAN. I aid not expect. to say anything on this question, one -wa~y or another. I rise now simply to ask if some one can enlighten me a little on one point. I desire to inquire whether there is not as much advan tage in this restriction, so far as ire striction is contained in the amend ment offered by the gentleman from I -July 10 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 17 I il C O W d s y Wayne, (Mr. IcCLELLAND,) as there is in this section? If there is no danger of corrupt influences in allowing members to become candidates for office, when they themselves are the electors, would there be any danger in their receiving the fees and -emoluments of any office which might have been increased during the time they were members of the Legislature? Yet that is a restriction provided in this section. They might not have voted to increase those fees or emoluments; they might be entirely innocent of anything of the kinds Yet this section restricts them from holding any office, the fees and emoluments of which have been increased during their term of office, or any office created during their term. It seems to me there is just as emuch reason to carry the restriction as far as proposed by the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, as to adopt the restrictions already contained in the section. Perhaps I do not get a correct view-of the whole question. But as I look at it, from the stand-point which I occupy, it seems to me there is just as much reason for the amendment, as there is for the provision already contained in the section. The question was then taken upon the amendment of M]r. CROSWELL to the amendment of Mr. MCCLELLAND, and it was not agreed to. The question again recurred upon the amendment of Mr. McCLELLAND. r. BURTCH. If I am right I think my friend from:St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) wished some gentleman' to show a reason why the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. -MCCLELLAND,) should be adopted. To my mind there is a cogent reason in favor of that amendment. Wisdom is said to be the better part of valor. While we are making our laws, if they are contrived with wisdom, the people will reap a much greater. benefit from them, than if they were made without regard to wisdom. If we leave this matter open, so that members of the Legislature can hold any office by appointment or otherwise, instead of engaging in their legitimate business as legislators, they will begin to weave their political webs, so as to catch for their special use the fleshpots of theState, so as to get in their mouths the public pap, in order to get fat at the expense of-the people. Now, there are a great many-who want pap. I apprehend there are outside of the Legislature those who are just as good suckers, and want as much pap as those who are in the Legislature. But they cannot be accommodated if the members of the Legislature are allowed to hold these offices. In that case the members of the Legislature would have a decided advantage over them in getting the public pap. For in stance, there are a dozen or more offices to be filled, and there are a hun dred or more men in the Legislature to fill them. Now, by a little log-roll ing, some of these men, through their position in the Legislature, may get a chance to obtain all these offices, and perhaps jostle out of the way men whose talents and virtue are equal to those who jostle them. To say the least of it, the possession-of a place in the Legislature would give a man a de cided advantage over any one outside of the Legislature. Now, we do not want to turn the legislative halls into a pandemonium for the struggles of office-seekers. We want to, have the Legislature kept as pure as possible, so that its action will be pure, and the people will reap the benefits to flow from a pure fountain. But, if it is to be corrupt and made as it were a po litical brothel, then we may say good bye to the liberties of this country, and to the interests of the public in connection with that liberty. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. MCCLELLAND, but upon a division, ayes 13, noes not counted, it was not agreed to. Mr. STOCKWELL. I move to amend this section by striking out the words "some county embraced in;" also the words "or of which said dis, trict shall be a part;" also, the words, county or the counties comprising his." If that amendment is adopted, then that portion of the section will read:-" Every senator and representa tive shall be a citizen of the United States, and a qualified elector of the district he represents.- A removal from his district shall be deemed a va cation of his office." If I understand correctly the section as reported by the committee, it does not require a representative to reside in the district which he may be chosen E to represent; but, if he is a resident of ; the county embracing that district, he L may be elected to represent the district, although he lives outside of it. For , instance, a county is divided into two o or more representative districts; ac, cording to this section, all the mem* bers for the districts in that county may live in one of those districts. , This does not meet my view; and I , am certain it will not meet the views of the constituency which I have the , honor to represent on this floor. It L- seems to me that if the section re ported by the committee should be , adopted, it would destroy all, or nearly , all, that we hope' to gain by our disL trict system. I therefore hope that m ly amendment will prevail. Mr. DANTTELLS. I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOcRWELL,) will prevail. As the gentleman from Lenawee says, I think the section, as reported by the committee, if adopted, would merely destroy our district system. C Al of us who have been in the habit of attending to political organizations, know that the centre of these organizations naturally gravitates towards the county seat. The men about the county seat, who look for these things, will lay their plans to be nominated for representatives of the county, if the section as reported should be adopted. It seems to me that it will-invite political intrigue ,and legerdemain to be practiced out of the district where a man happens to live. In a large county, like Oakland for instance, where there are four representative districts, the four members to be elected might all be chosen from Pontiac, the county seat; and in, the county where I reside the members for the districts composing the county might be elected from-St. Johns. It seems to me that we should lose all the virtue of the separate district system if we sikould adopt the section as reported. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will prevail. I was astonished when'I saw the section as reported by the committee. I do not see why we may not just as well adopt the old county system and throw away the district system. entirely, as to pretend to adopt this district system, and then not require the representative of each district to reside in the district he represents. Mr. CONGER. The provision in the present Constitution in regard to' this matter is as follows: "Senators and Representatives shall be citizens of the United States, and qualified electors in the respective counties and districts which they represent. - A removal from their respective counties or districts shall be deemed a:vacation of their office." This is not a matter which the committee thought of any particular importance. The members of the committee disagreed somewhat among themselves in regard to this matter, but finally adopted the form which has been reported to the Convention. The section as reported by the committee provides as follows: - "Every Senator and Representative shall be a citizen ef the United States, and a qualified elector of some county embraced in the district he represents, or of which said district shall be a part. A removal from his county, or the counties comprising his district, shall be deemed a vacation of his office." To say that he shall reside'm in the county' embraced in the district he represents, is the same as saying that he i , I .18 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. .Wednesday, L..T - -, shall be a qualified elector of his district, or of the same county of whichsaid district shall be a part. The only reason that I know for putting in this provision was, that in a change of representative districts, it might so happen, in a- county having two representatives, that a change of a single town from one district'to another, would change the location of one of the representatives who was then holding a seat in the Legislature, and put him in a district which he did not immediately represent. Yet the people of his particular district might desire to re,lect him to the Legislature, for their own local purposes, considering him the best man to continue the efforts he had begun for their advantage. The committee were of the opinion that, with the jealousy existing between the candidates in a district, unless in such a case as that to which I have referred, it was not probable that any person would be selected out of the district. But in the case I have mentioned, where a representative might have had in charge some particular matter not yet settled by the Legislature, the people might desire to have the same men continue to represent them. Perhaps it was for that reason that this provision was made. For myself I have no choice in the matter at all. I have never yet been acquainted with a district in this State, where I thought the people would go a great way out of it to find a man to represent them. But I would be willing to allow them to do so if they should choose. I do not myself consider it very material either way. I see no particular objection to the section as it stands; no danger of encroaching upon the rights of any district. But it might happen, it has happened in one or two instances, that men have .been thrown out of their district by a change in the township lines. Under the present practice, although their former constituents might desire to have-them represent them for another term, they could not do so. I have no choice whether this section remains as it is, or is amended as proposed. It has no local application to any part of the State which I represent here. Mr. LOVELL. I can see no cause for striking out the words proposed to be stricken out by the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. SToCKWELL.) As the chairman of the,committee has very well remarked, the constituents of every district will in all probability, in nine thousand nine hundred: and ninety-nine cases out of every ten thousand, select as their representative some one residing in their district. Midif we strike out those words, then in the ten thousandth case it might require some candidate who has been nominated for a district to remove into the district and take up his residence there ten days before election. I thought the gentleman from Clinton (Mr. DAmELLS) meant to be a little facetious when he suggested that all the virtue of the rural districts, finding that it could get into the Legislature better from the county seat, would remove to that county seat, and thus leave the country districts without any virtue. If there is any danger of that, I hope these words will be stricken out. Still, these words might be of use in some cases hereafter, should it so happen that some district of the city of Detroit should be, to use an expression of one of the gentlemen from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,) the other day, in opposing an amendment which was offered here, so much "scum" that it would be advisable for them to go outside of the district to get a-proper man to represent them. If there should be any part of the State with such a population-.I do not say it ever will be so,-but if it should be that they could not find in their district any honorable and virtuous man who would make them a good and credita,ble and virtuous representative, should they be compelled to demoralize and disgrace themselves and the Legislature by sending one of their number here? Why not let them go outside of their district to get a virtuous and gproper man, unless, indeed, all the virtue of the county will go to the county seat, if it cannot get to the Legislature in any other way? Mr. BILLS. Why do we propose to adopt the system of electing representatives by separate representative districts? Why not elect the entire one hundred members of the House of Representatives by a general State ticket, making our selections from any county or part of the State we please? I understand the object of the single district system to be this: that each district shall have its own representative. I see no reason for adopting a constitutional provison which shall violate that principle. It seems to me, therefore, that if we adopt the principle of electing representatives by singledistricts, we should carry out that'purpose altogether. Although it might in very rare cases be the- desire of the people, if allowed to do so, to go outside of their district to select a person to represent them in the Legislature, still the Constitution in that respect should be symmetrical and harmonious. We should carry out the purpose for which the single district system was adopted, and not in any way vary that system by adopting a provision which would result practically in a general ticket for the county. For that reason I hope that the amendment will prevail. Mr. COOLIDGE. I fail to see the force of the objection made to the seetion as it now stands. I'may be wrong in my understanding of that section. It provides that every senator and representative shall be a citizen of the United States, and a qualified elector of some county embraced in the district he represents. Now, if I understand that language, a representative may be chosen from a district comprising more than one county, but he must be a resident of one of the counties embraced in that district; that is, he must reside in the district which he is elected to represent. The language of the section, it is true, is not remarkably clear. But I submit that iff I am correct in may understandinLg of the section upon a close examination of it, it will be found that the objection to it is not well taken. He must reside in the district for which he was chosen; you cannot -make it plainer than that. If_ I understand the language, it contemplates that there may be two or more counties im one district. If so, all that is required of the representative is that he shall reside in some county within that district; he cannot be selected from any county outside of that district. If the district comprises but one county, then he must reside in - that district and county. "Some county embraced in the district he represents;" therefore he must be selected from the district he represents. Mr. BILLS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. COOLIDGE. Yes, sir. Mr. BILLS. Would there be any possible doubt about the matter if, instead of using the term" county " here, we use the term " district?" ]Mr. COOLIDGE. No, sir. Mr. BILLS. There seems to be a doubt, now, in the'minds of.some menibers, at least. Mr. COOLIDGE. I am speaking of the strict construction of the langauage of this section. -I submit that nothing more can be made out of it than what I have stated; therefore the objection to the section is not well taken. Whether the language is the best that can be chosen, is another thing. I am saying that the objection is not good, because no other construction Can be given to this language. The section reads, "some county embraced in the district he represents, or-of which that district shall be a part." Now, if it is desired to change -the phraseology of'this section, I have no objection. But I submit that the lan — guage cannot be made to mean what the DEBATES- AND PROCEEDINGS. July 10, 1867. 19 ,_,0 CSTITTOAL COV~If. Wena,, - _,>'X4 mover of the amendment seemed to indicate. Mr. STOCKWELL. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question before he takes his seat? Mr. COOLIDGE. Yes, sir. Mr. STOCKWELL. What does the gentleman say in regard to the case of a county which embraces two or more districts? Would not this section permit any person in the county to represent either of those districts? Mr. COOLIDGE. There are two things here. If a district embraces more than one county, the individual must reside in the district he represents. The second refers to a county embracing more tha~n one district, and he must be a resident of the county of which the district shall be a part. Mr. THOMPSON. I have but a brief suggestion to make, and will give a single illustration. Take the county of Lenawee, which is divided into two districts; the dividing line between the districts runs through the city of Adrian. The X-two representatives ia the Legislature from those two districts might both reside in the same county, and according to this section, might both live upon one side of the dividing line, and yet represent different districts. It seems to me very clear, that under this section a man might reside in the county, and yet not reside in the district which he is elected to represent. If the district comprised- an entire county, or several counties, then the representative from that district would have to live in the district. But supposing that there were four districts cornering in the city of Adrian; the four representatives might all live in one corner of Adrian, and yet represent those four districts. I am, therefore, decidedly in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKwELL.) Mr. MUSSEY. I do not wish to take up the time of the Convention in discussing this subject; but I must say that I understand this section differently from the explanation given by the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. COOLIDGE.-) And for the purpose of being set right in this matter, I wish to ask the chairman of the committee who reported this article, (Mr. CONGER,) if it was not the intention, and if they did not understand, that as the section now reads, the representative from the district might live anywhere in the county in which that district was situated? Take the county of St. Clair, for instance, or the county of Macomb; each of these counties has three members of the House of Representatives. Under this section, it seems to me, that all three members from either of those counties, might be taken from one town or village in the county; and they might also be taken from different parts of the county. Mr. CONGER. That is the understanding of the committee. I thought that in my remarks some time ago I explained sufficiently what the intention and understanding of the committee were. If there are two, or three, or four representative districts in a county, this section would undoub.tedly authorize the election of all the representatives for the county from any district in that county, because any one district would be a part of the county in which that district was situated. As I said before, the only reason for this provision was, not the expectation that any district would choose to go outside of its own limits, but that the people of a district might have an opportunity, in case of a change of the boundary lines of a district, to choose a person outside of that district who had formerly represented them, and whose residence before t.he change was within the limits of that district. As I said, I have no choice in this matter one way or the other. I do not think, however, that it infringes at all up6n the principles of the single district representative system. The nomination is by the district; the election is by the district. Each district is set apart by itself, and the electors of that district alone have the choice of the person to represent it. The view taken by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL,') who" introduced this amendment, is the correct view of this section. Whether it be adopted or not, I consider very immaterial practi-' cally. I have no preference upon the subject, and I do not know that any member of the committee has. Mr. DANIELLS. There has been one argument used here, which shows to me most conclusively that this amendment should prevail; that is the argument of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL.) He conceives that there may be a rural district that has not a man in it fit to make a proper representative of the interests of that district in the Legislature. But he says he does not doubt that they could get a proper man at the county seat. Mr. LOVELL. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a moment? Mr. DANTELLS. I hope that the gentleman will not do it just now, because I am very easily interrupted. The gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) has expressed my sentiments exactly. If we are going to do away with the district system, then why not have a general State system, and elect our representatives, all over the State, by general ticket? But if we are going to have a representation by districts, then let us have that. I do not suppose that all the intelligence in the counties is collected at the county seat, though in many cases it may be so. Still we have supervisors who do not reside at the county seat, and as gentleman here well know, supervisors are a superior body ofrmen. So I think that the rural districts may be allowed to get along without being obliged to go to the county seat for their representatives. Mr. WILLIAMS. I desire to protest against some things in this section. It says, "some county embraced in the district he represents." Now, I do not want the county of Clinton to be embraced in any other district, because I do not think my friend near me, (Mr. WALKER,) would vote as his colleague might desire him to vote. And I do not know how you could embrace other counties in these districts. I do not know how you would -embrace the county of Lenawee, which has five representative districts, in one of these districts. Mr. LAWRENCE. I must confess that I do not understand this section as I' did at the commencement of this discussion, for the reason that I have since looked it over more closely. I do not see the necessity of any amendment here, even if we wish to retain- the separate district system. This section reads: "Every senator and representative shall be a citizen of the United States, and a qualified elector of some county embraced in the district he represents." That means that if- he is a senator representing more than one county, he must be a resident of one of those counties, or if he is a' representative he must be a resident of the same county of which said district shall be a part. If he is chosen to represent a part of the county, then he must be a resident of that portion of -the county which comprises his district. Mr. THOMPSON. The chairman of the committee on the legislative department does not seem to think so. Mrr. LIWRENCE. I cannot help that; that does not change the meaning -of the section at all. I think this section is as plain as it can be made. Mr. HENDERSON. If there is anything in this section as now worded, which~is at all ambiguous, and there is any real ground for the difference of opinion which has been expressed here, then I think the section should be relieved of that ambiguity. It seems to me that the section is perfectly plain. I think the remarks made here hare been based upon the supposition that the counties are to determine whether the representative shall be elected from Jul 10 187 DEAE - RCEIG.2 any portion of the county, and not that each district shall elect them. I apprehend the committee did not intend to take away from the several districts the privilege of choice which they now possess. It is left optional with every district, senatorial or representative, to select its representative from within its own limits. If in a representative distrist the people desire to choose some man who maybe the champion of some particular interest, in which they are largely interested, tihey can go out of their district to choose that man. This first clause of the section has reference to the northern and newer counties, where, for the election of one member to the lower house, two or more counties are united together. In that event, he is to be a resident of one of those counties. But in the older counties, if any subdivision of a county forming a district sees fit to elect as its representative a citizen of another district, they can do so; but they cannot go beyond the limits of the county for that purpose. It is for them to determine that matter for themselves. There is no liberty of choice taken from them; on the contrary a larger choice is granted to them. I do not, however, think there ever will arise a case where the electors of any district will avail themselves of this new privilege. I think it will be a great while before that will be done. I think the danger is one about which we need have no apprehension. Mr. SHELDON. I do not know that I exactly understand the positionof this question. It seems to me there is something beyond what we can see here. There seems to be-a misunder standing about the meaning of the language of this section. It looks to me just like this: that in the county of Lenawee, for instance, the people of Adrian with their great influence would be able to control all the smaller towns, so that the representatives and senators from the districts embraced in that county might all be taken from the city of Adrian. If that is the mean ing, or effect, of this section, I am de cidely opposed to it: I think it is all wrong. And I cannot see why, and I cannot see how, the committee came to report such a section. I hope there fore that the amendment of my col league, (Mr. STOOKwELL,) will prevail. Mr. BARBER. I think that per haps the chairman of the committee on the legislative department (Mr. CONGER) forgot to mention one reason for the committee reporting this section in its present form. I think they did so, following the precedent set by thee Legislature in providing for the elec tion of delegates to this Convention. It will be recollected that although we had a single representative district system, yet each district acting independently of all'the other districts, was allowed to go anywhere within the range of the entire State to choose its delegate; but whether any district availed itself of that privilege or not I cannot say. But certainly if there was no restriction in reference to the election of delegates to this Convention, there would' be no restriction here, because the rights of each district are enlarged, and it is given the right to go beyond its own limits to select the person to represent it. So far as we can determine from the results, as shown in this Convention, that system would work well. It certainly brought together a fine body of men here. I cannot see, so far, that anything has worked badly under that syst:em.' ~ In~ regard to the proper construction to be given to the language of this section, I must say that I do not think the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) has given it as'much attention as he may have supposed, when he 'commenced his remarks; I do not think he had read the entire provision in reference to this matter. As I said before, the provision of this section is substan tially the provision contained in the law calling this Convention together. I never heard that there could be more than one construction put upon that law; and I do not believe that more than one construction can be put upon this section. I am in favor of this sec tion as it is.'' Mr. BURTCH... I move to amend this section by striking out the words "some county embraced in." The CHAIRMAN. That is a part of the amendment already pending be fore the committee, and offered by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCO WELL. ) Mr. MORTON. I do not see any impropriety in allowing.the people of a district to nominate a candidate re siding in the adjoining district, if, as is the case in some districts, they have no men who would run for the Legisla ture, that they desire to elect. We have had men in our Legislature who would not remain here three weeks of the ses sion; they were nominated and elected when they were not at home. Now I would allow the people of any district to go out of the district, and take up any one they might think proper to represent them in the Legislature. I think no harm would result from such a provision, and there might be good come from it. If there is a clause in the Constitution, allowing the people of a district to nominate and elect for their representative some person out of the district, then, perhaps the people of the city of Detroit, where we know that there are a great many p'ersons who object to coming to the Legislature, could go outside of their districts and select persons for. that purpose. And the people of any single district of Detroit might, by just crossing the street, find some one to represent them, who would do better than any one within their limits, especially when there would be no local interests involved. I do not see why we cannot trust the districts to look after their own interests in this matter. Mr. FERRIS. I suppose no one on this floor is afraid to trust the people in any particular. Whatever we do in this matter here, in making a Constitution, we ought to be systematic. If the proposition is to open a door so as to permit the people of any district to elect to the Legislature a person from any part of the State, because they believe either that he is more capable or will more fully represent them, then~c that is one thing. If the idea is to confine the election of the persons to the residents of the districts that they represent, that is another thing. There are some advocates of-the former theory; wise men have advocated the idea that the choice of persons to represent any district, either in Con gress or in the Legislature, should not be confined to the districts they rep resent. I do not understand that it is the purpose of this committee to incorporate any such idea as that in this Constitution; but, on the other hand, as a general rule, to confine the selec tion of the representatives to the resi dents of the districts represented. If that be so, then let us abide by the rule throughout, so that all the parts of our Constitution may be consistent and harmonious. So far as I have watched the debate upon the amendment under considera tion, some of the friends of the section, as reported to ~as by the committee, claim that it substantially represents the same idea which is embrace4 in the pending amendment. Others agai'm claim that it does not present the same idea, but opens the door a little wider, so that the selection may be made anywhere in the county. I am inot going to' enter into the discussion of the merits of this proposition. But we have adopted the district system as the principal idea. My own individual preference is very strongly in fa vor of confining the selection of members of the Legislature to the districts in which they reside. I am inclined to favor the amendment, if for no other reason than because-it makes this section perfectly clear.:If we adopt the amendment, then it will be impossible to mnistae the meaning I a DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 21 July 10, 1867. 22.OSIUTOA COVNI- Wded of the section. As the section now stands, it is perfectly apparent to this committee, that it is capable of two constructions, because the friends of the section have argued in favor of retaining the-section as it is; some because it was different from the amendment, and others because it was just the same as the amendment. Whatever we put into the Constitution I think should be capable of but one construction. I favor the amendment because I think it will make the meaning of the section clear and specific. The question was:then taken upon the amendment of Mr. Stockwell, and upon a division-ayes 28, noes 24, it was agreed to. No further amendment was offered to the section. The next section was read as follows: SECTIoN 6. NO person holding any elective State office, except that of regent of the University, or member of the board of edu cation, or holding the office of probate judge, county clerk, register of deeds, county treasurer, sheriff, county superintendent of schools, prosecuting attorney, or any office to which he was appointed by the President of the lTnited States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall be allowed to take and hold a seat in either House of the Legislature. Mr. McCLELLAND. I would inquire of the chairman of the committee who reported this section, (Mr. CoNGr,,) whether the object of the committee was to allow any United States officer in the State of Michigan to be elected to the Legislature??As I understand this section, all those officers are exempted from the operation of it; hence, all the United States officers, from the judges of the different United States courts, all- the way down to deputy assessors and inspectors, can be elected to the Legislature. Mr. CONGER. I can only say, in answer to the gentleman, what the intention of the committee was. It has been suggested by some gentleman that there is a little imperfection in the -lauguage employed in this section. The intention of the committee was to provide that no person holding any elective office in this State except regent of the University, or members of the board of education, should hold a seat in either house of the Legislature; and that no person holding the office of probate judge, county clerk, register of deeds, county treasurer, sheriff, county superintendent of schools, prosecuting attorney, or any office to which he was appointed by the President of the-United States, by and with theconsenit of the Senate of the United States,. should be allowed to take or hold a seat in either house of the Legislature. The object was to exclude simply those persons holding office under the United States of sufi-. cient importance to require their confirmation by the Senate of the United States. It was not intended to exclude inferior officers, although they might be called United States' officers, because the committee did not deem them of sufficient importance to en'danger the legislation of the State, even if they were allowed to be members of the Legislature. It was suggested that there are certain postoffices in this State, some four or five of them, requiring appointments to them to be confirmed by the Senate of the United States, such as the postoffice at Detroit, and perhaps two or three others. The chief assessors and collectors of the United States are required:to be confirmed by the Senate of the United States. Mr. MoCLELLAND. The difficulty with me was to tell exactly what this section meant from reading it over.,- It says in making the exceptions of the persons prohibited from holding seats in the Legislature, "except'that of regent' of the University or member of the board of education, or holding the office of probate judge, county clerk," etc., "or any office to which he was appointed by the President of the United States," etc. Mr. CONGER. If the language is imperfect then it can be amended. Mr. GIDDINGS. It would seem from the reading of this section, that all these officers were excluded from .holding office in the Legislature, except regents of the University and members of the board of education. I have read the section over several times, and I supposed that all these persons were ineligible to the Legislature; I think so now. Mr. CONGER. It does not seem to me that there can be any uncertainty about the meaning of -this section, because there are no State officers excepted but the regents of the University and the members of the board of education. The gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MussEY,) has suggested that there was some uncertainty about this section. If he has an amendment to offer, I hope he will offer it. Hr. MUSSEY. If any gentleman is anxious to get the floor to ofer a better amendment than the one I desire to offer, then I will yieldto him. I have transposed this section somewhat so as to make the meaning clear. I will offer as a substitute for the section the following: " No person holding any office to which he was appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or any elective State office, except that of regent of the University, or member of the board of education, or any one holding the office of probate judge, county clerk, register of deeds, county treasurer, sheriff, county superintendent of schools, or prosecuting attorney, shall be allowed to take or hold a seat in either house of the Legislature." Mr. RICHMOND. I -move to amend the original section by striking out the words " allowed to take," and-inserting the words "elligible to;" so that it will read, "shall be elligible to or hold a seat in either house of the Legislature;" also to add to the section, "and all votes given for any such person shall be void." From the reading of this section, and from the explanation given by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGE-,) I apprehend the language used in the section, will not secure the object for which it was intended. A person may hold an office and be elected to a seat in the Legislature. After the election has been held, he can resign his first office and take his seat in the Legislature. I suppose the intention of the committee was to make all these persons inelligible to be elected, or to hold the seat. If the amendment I have offered is adopted,- I think the object intended to be accomplished b-y the committee, will be secured. Mr. HOLT. I have an amendment which I think will accomplish all that is desired. I would move to strike out the word "or," after the words "board of education," and. insert the words and no person." The section will then read: "No person holding any elective State office, except that of regent of the University, or member of the board of education, and no person holding the office of probate judge, county clerk, etc., shall be allowed to take or hold a seat in either house of the Legislature." The CHAIRTMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT,) is not properly an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. RICHMO,oD.) It will be received and held in abeyance, till the amendment of the gentleman from Washtenaw is disposed of. Mr. COOLIDGE. I have looked at this section somewhat carefully, and I submit that no different construction can be given to it than that indicated by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGEIR.) It will be perceived that it commences, "no person holding any elective State office;" then follows the exceptions, "except that of regents of the University or member of the board of education." Then follows the participle "holding," being the same that is used at the beginning of the section in the clause, "no person holding," etc. The section goes on, "or holding the office of probate judge, county clerk," etc., of course meaning no person holding the office of probate judge, county clerk, etc. I think the section is correct i c t 22 . CONSTITUTIONAT4 CONVENTION. Wednesday, Jul 10 187 DEA- P)POED~~ as it stands. I think the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUssEY,) will see that his substitute is no better than the sdction. The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Washtenaw to the original section. Mr. COOLIDGE. Yes, sir; my remarks are made against the substitute, the amendment, and everything else which will change the section. I think the text of the section is better than 'either of them. Mr. CONGER. If there is any obscurity about the language of this section, I think the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Muskegon (Mr. HOLT) will meet the difficulty in this case. I desire to say that I like the arrangement proposed by that amendment much better than the substitute, It proposes to have the section read: "No person holding any elective office, except that of regent of the University or member of the board of education, and no person holding the office of probate judge, county clerk, etc., shall be allowed to take or hold a seat in either House of the Legislature." I think that will meet the case exactly. I like the arrangement better as we begin with the State officers, and pass down through them, and then take up the officers of the United States. In regard to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. RIoHMOND,) I am very decidedly of the opinion that it should not be adopted. That same provision is in the old Constitution. Yet the Legislature, from the time that Constitution was adopted, if the construction which I think belongs to that provision is to be given it, have violated it at almost every session of the Legislature. The design of it was, that a person while holding any of these different offices, should be prohibited from holding a seat in the Legislature. But it was not -intended that a person holding these offices up to the first of January preceding the meeting of the Legislature might not be elected to a seat in the Legislature, and take and hold it after the term of his other office had expired, or after he had resigned his other office. In looking through the records of contested elections from the time I had any acquaintance with this matter, in 1855, I find many cases where this question has arisen in regard to the eligibility of a person holding some county office, the term of which expired before the legislative term commenced, to be elected too a seat in the Legislature; the electioSn to be held while he was holding the county offlce. Invariably where that was the only question involved, each house of the Legislature has admitted such persons to seats, so far as I have had any knowledge of the subject. I know there were two or three case in 1855, where the prosecuting attorney or the county clerk was elected to the Legislature. According to the decision of the Legislature, those words -meant that he should not hold both' offices at ,the same time. The committee supposed that was what was necessary here; it seems to me that isgoing far enough. But the expression, "No person shall be eligible to, or hold a seat," etc., means that he cannot be electbd to the Legislature while holding this office.- I see no reason why a person who is holding one of these prohibited offices shall not be eligible to a seat in the Legislature, when he has to take that seat after the other office is surrendered by him. I am, therefore, opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Washtenaw. Mr. BILLS. It seems to me that we ought not to disfranchise a man from holding a seat in the Legislature, simply because before taking that seat he has held some other office. The object of this section, as stated by the chairman of the committee, (Mr. CoNGER,) it seems to me, is perfectly clear and apparent. There is no reason why a man should be disfranchised and disqualified from holding a place in the Legislature, because he has been a probate judge, a postmaster, or notary public, or held any other office whatever. I think the amendment proposed will tend to obscure the meaning of this section, when the question comes before the Legislature. I think the language already contained in the section is susceptible of a clear construction, without any ambiguity, and that it expresses clearly and distinctly what this Convention desires to express; that a person shall not hold both offices at the same time. I think the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Macbmb, (Mr. MussEY,) relieves the section of all possible obscurity; I should be satisfied with the substitute. I would be equally well satisfied with the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT,) to strike out the word "or," after the words "board of education," and insert the words, "and no person." The gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) says that this section can receive no other construction than that which be has put upon it. I consider that to be true. But I would inquire of the gentleman, whether he did not read this section over two or three times -before he hit upon that construction? I m'ake the inquiry of him, because that was the case with me. I acknowledge, however, that i:t:will not admit of any other construction; Still, when it would relieve it of all possible ambiguity, upon the first readig of it, I would suggest that the modification proposed by the gentleman from Muskegon, should be adopted; otherwise you may have to read the section over two or three times, before you- can. get at the clear, distinct meaning of it.:' The question: was taken upon the amendment of Mr. RIcumooND, and it was not agreed to. The question recurred -upon the amendment of Mr. HOLT; and being taken, it was agreed to. Mr. LONGYEAR. For the purpose of calling out the reason for the exception which is made in this section, I move to strike out the words, "-except that of regent of the University or member of the board of education." I can hardly see any good reason for excepting those State officers from the digqualification imposed in this section. I am opposed to nearly or quite -this whole list of disqualifications, in reference to holding office, especially legislative offices. If there are any good reasons which can be given for excepting these particular.offices from disqualification, I would like to know what they are. Mr. CONGER. In answer to the inquiry of the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) I will state what considerations induced the committee to except these persons from the disqualifications imposed upon other State officers. The regents of the University, and members of the board of education, are connected with the State aa State officers, only by name. A regent of the University is a member of an inc.orporated body; incorporated by the State under the title of Regents of the University," for a particular purpose; to promote no local interests, to promote no:pe-cuniary interests, to promote no private or personal interests, but to promote the general cause of education, and to have general charge of the University, which is a State institution. The same would -apply to a member of the board of education. The committee thought that if -any counties should desire ito send to the.Legislature a gentleman holding one or the other of these offices, as a representative, it would be highly proper to allow them to do so. These persons represent, ini their respective capacities, one of the great, important, and vital interests of the State, the cause of education. The committee could not see why a member of the board of education, or a regent of the University, as well as any other friend of education, might not be a member of the I DEBATIS ANI),:PROCFIFII)IXGS. .-'3 . -July 10 1867. - 0 I - re JosTTTok CVETI. Wedn- -.sd'-ad Legislature, to counsel and advise that body while preparing laws to affect the educational interests, and educational institutions of the State. These officers have nothing to do with any other State affairs. They are not like other State officers, having control over the finances, or the fiscal interests or business of the State in any way. They have nothing to do except with the interests of education. I think the committee were unanimously of the opinion that there might be cases where it would be very desirable to have the benefit of the knowledge, experience and suggestions, which members of the-board of education or regents of the University might give them. These are some of the reasons which induced the committee to make these exceptions to the disqualifications of this section. I think these reasons were satisfactory to every member of the committee. Mr. GIDDINGS. I was about to rise to make the motion which'was made by the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYBAR,) who obtained the floor first. I felt, as that gentleman expressed himself, that in relation to these other officers, there was very little occasion to put into the Constitutifon a provision prohibiting them from taking seats in the Legislature. But if such a rule is to be used, I am unable to see why an exception should be made in favor of regents of the University and members of the board of education. The reasons assigned by the chair man of the committee, (Mr. CONGER,) are not to me satisfactory. In the first place, a regent of the University would be generally selected, if there was no provision against it, to take a seat in the Legislature for the purpose of se curing certain things for the Univer sity. While I am in favor of suistaining and continuing that institution, of which we are all so proud, I do not believe that the sending of a regent of the University here to ~he Legislature would tend at all to assist in securing a particular result, such as is sought generally by sending a man to the Legislature. One who comes here sim ply to represent the interests of the regents of the University or the board of education, in my judgment, is not as likely to succeed as would be some one else not so directly representing those interests. He will always be regarded as having come here for a particular purpose and no other; all his acts and movements will be watched in reference to that end. I believe that if a regent of the University should be sent here to secure some particular measure for the University, he would be very likely to fail. If there had not been such a sweeping clause in relation to other State officers, it is probable that my attention would not have been directed so particularly to this exception. But when a provision says that a regent of the University or a member of the board of education may be a member of the Legislature, and then goes on to provide that another person shall not be a member because he is county superintendent of schools, I must say that I cannot see any good reason for the distinction. I would like to know why a superintendent of common schools-should not be allowed to hold a seat in the Legislature, especially when he knows the practical workings of the common school system five times as well as would a regent of the University. And yet, under this section he cannot come here, because he is a superintendent of common schools. I would like to hear one single reason why a county superintendent of common schools ought not to be allowed to hold a seat in the Legislature, when from his knowledge of the system, he could give the Legislature far more information than probably most any other person. Why should he be excluded and a regent of the University, who knows nothing about the practical workings of the common school system, be permitted to come into the legislative hall, and secure some particular end for the corporation-of' which he is a representative? While I will stand by the University, and feel proud of it, and am willing to do any thing that ought to be done to sustain it, I do not believe it would be the best policy for the people of the State to send the regents of the University to the Legislature, to obtain from the Legislature what could be just as well obtained by sending members here such as ordinarily compose that body. Let that institution stand before the Legislature like every other institution, upon its own merits. I do not myself believe that it is worth while for us to undertake to pre vent any of these minor officers from coming to the Legislature. I have myself seen many instances where I thought that some of these minor offi cers would be of advantage in the Leg gislature, for the purpose of showing what was necessary to be done, and in what respects legislation was defective. Yet, these officers by this provision are shut out, for what purpose I do not know. I do not think it would be to the benefit of the Legislatureso exclude from that body all persons connected with the judicial department. Yet, from some cause or other, I do not know what, it is proposed that those who are in many instances the best fitted for seats in the Legislature, shall be kept out of that body by a provision of the Constitution. I never could see any good reason for that. I So not think any good reason can be assignfed. There may be some officers whom it would be well to exclude from the Leg: islature. But I think it is all wrong to make this sweeping prohibition of all our officers, and then to say that a regent of the University, or a member of the board of education shall be allowed to hold a seat in the Legislature. I shall vote to strike out the exception, andl then I shall be ready to vote to strike out very much of the remainder of the section. Mr. DANIELLS. I move to amend the section by striking out after the words "board of education," the words " holding the office." The effect of my amendment will be to permit all the county officers to be elected to thed Legislature, if the people are disposed to elect them. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is not in order, as it does not relate to the amendment now pending. Mr. FERRIS. I wish to say a few words, and but a few, in regard to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYRAR.) We can see our way clearly through this question which has been raised here, if we get at the rule in regard to excluding from the Legislature particular officers. If I understand the matter, the reason why certain officers are to be excluded from holding seats in the Legislature, is because the duties they perform are incompatible with the duties that would be required of them in the Legislature. I can see no reason of that kind to prohibit a regent of the University, or a member of the board of education from being eligible to a seat in the Legislature. I appeal to my friend from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GiD DINGS,) to say if it is not plain, that persons holding the offices named in this section such as probate judge, county clerk, register of deeds, county treasurer, sheriff, etc., cannot attend upon and discharge the duties in the Legislature, without neglecting the duty of their other offices at home, which duties they took upon them selves to discharge, under the obliga tion of an oath, to the best of their ability. I take it that is the reason why that class of officers are excluded by the provisions of this section. It may be said that they can perform their duties just as well through their deputies; that is, farm out their locals offices to subordinates, while they themselves1ome here to the Legislatue during the winter. I think that so far as this class of CONSTITUTION.A.T, CONVENTION. 24.. Wednes(lay, 0 July 10, 1867. DEBATES A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D PROGEEDI~~~~~~~~~~~~~GS. 25~~~~~~~ officers are concerned, this exclusion is right. I think that when a man takes upon himself the performance of a cer tain class of public duties, he should carry out the implied promise he made to the public, and attend to the duties of that office, or else resign. I think there is a conflict between the two offices. Not but what the sheriff, or the county treasurer, or the probate judge, if elected to the Legislature would discharge their legislative duties properly. They are high-minded, honorable men, as we are bound to suppose. But while they are discharging one set of duties, they certainly cannot discharge the other set of duties. This I take it is the reason of the exclusion; the incompatibility of the two offices. I would say to my friend from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) that I see nothing of that kind so far as relates to regents of the University, or members of the board of education. I see nothing in their duties that would conflict with their holding seats in the Legislature. If I did, I should most certainly vote for his amendment. Mr. LONGYEAR. I wish to say, in the first place, that I did not make this motion for any particular " drive," so to speak, at those very worthy officers, the regents of the University, and members of the board of education. I made it for the purpose simply, as I stated at the time, to 'call out the reason for excepting those officers from the rule prescribed by the 'section. I must confess that the reasons which have been assigned here for that exception, are entirely unsatisfactory to my mind. I think if there is any force in the reasons which have been assigned, they would apply with equal force to all the other officers enumerated in the section. If the regents of the University and members of the board of education are excepted, for the reason assigned by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) then, as has been very pertinently asked by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GInnINGS,) why not also except the county superintendents of schools? The principal reason given by the gentleman from St. Clair, was, that it was desirable that regents of the University and members of the board of education should come to the Legislature, in order that ths body might have the benefit of their experience and observation in regard to the great interest of the State. Will not the same rule apply to other officers of the State? It certainly applies equally and with the same force to the superintendent of schools. It seems to me also, that it applies with equal force to all the other officers named; that is to all the State officers, VoL 2-No. i such as probate judge, county clerk, register of deeds, county treasurer, and all the officers which have been enumerated, except perhaps the federal officers; for in regard to them the State Legislature would have very little to do. But so far as regards officers un-der the State laws, it seems to me that the same reason applies to permitting them to come to the Legislature, as applies to permitting members of the board of education and regents of the University; that is, in order that the Legislature might have the benefit of their experience. I think that- is a very good reason why the officers acting under the State laws should hold seats in the Legislature, in order that that body might have the benefit of their experience, especially in regard to our system of taxation and finances. All officers having connection with our system of taxation should be permitted to hold seats in the Legislature, so that that body might have the benefit of their experience. As I intimated, when I was up before, I am opposed to all these restrictions. But if there is to be any restriction, then I think it should be made to cover the whole ground. I see no good reason for excepting one set of officers and not excepting the others. I, therefore, shall insist upon my amendment, and ask for a vote upon it. And then, at the proper time, I shall move to strike out the entire section. Mr. LOVELL. The gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) and the gentleman from Ingham, (Lr. Lo-NaYEAR,) are not able to see any reason why a regent of the University or a member of the board of education might serve the people in the Legislature, if the county superintendent of schools, the prosecuting attorney, probate judge, county clerk, etc., cannot appropriately serve there. I will repeat what has been said before, in order that the repetition of it may sink deep into their minds; I do not suppose I can state it any more clearly than the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIs,) has done. A regent of the University is engaged in official duties pertaining to that office very few days in the year, probably not exceeding twenty in all. The members of the board of education serve for the same length of time. And in consideration of the fact that it takes very little time to attend to the duties of those offices, and the balance of their time is left for them to obtain a living in some other way, the laws have provided that they shall receive no compensation for their services, except for their actual expenses. The other officers named -in this section receive compensation'for their services, and the law seems to contemplate that their time:shall be wholly given to the discharge of their official duties. In many of the larger counties of the State, perhaps in the majority of the counties, the! county superintendent of schools should de vote the whole of his time during the winter to the discharge of the duties of his office. He cannot discharge properly his duties to the schools of the county, and at the same time serve any representative district orsenatoi ial district in the Legislature. The prosecuting attorney cannot properly discharge the duties of his office, and at the same time serve in the Legislature. And with all respect:for the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (3r. GIDDnnINcs,) I subL mit that a judge of probate cannot faithfully and efficiently discharge the duties of his office, and at the same time efficiently represent a district in the Legislature. Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentle. man permit me to ask him a question? Mr. LOVELL. Certainly.. Mr. GIDDINGS. I would inquire of the gentleman if he does not consider the people themselves competent to decide whether they shall send a judge of probate to the Legislature, without the Constitution interfering in the matter? Mr. LOVELL. I will cite the gentleman to a fact. A few momentsago, when some of us voted in favor of allowing a district to take a person from outside its limits to represent them in the Legislature, the gentleman deemed it unadvisable to allow it to be done. If there is occasion for a restriction in that case, I think there is here. Having the highest respect for the gentle, men to whom there might be a seeming allusion, I will go on and say, that if the law which called this Convention together, had provided that no person -holding any of these offices, and other offices that might be named, should be admitted to seats in this Convention, it is at least possible that the business might have been prosecuted here almost as quickly as it is now. I think it must be within the recollection of members here, and a recollection that amounts almost to soreness, that we have had repeatedly to put off business, and reports -have not yet been made from some of our committees, for the reason that gentlemen having charge of those matters were not present in the Convention; for the reason that certain members were absent on official business. I will allude to the committee upon which I have the honor to Serve. Our report would have been in here, and on our files three weeks ago, - if there had not been so many members of the commRitee absent on of DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 25 July 10, 1867. -- / ficial business. It greatly impedes the business of this Convention that so many of its members act in dual capacities. One day some member arises and asks that he be excused, on account of official business elsewhere; another is prosecuting attorney in some county, and asks therefore to be excused; another is regent of the University, and has to be excused; another is trustee of a railroad corporation, and he must be excused. Is it not a fact that our proceedings here have been greatly impeded on account of these things? And how would it be in the Legislature? If a member is county superintendent of schools, he cannot attend to his duties at home and represent his district here properly. There will continually come up the proposition to put off this measure or that, in which he is interested, until he returns. I have asked leave of absence for my colleague, (Mr. HowARD,) at times, be cause he is obliged to be absent on offi cial business; he happens to be at the present time. Our people like him very much, and they bestow many. offices upon him. I have no doubt he would be glad to avoid some of them, if he could be excused from them; but he feels bound to submit to the will of the people, and to serve them in the various capacities to which they elect him. He is an alderman, one of the trustees of schools, pros ecuting attorney, and member of this Convention. And if this provision is stricken out, it is possible that he may be a member of the Legislature. Now is it compatible that he shall hold all these offices? It is not that the people shall be re stricted in their freedom of ch6ice; but we say that these several offices are mcompatible with each other. If a man is superintendent of schools, and wants to be in the Legislature, then he may resign the other office. If a man wants to be in the Legislature, then let him not be prosecuting attor-. ney, or probate judge, at the same time. It is said that we want these gentle men here, in order that we may have the benefit of their experience. Now, is it possible that there are not ex-officials who can give the same in formation? Are there no ex-prosecuting attorneys, no ex-probate judges, no ex treasurers of counties; no ex-registers of deeds, no ex-county clerks, that can be induced by the consideration of the honor of the thing, to serve constitu encips in the Legislature? Do the offices always remain in the same hands? Or does a man lose all the knowledge and information he has ob tained,.by his experience in the office, when he leaves the office? Surely we can get all this experience without confounding and mixing up offices in this way. Mr. P. D. WARNER. Section six of the article on the legislative department, in the present Constitution, containing provisions similar to those embraced in section six of the article now under consideration, was stricken out entirely upon my motion, or on the motion of some other member of the committee on the legislative department, because it was conceived to be an interference with the just and legitimate privileges of the people, in the selection of such persons as they might desire to represent them in the Legislature. That section, in the present Constitution, is as follows: "No person holding any office under the United States, or this State, or any county office, except notaries public, officers of the militia, and officers elected by townships, shall be eligible to, or have a seat in either house of the Legislature; and all votes given for any such person shall be void." Upon further consideration the committee adopted what now stands as section six of the article under consideration. That action of the committee was based somewhat upon the suggestion of one or two members of the committee on the legislative department, who conceived that the change proposed was too radical in its nature to meet the approval of the people; and that almost every State in the Union had in its Constitution this same, or a similar provision, in relation to individuals who were excluded from holding seats in the Legislature. Therefore, this section was agreed upon by the committee and reported to the Convention. I desire to refer to one consideration suggested by the gentleman from Kala mazoo, (Mr. GiDDRnGS.) He inquired why a regent of the University, or a member of the board of education, should be allowed to hold a seat in the Legislature, and a county superinten dent of common schools be prohibited from doing the same. I will state that within my knowledge and experience, it has been the practice of the people of the State, or the people of certain legislative districts, to choose a regent of the University as their representa tiTe in the Legislature. The question of the right of such a person to hold a seat in the Legislature has been more times than once before the Legislature and determined. Each time that the question arose the Legislature decided that a regent of the University was not a State officer, within the meaning and contemplation of the sixth section of the article on the legislative department 2 in the present Constitution. They de cided that he acted merely as a trustee of the University, and was not legitimately a State officer. I presume the Legislature would have determined the same in regard to a member ofthe State board of education. I can see no objection to allowing the educational interests of our State-to have representatives of their own selection in the Legislature. Those interests are important to our State; they are cherished by our people; we have educational institutions of which we, as citizens of the State of Michigan, are all proud. And if any locality is favored with the presence of a representative of one pf these institutions, and desires his services in the Legislature, I would say let them have the privilege without restrictions, of sending him there. But with regard to a county super intendent of public schools I would say that gentlemen will see by refer ence to section eight of the article un der consideration, that the Legislature is required to — meet on -the second Wednesday in January. -If the duties of the county superintendent of common schools would ever require hitm to be at home for the discharge of those duties at any season of the year, that season is above all others the very time when his presence would be required in the Leg islature. It would, therefore, be per fectly impossible for him faithfully to discharge the duties of county superin tendent, and also the duties of membder of the Legislature; because he mu# neglect one or the other of those duties while the Legislature is in session. Again, it has been urged here as an objection to this section, that some of these county officers may be better qualified to act in the capacity of legis lators than any other persons who may be sent here. In certain instances that may be true.' But the committee adopted the rule, that no person hold ing a United States office, to which he had been appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, should be eligible to a seat in the Legislature. Now, if I rightly understand the law, at least so far as relates to post masters, those receiving a salary or compensation for their services, of one thousand dollars and upwards a year, are appointed by the President of the United States; those receiving a less salary are appointed by the post master general. Now these county officers receive a salary equal to or exceeding a thousand dollars a year. So that they not only have duties that require their attention at home, but they have a compensation equal to the compensation of those United States officers who are excluded by the:pro visions of this section. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Wednesday, 26 J11lyv 10 187 DEBTE A- PROED S 2 I see no necessity for any alteration of this section. Although it was stricken out at one time by the committee on the legislative department, it was afterwards reinstated in the form now before us; and I am disposed to stand by it. Mr. GIDDINGS. It seems to me that either I do not comprehend other gentlemen, or they do not comprehend me. I believe, with the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) that we ought to strike out this whole section; and I hope that we shall ultimately do so. In order to perfect it, although I hope it will be entirely stricken out, I shall vote to strike out these exceptions. The argument that is made against the proposition to strike out, is this; that the holding of two offices is incompatible; that is, that no person should be allowed to hold the office of a member of the Legislature, and one of these county offices, because the duties of the two offices cannot be properly performed by the same person. That may be so at times. But I take it with the Legislature meeting for a few days once in two years, any one of these officers can be spared from home for a short time, to perform duties here. I think the people are competent to judge of that matter for themselves, and can do it much better * than this Constitutional Convention. It may be considered, sometimes, that a man might come here who ought not to be here. But -it has not been my experience to find people seeking the office of a legislator of this State. It is said that if any one wants to come up here as a member of the Legisla ture, he should resign another office that he may happen to hold. Suppose there is no wish on his part, in refer ence to the matter, but a mere passive ness to serve the people in whatever capacity they may desire. If the peo ple wish to send him here, the fact that he holds a county office should not pre clude him from representing them here. It may be true that a man cannot perform all the duties of the two offices at the same time. But he may for a few days cease to perform the duties of one office for the purpose of doing more good than he could do at home, for the purpose of securing such legislation as may enable him to perform the business of his office at home with more facility and satisfaction to the people. It may be true that we would have been better off had we not sent some men here who have been here. It may be true as the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LovELL,) says, that all the wisdom and experience of the State is not possessed by these officers. It may also be true that his constituents would have beeneJust as well off if he had not been sent here. It may be true that there would have been some wisdom left in the world if he had not exhibited so much of it here. I know there has been a great deal of wisdom derived from that source, which has been continually poured out upon us in profusion, for some time past. Yet I have not been inclined to say to him that the people of his district would have done better if they had left him at home. I suppose the people know whether they were willing to have their members come here for a part of their time, and spend a part of their time in their duties at home. Whatever satisfaction the gentleman can obtain from the line of argument he sees fit to pursue here, I am willing he shall have. If he can gain anything by following that line of argument I hope he will continue it. But I think he will not gain a great deal, but that he will come down after a time, and come down rather hard. Mr. LOYELTLT. I desire to make one remark in explanation. I thought I distinctly stated when I was up before, that the remarks I then made were not to be considered as in any sense per sonal to members of this Convention. As to what I may have saild that I ought not to have said here, or as to how much I may have occupied the time more than I should have done, I have no excuse to offer. But if any remark I have made here can be con strued as showing any want of respect for the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) as indicating that I did not regard him as a very able man, or as a very efficient representative of his constituents, then I must say that it would be construed much differently from what I intended. I made no personal allusion to him whatever in any such sense; nor did I to any other gentleman. But I did call the atten tion of the Convention to the fact that there had been much delay in our business, because certain members of this Convention had their official duties to performi. The attorney general, whom I highly respect, certain judges, prosecuting attorneys, and so on, have had official duties to call them away from here, and our business has been delayed thereby. And I do say that I think it inadvisable that the business of the Legislature should be delayed from such causes. I think the persons who holdthe offices enumerated in this section should not be in the Legisla ture, because a public injury would grow out of it, not because they are not very able men. I apprehend that the Convention will yet decide that the judges of our courts should not be members of the Legislature. Why? Simply because the interests of the people require them to discharge their duties in a judicial capacity alone; not that they are not eminently capable of discharging other duties, not that they may not be the very- best men to be in the Legislature. But while acting as judges their duties as such would be incompatible with the discharge of duties in the Legislature. The gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDiNGS,) refers to the few days that the Legislature would be in session. Judging from the past, those few days will be about one hundred every two years or about fifty each year. I do not desire for a moment that any remark of mine made here shall be considered as impugning the official character of gentlemen upon this floor; I respect them all very highly; if they do not respect me, I cannot help it.. Mr. COOLIDGE. Believing as I do that the business of this Convention has not been delayed by the absence of some of the chairmen of our commit tees, I cannot consent that the remarks of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) Shall go upon the record without a dissent on my part. I know that a few of the chairmen of commit tees have been absent. I do not know that they have been absent more than, or as much as, a great many other members of the Convention. But this is the first intimation I have everheard from any one that the business of this Convention had been retarded by the absence of any chairman of any com mittee. Nor do I think such has been the case; I think the remark was made in haste and without thought. We have had plenty of business on hand all the time; we have not been delayed at all. Mir. LOVELL. I said nothing about the absence of the chairmen of com mittees; I made no reference to them. Mr. COOLIDGE. I so understood the gentleman. I understood further more that he singled out as one, a judge who is phairman of a very im portant committee. Mr. LOVELL. The gentleman mis understood me; I made no allusion to that gentleman. I did not have him in my mind.' Mr. COOI'IDGE. I supposed that other members of the Convention felt as I have felt, glad to have these men of experience, and skill, and legal talent with us, even if we had to allow them to be absent for a little time, or for a number of times. I should be very sorry that our records should show that in the opinion of any of us the business of this Convention had i .j-. IY 10. u y 1867 0 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 27 I 28~~~~~~~~~ ()sTTTOA'C~ETO.Wdl~a been retarded by the absence of the chairman of any committee. The question was upon the amendment of Mr. LONGYEAR to strike out the words "except that of regent of the University, or member of the board of education." The question was taken, and upon a division, ayes 18, noes not counted, the amendment was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. DANIEXLLS to strike out the words "holding the office," before the words "of probate judge." Mr. DANIELLS. I withdraw my amendment. The question then recurred upon the substitute of Mr. MUssEY for the section. Mr. McKERNAN. Before the qubstion is taken upon the substitute, I move to amend this section by striking out the words "any. elective office, except that of regent of the University or member of the board of education, and no person holding the office of probate judge, county clerk, register of deeds, county treasurer, sheriff, county superintendent of schools, prosecuting attorney, or;" so that the section will read: " No person-holding any office to which he was appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall be allowed to take or hold a seat in either house of the Legislature." I hardly think it necessary to make the exclusions proposed by this section; I think it would be better without them. It occurs to me that that would be excluding from the Legislature some of the best men in our State. It is also an inference that the people of the various districts are not capable of choosing their representatives. There has been a great deal said here in regard to the " dear people." I am one of those who believe that the people of the different districts, senatorial or representative, are capable of choosing for offices such men as should hold them; whether sheriff, judge of probate, or an):thing else. I have not yet heard any arguments to convince me that it is proper to prohibit State or county officers from holdiug seats in the Legislature. In some portions of our State it may be necessary to elect one of these officers for such a purpose. As a general thing, these officers are men of experience, and would be of great assistance in the Legislature. I cannot seb the necessity of this prohibition; I am in favor of leaving the whole'matter with the people, where I think it properly belongs, and allowing them to be the judges of their own interests in this regard. Mr. BURTCH. If the gentleman's views in regard to the people being such capable judges in every respect are correct, then we do not want this Convention to make a Constitution. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. McKERAN, and it was not agreed to. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I move to amend this section by inserting before the word " schools," the word " common," so that it shall read " the county superintendent of common schools." My object in moving this amendment is to conform the expression in this Constitution to the-expression used in the statute creating the office. The office is designated in the law of last winter as "county superintendent of common schools." The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. P. D. WARNiER, and it was agreed to. Mr. LONGYEAR. I move to strike out this section. I do not propose to enter into any debate upon that motion, as the subject has been pretty generally discussed upon the motion I made to strike out the exception. The CHAIRMAN. The question will first be upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY.) Mr. MUSSEY. I am willing to have the question divided, and to have a vote taken upon the resolution to strike out. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the substitute to be in the nature of an amendment to the section. It will be in order first to perfect the section before thle motion is put to strike out. Mr. LONGYEAR. I will withdraw the motion to strike out, until after the substitute has been acted upon. The question again recurred upon the substitute proposed by Mr. MusSEy; which was read as follows: "No person holding any elective State office, except that of regent of the University, or member of the board of education, nor any one holding the office of probate judge, county clerk, register of deeds, county treasurer, sheriff, county superintendent ot schools, prosecuting attorney, or any office to which he was appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall be eligible to, or have a seat in either House ot the Legislature." Mr. CONGER. Before this question is put upon the substitute, I desire to move to amend the last clause of it by striking out the words "eligible to or have," and inserting the words "allowed to take or hold," so that it will read, "shall be allowed to take or hold a seat in either house of the Legislature." That will make that portion of the substitute read the same as the section reported by the committee. I understood the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MussEY) to propose simply an al teration in the arrangement of the section, in order to avoid any ambiguity of language. But the proposition he has submitted proposes an entirely different provision from the one reported by the committee, a provision to which I have strong objections, for reasons I have already stated. The question raised by the two propositions is simply this: whether or not a person holding another office may be elected to the Legislature before the term of his other office shall expire, and which office will expire before the time arrives for 'him to take his seat in the Legislature. The committee desire to leave the section so that any person holding any of these offices might be elected to the Legislature; but to provide that he should not hold a seat in the Legislature while he held either of these offices. The arguments of gentlenien, who desire to strike out these exceptional clauses, convince me more than ever that it is very proper that gentlemen holding any of these offices should be allowed to bring their-knowledge and wisdom and skill connected with the subjects pertaining to theirs offices into the Legislature; but that they should not hold the two offices together. It seems to me proper that one whose office expires on the thirty-first day of December, and whose term as a member of the Legislature would not commence until some time in January, should have the privilege of being elected to the Legislature before the duties of his legislative office should commence. I think' that the duties which he would be required to perform in the Legislature would not be incompatible with his discharge of duties in the other office before the Legislature met. The main objection to allowing the State and county officers to hold seats in the Legislature while holding these other offices, is that their duties to their constituents at home require their daily services there. In reply to the remarks of my very worthy friend from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) permit me to say, that of all the examples he could have Chosen to illustrate his position, that of superintendent of county schools is the last which he should have cited. That officer is the last officer who should be permitted to leave his official duties, during the three or four months the Legislature may be in session. It was said in the Legislature when that office; was created-and I consider it one of the most beneficial offices. in the State-that its duties would require the constant time and constant at.tention of the person holding the office, if he was faithful in the performance of those duties; if he attend 28 CONST-liTUTIONAL'CONVENTION. 'Wednesda -1. y i -J11ly~~ ~.. D.... ~... ~' A......;PR_CE. I' l.... _. Ad b _ ed to the schools in the county properly, and visited them when he should do so, and exercised that oversight over them which the interests of education require. Of all seasons in the year when those duties should be performed, the winter time, when all the schools in the State are generally in operation, more than any other season of the year, requires the superintendi ent of common schools to spend every day of his time in attending to the duties of his office. He should not have any inducement held out to him in any way to absent himself from those duties. And I may say the same in regard to every other office named in this section. I make these remarks in this connection, because I do not wish to speak again upon this subject, upon a motion which it is proposed to submit to strike out this section. There is not one officer named here, but what has official and important duties to perform for his constituents. What are those officers? Probate judge, county clerk, register of deeds, county treasurer, sheriff, county superintendent of common schools and prosecuting attorney. There is not one hour in the twenty-four, I might almost say, there is not one of the working hours, when these officers are not expected to be in their offices to perform the duties devolved upon them. It cannot be possible that either of these officers can absent himself for four months, or even for three months, without material injury to the interests of the people of the county in which he resides. That I understand to be the reason why the committee excluded these officers by this section. There is no reason why gentlemen should come away from these offices and neglect their duties at home, and still hold the offices and draw the salaries for them. However good and wise and faithfulI they may be, the better they are, the wiser they are; the more faithful they are, the more desirable is it that they should be at home in the performance of their duties. More especially should they be there in the case mentioned by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) of the county superintendent of common schools, when entering for the first time upon the performance of the new duties created by the law of last winter, and which I hope will extend and increase until they are far more important than we now find them to be. It has been thouglit desirable in other States to exclude those who are recipients of the patronage of the United States government from holding offices of importance and trust in the State, especially in the Legislature of. the State. The proposed motion to strike out the section would permit the election to the Legislature in this State of any and every United States officer, no matter what his position, or his influence, or his means of bringing that influence to bear in securing a seat in the Legislature. In my opinion the section as amended, and as it stands before this committee, is what the people of this State desire, and what the interests of the people require. I trust the committee will not strike out this section, and will not adopt the substitute with the words " eligible to or have," in the last line of it. Aside from that I have no particular objection to the substitute. I understood the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) in his remarks to say that he simply desired to make a re-arrangement of the section, for the purpose of avoiding ambiguity, not to make a new section in principle. But the substitute which he has offered does make a section entirely different in principle from the one reported by the committee. That section meets-a want which has been felt in every Legislature, perhaps, which has assembled under the present Constitution. That want has been occasioned by the different construction given by the Legislature to the language of the section, from the common construction given to it by the people. It expresses clearly and distinctly what it is intended to mean, and there is no ambiguity about it. I have proposed an amendment to the substitute, so that if it shall be adopted in place of the section, it would remove what I consider a very objectionable clause in it. Mr. MUSSEY. In regard to changing the language of my substitute, the gentleman'from St. Clair (Mr. CoNGE.R) is correct in his understanding of my views, as expressed when I first offered the substitute, and also when I-expressed my views to him. I did not design to change the essence and meaning of the section. There seemed to me to be an ambiguity about the language employed in the section, and I found that the same opinion prevailed almost universally with others with' whom I consulted in regard to the matter. I then only proposed a rearragement of the section, and I so stated to the gentleman from St. Clair. I now desire to state that I have no sort of choice between the language proposed by him in his amendment of my substitute and the language employed in the substitute. I did change this myself after I drew the substitute, in order to meet the views of some other gentlemen here. I apprehend, however, that the meaning would be the same in either case, unless the lat ter clause of section six in the present Constitution should be added, "and all votes given for every such person shall be void." My desire and design are to have the Constitution plain and explicit; not merely so that the supreme court, or some learned or legal man can understand it, but so that every man who reads it may understand and comprehend its meaffing. I apprehend that this section, as reported by the committee, is not so clear that every one would be likely to arrive at the same conclusion upon reading it. I am opposed- to its being stricken out. And, as there has been considerable latitude in the discussion, I will say further that I did change the phraseology in the copy of the substitute which I first offered, which was simply a change of the section in the way of re-arrangement. The language is precisely the same. I have put the State officers and county officers before those appointed by the President- of the Tnited States. That is all the difference there is between the first and the last copy of the substitute which I have sent to the Chair. It seems to me that the arguments which have been made in regard to the exceptions, have not a great deal of force. I think that it is proper that a regent of the University Or a member of the board of education should be eligible to a seat in the Legislature. There is no patronage connected with either of those offices, which would render them dangerous before the people, or effective in securing a nomination or an election; and nothing to make them very dangerous in the Legislature. On the contrary, I think these officers would give the Legislature information that would be highly desirable. I think there is nothing connected with those offices that would disqualify the incumbents from being good, active members of the Legislature. I would say the same in regard to the county officers. But the nature of the duties of county officers is such as to require them at their plaes of business and away from the Legislature. I am as free to admit as any gentleman on this floor can be, that many of our county officers are very well qualified to perform the duties of members of the Legislature. But in my opinion it is not consistentwith the duties of their offices that they should be allowed to leave them to attend to duties in the Legislature. I do not suppose the counties are in so great need of proper men for offices, as to be obliged to confer three or four offices upon one man. Therefore I would except those officers from seats in the Legislature. July 10, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 29 0 30 OO~~~~STITUTIO~~~AL'-'~iO.4Thndy I am not at all tenacious about the substitute; I have no feeling about it. I have no desire to interfere with the report of the committee. There are some things, however, about this section with which I do not fully agree; I am free to say that there are some things in this section which I would prefer to have changed; but after seeing the disposition of members here in regard to any change of this section, I have no disposition to introduce any proposition here which would delay the business of the Convention and probably not be successful. Mr. LONGYEAR. The amendment offered by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGEr) and his explanation of the intent of the section, as reported by the committee,.take away very much of the objection which I had to the section. That amendment to the substitute, with his explanation of the section, that it simply means'that no person shall hold either of the offices named in this section, and at the same time be a member of the Legislature, removes the principal objection I had to the section. That would leave them eligible to a seat in the Legisla ture while holding the other office. If thQ amendment is adopted to the sub stitute, then I shall make no motion to strike out the section. Supposing that the section reported by the committee was to a great extent the same as the corresponding section in the present Constitution, my idea was that it provided that a person holding either of these offices was made ineligi ble to the Legislature, although the term of his office would expire before he would be required to enter upon his duties as a member of the Legislature. But, if the amendment of the gentle man from St. Clair is adopted, that would not be its effect. It is well known that members of the Legisla ture are elected at the same time that the county and State officers are; and that the duties of members of the Legislature commence after the terms of the other officers expire. The change which is proposed to be Miade in the substitute does away with the force of the objection which Ihad to the section, and I hope the amendment will pre vail. Mr. MUSSEY. I desire to state that I accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from St. Clair, (M/. CONGeeB,) to my substitute. The question was upon the substi tute as modified. Mr. HENDERSON. It seems to me that with the-modification of the substitute, it is now substantially the same as the section reported by the committee on the legislative depart ment, with the amendment made by the committee of the whole. I understand that the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MussrY,) has not included in his substitute the amendment which was proposed by the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. RicHMxOD,) and which was voted down by the committee; that is that while a man held either of these offices, he should not be eligible to be voted for, for a seat in the Legislature. Mr. MUSSEY. I will withdraw the substitute which I offered. Ir. FERRIS. I move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDmENT having resumed the Chair, Mr. PRINGLE reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled Legislative Department;" had made some progress therein, and had directed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. HOLT. I move that the Con vention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and ac cordingly (at ten minutes before 6 o' clock, p. m.,) the Convention adjourn ed. THIRTY-EICH.TH DAY. THURSDAY, July 11, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PREsIDENT. Prayer by the Rev. 1Mr. OLDS. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. WAVE or ABSENCE. Mr. GOODWIN. I ask indefinite leave of absence for myself on account of public business calling me elsewhere. Leave was granted. Mr. STOUGHTON asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. HULL, for an indefinite time. Mr. ESTER, asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. UTLEY, for an indefinite time. PETITIONS. Mr. MUSSEY presented the petition of A. M. Keeler, J. Bentley and 25 others, praying that a clause may be inserted in the Constitution securing to widows the fee of one-third of the real estate of their deceased husbands; which was referred to the committee on the judicial department. Also, the petition of Emily Walton, irs. A. J. Tedman and 45 others, asking that'the provision in the present Constitution prohibiting the granting of license to sell intoxicating liquors as a beverage, be retained in the new. - Also, the petition of Mrs. J. Butterfield, Caroline Price and 124 others, on the same subject. Also, the petion of Mrs. A. B. Ayer, Mrs. Sophia Palmer and 93 others, on the same subject. Also, the petition of Elizabeth A. Barbour, Mary Washer and 73 others, on the same subject. Also, the petition of Mrs. Sarah H. Jackman, Mrs. Ruth Palmer, Mrs. Mary Thorington and 80 others, on the same subject. Also, the petition of Carrie Libbet, Mrs. James Gray and 70 others, on the same subject. Also, the petition of Ella Hulsort, Martha J. Lawrence and 29 others, on the same subject; which were severally referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr. STOCKWELL presented the petition of Norman Cleveland, Abram J. Grant, E. W. Curtis-and 35 others, legal voters of Dover, Lenawee county, praying that section 47, article 4, of the present Constitution, be retained in the new; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr. TURNER presented the petition of W. W. Byrely, W. D. Castle, James Van Gorder, O. F. Hulsted, and Hellen E. Simmons, Martha Pitts and 63 other ladies and gentlemen, of the town of Bennington, Shiawassee coun ty, praying for a provision in the new Constitution, prohibiting the granting of license for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Also, the petition of Duane Cooper, G. M. Raynolds, J. H. Hartwell, C. Gale, Rollin Pond, E. Eddy, G. F. Cooley and 100 other legal voters of the towns of Shiawassee and Benning ton, on the same subject; which were referred to the committee on intoxica ting liquors. Also, the petition of W. H. Clague, J. H. Hitchcock, E. D. Gregory, J. M. Chipman, E.G. Hamilton, L. A. Stone, S. D. Wiley, Hiram L. Chipman, and 70 other citizens of the city of Owosso, praying for a provision in the new Constitution, requiring the State lands to be disposed of, only under the pro vision of the homestead law, and also prohibiting the passage of any law ex empting property from legal process for labor performed upon it; which was referred to the committee on public lands. Mr. SHEARER presented the peti tion of Joseph Tisman, John H. Vin ing, J. M. Bentley and 75 others, for a well regulated license law for the sale of intoxicating liquors; which was re ferred to the committee on intoxicating liquors' CONSTI.TUTIONAL CONVENTION-. . Th'ursd'a,y 30 t July 11, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEt)INGS. 31 Mr. BARBER presented the petition of Ezra Berry, Charles W. Bennett, and 88 other legal voters of the village of Quincy, Branch county, asking that section 47, article 4, of the present Constitution, be retained; which was referred to trlte committee on intoxicatming liquors. Mr. MUSSEY presented the petition of A. E. Leete, H. O. Smith, A. B. Rawles and 28 others, asking the Convention to take into consideration the propriety of engrafting in the Constitution such a provision as will secure the appointment of the judges by and with the consent of the Senate; which was referred to the committee on the judicial department. Mr. NORRIS presented the petition of Mary H. Barker, Mrs. Ismon and Mrs. Lathrop, and nine other ladies of Jackson city; and of Daniel Upton, J. M. Bostwick, L. F. DeLand, W. L. Seaton, D. B. Hibbard, and 13 other men, asking the elective franchise for all women above the age of 21; which was referred to the committee on elections. Also, the petition of O. Hawkins and 29 others, members of the bar of Washtenaw county, praying that the number of judicial circuits in the State be reduced to eight, and for an increase of the salaries of the judges; also, for retaining the present judicial system; also, against the creation of county courts and courts of common pleas; also, in favor of the appointment of judges of the supreme and circuit court by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate; also, that no person except a counselor-at-law shall be eligible to the office of judge of pro bate. So much of the petition as re lates to the judiciary was referred to the committee on the judicial depart ment. So much as relates to salaries was referred to the committee on salaries. EDUCATIONAL STATISTICS, ETC. The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the following communication from the Superintendent of Public Instruction: DEPAFITMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT, Lansing, June 24, 1867. Hon. CHARLES M. CROSWELL, President of the Constitutional Convention: SIR —In compliance with a resolution passed by the Convention on the 15th inst., I have the honor to transmit herewith a statement of the whole number of children in the State entitled to draw public money; also, the average length of time the schools are taught; also, the whole number attending these schools. I also beg leave to call the attention of the Convention to certain changes in our school system, deemed necessary to secure the most complete results of the system. Very respectfully,. 0O. HOSFORD, Supt. Public InstructiSon. The statement accompanying the communication was laid upon the table and ordered to be printed in the journal. It is as follows: A summary of the number of children of the State entitled'to public money, and the number attending school, &c., as shown by the reports of the school inspectors for the year 1866. The whole number of children between the ages of five and twenty years is 321,136. This shows an increase ever 1865 of 22,683an increase unprecedented in the history of the State. In 1865 the increase was 17,440, an increase so much greater than had betore been known as to surprise those most familiar with our school statistics. Of the 321,136, but 246,957 are reported as attending school. This shows that there are 74,179 who never find their way to the school room. There are two causes operating to produce thia result-one is a want of room in the school houses to accommodate all who are desirous of attending the schools. This is especially true in the cities and large towns. In some places they are compelled to resort to the expediency of forming two divisions of the children, one of the divisions attending in the morning, and the other in the afternoon of each day; and with this arrangement, only a part of the children are accommodated who are desirous to attend the schools, the larger part it is true; yet there are hundreds-yes, thousands of children in this State to-day, pleading for a place in our schools, but are denied because there is no room. Something should at once be done to furnish this room. These thousands are passing their school years in the midst of schools, and with an earnest desire on the part of both parents and children, to be per mitted to enjoy the privileges of the schools, but are denied them because there is no room for them. This state of things is not inciden tal or temporary, but has existed for some years, and Irom present appearances is likely to continue. Whether this is a matter which concerns the Constitutional Convention, is for the Convention to decide. Some action should be taken by some body of men, either the present Convention or Legislature, to remove this stigma from'our State, which enjoys such an enviable reputation for its educational advantages. In regard to this matter I have no recommendation to make, but would simply call the attention of the Convention to the facts stated. The other caase for the absence of so many from our schools, is the uttter indifference of parents in respect to the education of their children. It may be a serious question to determine what to do to secure the attend ance of these children upon the schools. If a law requiring that all the children between certain ages shall be sent to school, a given portion of each year, and sent regularly, could be sustained by the people, the case would be met. Such a law should be sustained. Men of wealth are taxed \heavily to support the schools, although they have no children to send to them. This tax is regarded as just, and no one refuses to pay it, because the State is benefited by the education of these children. Numbers of the children of the poor would be deprived of education were it not for this tax. The State is made stronger, and the life and property of the citizens safer, in con sequence of the universal education of the people. Each man's property is made more valuable by it, hence the system of taxation to support our schools is acknowledged to be just. But if the children for whom the schools are created and sustained do not at tend them, then no equivalent of any kind is returned to the one taxed for what is taken trom him. If, therefore, the right of tax is granted, (and who doubts it?) is there not an equal right to require the regular attendance upon the schools, of those for whom the tax is raised? I do not, however, propose to discuss the subject, but desire merely to present to the Convention the entire matter, and recommend that some action be had in referenceto it. There is one thing — more that I will bring to the notice of the Convention, and that is the system of county superintendence. This system has Just been introduced in this State, and has had no time as yet to show its advantages. It has, however, been in operation for years in other States, and the results have been such as to fully settle the question of the value and importance of the system. I would, therefore, recommend that the office of county superintendent of schools be fixed in the Constitution as one of the county offices. Very respectfully submitted. O. HOSFORD, Supt. Public Instruction. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. MUSSEY. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole,onthe general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. PRINGLE in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article. entitled "Legislative Department." QUALIFICATIONS OF MIEMBERS OF THE LEG ISLATURE. The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose yesterday it had under consideration section six of this article, which had been amended to read as follows: "No person holding any elective State office, except that of regent of the Univer sity, or member of the board of education, and no person holding the office of probate judge, county-clerk, register of deeds, county treasurer, sheriff, county superintendent of common schools, prosecuting attorney, or any office to which he was appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent ot the Senate, shall be allowed to take or hold a seat in either House of the Legislature." Mr. MILLER. I move to strike out this section, simply because it seems to me that it is entirely useless. We learned from the discussion yesterday, that the meaning of the section is, that the officers enumerated in it, shall not while holding those offices become members of the Legislature. Now, if you will look at the class of officers ennumerated, you will find that the most of them receive their nominations and are elected at the time that mem bers of the Legislature are nominated and elected. Certainly there would be an absurdity in a person running on the same ticket for two offices, which would never be permotted in the State of Michigan. In the older counties of the State the offices enumerated here are worth to a person far more than the office of representative in the Leg islature of tshe State of Michigan with biennial sessions. It is not to be sup posed for a moment that an individual would decline the more lucrative office for one of less value. Such being the 32 COSTITUTIOAL OOVETIO. Thursday, fact, I can see no use of this section in the Constitution. I have one other objection to it, which is this: in the northern part of the State the counties are sparsely settled. The superintendent of common schools will be able to discharge his duties in a very short time, and then would be at liberty if elected, to. go to the Legislature. I think that certainly that officer at least, after having got through his business in the county, should have the privilege of coming here, and spending the winter in the Legislature, under the humanizing influences of Lansing. [Laughter.] And for this reason I move to strike out this entire section.:As we have given the members of the Legislature the privilege of taking any other office to which they may be chosen by the6Legislature, we should give to the officers named in this section, at least the privilege of taking some other office should the people insist upon it. I want have the rule made to apply equally to all parties. Mr. GIDDINGS. I am feeling a little indisposed this morning; I am a little out of health. I should not have said one word upon this subject, except for the motion to strike out this section. I intended at some time, if the opportunity offered, to make some remarks upon the propriety of striking out this section. As this now seems to be a fitting time, I desire, with the consent of the Convention, to say a few words. Perhaps I have already said enough, but I have not spoken particularly upon this precise question. I hope, therefore, the Convention will bear with me. During a few moments this morning I have made some little examination in reference to this subject of the Constitutions of other States; not having examined those Constitutions before with particular reference to this question. It seemed to me to be so unnecessary to incorporate such a provision as this in our Constitution, that I have been looking for a reason why such a clause should ever be put in any constitution. I have examined the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island. I find that that little State existed for nearly two hundred years under a charter, without any such rule at all. I find that after having lived under that charter for that length of time, with all their experience, they did not in 1842, when they formed a Constitution for the State, incorporate into that Constitution any such provision as we have proposed here. I find this provision in their Constitution, in article nine, entitled "Of qualifications for office." SECTION 6. No person holding any office under the government of the;1United States, or of any other State or country, shall act as a general officer, or as a member of the general assembly, unless at the time of taking his engagement, he shall have resigned his office under such government; and if any general officer, Senator, Representative or Judge, shall, after his election and engagement, accept any appointment under any other government, his office-under this shall be immediately vacated; but this restriction shall not apply to any person appointed to take depositions or acknowledgments of deeds, or other legal instruments, by the authority of any other State or country. Upon examining the constitution of the State of Connecticut, I find this provision in article X, entitled "general provisions." SECTION 4. NO judge of the supreme court, or of the supreme court of errors; no member of Congress; no person holding any office under the authortiy of the United States; no person holding the office of treasurer, secretary or comptroller; no sheriff or sheriff's deputy, shall be a member of the general assembly. Why the office of sheriff should have been included in this provision, I am unable to say, unless it was on the ground of incompatibility. I do not see iwhy the deputy could not exercise the duties of the office during the absence of the sheriff; and why the sheriff should not be permitted to come to the Legislature if the people saw fit to send him there. in the Constitution of New York I find this provision in article three: SECTION 7. No member of the Legislature shall receive any civil appointment within this State, or to the Senate of the United States, from the Governor, the Governor and Senate, or from the Legislature, during the term for which he shall have been elected; and all such appointments, and all votes given for any such member, for any such office or appointment shall be void. That provision does not relate at all to any office to be filled by an election of the people. I find, in the same article, also the following provision: SECTION 8. NO person being a member of Congress, or holding any judicial or military office under the United States, shall hold a seat in the Legislature. And if any person shall, after his election as a member of the Legislature, be elected to Congress, or appointed to any office, civil or military, under the government of the United States, his acceptance thereof shall vacate his seat. I will refer to four or five other States, and show the view taken by them. I admit that in some of the States substantially the rule proposed here has prevailed; but I do not think it is a general rule among the States. In the Constitution of New Jersey is the following provision: SEcTION 1. No member of the Senate and general assembly shall, during the time for which he was elected, be nominated or appointed by the Governor, or by the Legislature in joint meeting, to any civil office under the authority of this State, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, during such time." That, I think, is the only provision on this subject in that Constitution; at all events, it is the only one I have been able to find. In the Constitution of the State of Maryland I find the following provisions: SECTION 9. No member of Congress or person holding any civil or military office under the United States, shall be eligible as a Senator or delegate; and if any person shall, after his election as a Senator or delegate, be elected to Congress, or be appointed to any office, civil or military,' under the government of the United States, his acceptance thereof shall vacate his seat. SECTION 16. NO Senator or delegate, after qualifying as such, notwithstanding he may thereafter resign, shall, during the whole period of time for which he was elected, be eligible to any office which shall have been created, or the salary or profits of which shall have been increased, during such term, or shall, during said whole period of time, be appointed to any civil office by the executive or general assembly. In the State of Indiana this rule prevails: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the term for which he may have been elected, be eligible to any office, the election to which is vested in the general assembly; nor shall he be appointed to any civil office of profit, which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased, during such term;-but this latter provision shall not be conistrued to apply to any office elective by the peopie." That is the idea which I wish to get before this Convention. I find the same idea- in the Constitutions of some of the other States.. I refer particularly to the last provision of the section, " but this latter provision shall not be construed to apply to any office elective by the people." What I endeavored to show yesterday was this: that in all' cases of elective offices, it was entirely competent for the people to determine whether they would take one of their county officers and send him to the Legislature or not. The idea of incompatibility has no force. The sheriff has a deputy; the county clerk has a deputy; the register of deeds has a deputy, who in'many cases is a young lady, entirely competent to record deeds, and perform duties of that kind. All these officers have deputies, who can perform the duties of their offices just as well as their principals. And if the people desire to send these officers to the Legislature, to perform duties there in relation to subjects with which they are perhaps more conversant than anybody else, why should not the people be allowed to do so? The reason dwindles down to a very small point, when it is insisted that simply the incompatibility of the two offices should exclude these officers from the legislative hall. The only officer who has dutiesto perform about the time the Legislature meets, is the collector of taxes; and I hope the Convention will not point out so insignificant an officer as the collector of taxes in a town, and say that he shall not be allowed to hold a seat in the Legislature. The people can take A CONSTITUTION-A T., CONVENTION. 32 Thursday, Jul 11 87 EAE ADPOED^. care of that matter for themselves. In a new county it may often occur that a man holding the office of county clerk, who is called upon only now and then to'perform some duty, may be the very man the people desire to send here, for he may be better acquainted with the wants of that new county than any other man in it. Now, shall he be excluded on the ground that his duties as county clerk demand his immediate attention all the time? Is that the fact? Is it- a fact, that even in the old counties the presence of these cpunty officers is necessary all the time, when they have deputies and clerks who can in nine cases out of ten execute the duties of the offices as well as they themselves? It seems to me that this is a far-fetched reason; in my judgment it is not a very satisfactory one. I may be wrong; but to me the argument has not the force that it seems to have with other gentlemen. I find that other States are able to get along without excluding this portion of their population from their legislative halls. I hope this Convention will not adopt this section. Should it be adopt. ed it would, taking the State all over, exclude a great many of our best men from holding seats in the Legislature The only reason that has yet been presented to the Convention for this exclusion is, that the duties of these officers, are incompatible with the duties to be performed in the House of Rep-: resentatives and in the Senate of the State Legislature. I cannot so understand it; I cannot perceive what was the original cause for such a provision as this. It evidently grew out of some fear that some of these officers might exercise some power in securing fees and-emoluments. It was suggested to me yesterday that some county clerk, if allowed to come to the Legislature, might get his fees as county clerk increased., I cannot see that. I think he would come here subject to the same disadvantages which I suggested yesteday would surround a regent of the University, should he come to-the Legislature. He would have to fight all the Legislature upon any such point, because he would be supposed to have come here for that very purpose. I hope some member of-this committee will give some substantial reason, aside from this argument of incompatibility. If no other reason can be given, I would ask if that is a sufficient and satisfactory reason for excluding so large a number of persons from seats in the Legislature, if the people desire to send them here? For my part, I think not. Mr. LOVETLL. I do not propose to re-state the argument I made yes Vol. 2-No. 5. terday on this subject. There was, bhowever, one thought which I had intended to give utterance,to at that time. As the question has come up again, I will state it now. It is this: the officers mentioned in this section, and concerning whom it is proposed to say that they shall not attempt to discharge the duties of legislators for the State of Michigan, while at the same time they are under obligation to discharge other duties which are deemed incompatible with the duties of legislators,-those officers are, in a majority of cases, chosen to the offices which they hold by diffent constituencies from those they would represent in the Legislature. The argument is often made here, let the people have their own way, let them take care of: their own affairs. And we are asked the question, cannot the people be trusted? Now, in order not to bp considered invidious, I will go- to my own county for an illustration of this subject. I shall then, perhaps, tread upon the toes of no gentleman here. Our county has three representative districts, and would hereafter be entitled to send three representatives to the lower house of the Legislature, if the present apportionment should be continued. Our judge of probate, chosen, of course, like every other judge of probate, for four years, and therefore not elected at every -biennial election, has a constituency consisting of the whole county, embracing the three representative districts. Now, I ask, with what propriety can it be said that the people of one of these districts shall take that judge away from the discharge of the duties which he has agreed to perform for all three of the districts, and send him here to discharge the duty of a representative for one district alone? I may make the same argument in regard to all our judges; for when we come to consider the article-on the judicial department, we shall find that the same persons, or some of them, who now ask that this restriction shall not be continued in the Constitution, will say that our judges are just the men who ought to come to the Legislature. Now, no one will question that they are a class of men most desirable to have in the Legislature; I mean that they possess that kind of talent which would be of great advantage in the Legislature. And gentlemen will say that we must not exclude the judges from the Legislature, because the people should: be allowed to send just whom they please. Now, I ask, if in our circuit, after our judge has been chosen by us to serve the whole circuit in a particular capacity, it -is fair and just to allow the single representative district in which he may happen to reside, to im pose upon him a duty in the Legislature in their behalf, which shall require him perhaps to neglect, for the time at least, his official duties in regard to the whole circuit? Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. LOVELL. Certainly. Mr. GIDDINGS. Is there any such proposition before the Convention as that which the gentleman now makes, in reference to circuit judges? Mr. LOVELL. I speak of it as illustrative of the principle advocated here by some gentlemen. If you may take a judge of probate, who owes a duty to a large constituency, and say that a single representative constituency may take him to serve them in the Legislature, then you may carry the principle further, and apply it to circuit judges; and you can carry it still further and apply it to any State officer. Now, would it be proper that the auditor general for the State of Michigan, for instance, having been elected by a constituency that comprises the whole State, shall be allowedto be chosen by any representative or senatorial district, to represent their special interests in the Legislature, when his legislative duties would be imcopatible with his duties to the whole State? Now, there is certainly no dearth of talent in this State of Michigan. I am not disposed to boast at all of the State of Michigan. Perhaps I have no right to do so; I am one of her younger sons by adoption. But there is certainly no dearth of talent in. this State. The people will be served in the Legislature somehow. And as we have said virtually, by the amendment which has been made to this section, that a man may be elected to -the Legislature to serve after his term in some other office shall expire, we shall always be able to get the experience of these men who are going out of these other offices. I present this idea because I think there is force in it. It may seem to some here that the offices enumerated in this section, are not incompatible with the duties to be performed in the Legislature. if we cannot convince the Convention that holding a seat in the Legislature, and at the same time holding one-of these offices, require the discharge by the same person at the same time of duties which are incompatible, then there is no use to argue the question. There are some here, I had almost said, it were vain to attempt to convince, because it is vain to attempt to convince a man against his will, or against his interests. But I will not say so. The gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. MrLER,) has said that there is no e 0 e e sI i .i DEBATES'A WD PROCREDINGS. -33 Jul' 11 - 186,7. y ). ",,..v..-,j..' danger in allowing these officers to come to the Legislature, because most of them are elected upon the same ticket upon which members of the Legislature are elected. Not the most of them by any means; they are not nominated by the same constituencies, as I have already remarked. The superintendent of schools for the county is certainly elected upon a dif-, ferent ticket, and is elected at the spring elections. And, as was said by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr., CONGER,) yesterday afternoon, that officer, of all the officers named here, ought not to be away from his county at the season of the year when the Legislature meets. That is just the time when he can be doing the most good for the schools of the county. If gentlemen desire to bring the collectors of internal revenue, assessors, postmasters and United States officers generally, to run the Legislature of the State of Michigan, then do so. But as regards these other officers named in this section, do not allow an injury to be done to one constituency, simply in order that a person may be allowed to serve another constituency in the Legislature, unless you really think there is a dearth of talent in this State, and there cannot be found other men qualified for that purpose. Mr. WALKER. The gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. MILLER,) I understood to say, that there was no danger that a man would be a candidate on the same ticket for two offices at the same time. I, like that gentleman, have great confidence in the people, and believe that they will generally select those men whom they think best qualified for any particular office. But I can suggest to that gentleman a situation that would be rather an anomaly, and perhaps the people would not be quite satisfied with it after it was accomplished. Suppose that a man should be nominated for prosecuting attorney by one party, and the other party should take up the same man for member of the Legislature, and he should be elected to both offices. I never heard of such a case in connection with the Legislature; but in the town in which I live, only last year, the people elected the same man for supervisor and town clerk. Why should not such a thing happen in the election of members of the Legislature, and other officers, if this section should be stricken out? Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to say one word in the way of explanation. In regard to the judge of probate, the, gentlemen from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) has had a judge of probate in his eye for several days past. Now, I desire to say right here, that my impression is, that a judge of probate should be. excluded from holding a seat in the Legislature. And I have no doubt that the committee on the judiciary department will report a provision, that judicial officers, except justices of the peace, shall not be eligible to seats in the Legislature. I have,.therefore, not said a word on that subject heretofore. But it has seemed to trouble the gentleman from'Genesee so much, that I thought it better to make this explanation. Mr. MUSSEY. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. GIDDINGS. Certainly. Mr. MUTSSEY. Does the gentleman claim that if this section is stricken out, judges of the Supreme Court will not be eligible to the Legislature? Mr. GIDDINGS. I suppose that the article to be reported by the committee on the judicial department will exclude all the judges of all the courts from the legislative department. Mr. MUSSEY. But so far as this article is concerned, they would be eligible, if this section was stricken out. Mr. GIDDINGS. So far as this article is concerned, they would be eligible; but the article on the judiciary department will undoubtedly make the necessary provision in the matter. The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. MILLER to strike out the section, and upon a division, ayes 14, noes not counted, it was not agreed to. MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE PRIVILEGED FROM ARREST, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 7. Senators and Representatives shall, in all cases except treason, felony or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest. They shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the Legislature or for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session; they shall not be questioned in any other place for any speech in either House. Mr. THOMPSON. I desire to ask the chairman of the committee on the legislative department, (Mr. CONGER,) a question in regard to the effect and intention of this section. I desire to inquire if Senators, for instance, who are elected for four years, are privileged during that entire term, from arrest in all cases except those specified in this section? Mr. CONGER. The provisions of this section are the same as those in the present Constitution, and I believe in the Constitutions of other States. I do not know that I could decide judicially what the legal construction of this section would be. I think it is not altered at all from the section in the present Constitution. I suppose that it is meant to apply to the time while a man is actually acting in his capacity of Representative or Senator. I never have heard before that it meant anything else. No amendment was offered to the SESSIONS OF THE LEGISLATURe. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 8. The Legislature shall meet at the seat of government on the second Wednesday of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and on the second Wednesday of January in every second year thereafter, and at no other time or place, unless as provided in this Constitution. The time of meeting shall be at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and the time of final adjournment shall be At twelve o'clock, noon. Mr. COOLIDGE. I move to amend this section by striking out the word "second," before the words "year thereafter;" so that that portion of the section will read, " on the second Wednesday of January in every year thereafter." I do not propose to make any remarks whatever upon this motion at the present time; but I have thought it proper to test the sense of the Convention upon the question whether we should have annual or biennial sessions. - -- Mr. LAWRENCE. I rise for the purpose of stating here what I believe to be the almost universal sentiment of the people that I represent. They look for annual sessions of the Legislature; I have never heard any other opinion expressed by them. So far asam acquainted with public sentiment I believe they expect annual sessions and deem them necessary for the prosperity of the State. Mr. BURTCIH. That is the universal expression, so far as I have heard, of my constituents. They feel as though the great and growing inter ests of the State of Michigan demand annual sessions of the Legislature. I believe it is for the best interests of this State to have annual sessions. Mr. T.-G. SMITH. In addition to what has been stated by other gentlemen, I desire to say that those of my constituents whom I have heard express any opinion on the subject, expect that this Convention will provide for annual sessions. I do not know that there is anything more than expectation on their part. My own judgment is that the necessities of the State require it. I think the past experience of this State shows that we ought to have annual sessions of the Legislature. There are a great many interests in this State which would have been benefitted by more frequent sessions of the Legislature. I think that the subject of extra expense is but a mere trifle. I think that it would be better to shorten the length of the session somewhat, and have them more frequently, than it would be to have longer sessions, and have them once in 131 .. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Thursday, f it ws.cnlddb h omte two years. I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) will be adorpted. Mr. LONGYEAR. I was somewhat surprised, upon reading this section, to find that the committee on the legislative department had reported in favor of biennial sessions. From what Ihad heard from members of this Convention, and conversations I had had upon this subject with gentlemen from various parts of the State, during all the time the subject of the Constitutional Convention was under consideration, I was somewhat surprised at the report of the committee. So far as my experience and observation extend, this subject has been talked of among gentlemen in different parts of the State, with whom I have come in contact, as much as, itf not more than, any other subject that will come before this Convention. I have been frequently asked the question whether the Convention would provide for annual sessions. And in every instance, when this subject has come up in conversation, I do not remember of hearing any expression in favor of biennial sessions. I have conversed with a large number of citizens of this State, among them some very prominent gentlemen who take an interest in public affairs. I do not remember a single instance of any other. expression of opinion than in favor of annual 3sesions. It is deemed by those with whom I have conversed, (and in that opinion I fully and perfectly agree) that in a State in which such rapid pro'gress is being made in population and in wealth, and in all those things which tend to make a State great, a more frequent meeting of the Legislature is necessary, in order to provide for the changing interests of the State, and for the progress and development of the State. I supposed at the opening of this Convention that there was no questionin regard to that matter; that it was, in fact, a foregone conclusion. Therefore I was surprised when I found that the committee on the legislative department had reported in favor of biennial sessions. I hope-the amendment will be adopted. Mr. TURNER. Until I saw the report of the committee on the legislative department, I had not supposed that there would be any question in relation to the propriety of annual sessions of the Legislature. So far as I have heard any expression of opinion in relation to this question, I can say, as the gentleman from "igham, (Mr. LONGYEAI,) has said, that I have never hrard any person express himself satis fied with biennial sessions of the Leg islature. We are differently situated here in this State from what they are in New England, although there, I believe, most of the States have annual sessions of the Legislature. But here it seems to me that we need annual sessionse more than they do in the older States. This State is now increasing very rapidly in population. There is legislation which we may not have needed this year, but which we might need very much before two years more roll round. And there is another thing. There has been great complaint in regard to biennial Sessions, because of the great amount of hasty legislation. We are told that many bills are passed without mature deliberation, in consequence of the amount of work to be done by the Legislature in their biennial sessions. Another idea is, that there should be annual sessions of the Legislature, in order that the affairs of the State treasury, etc., should be properly and frequently investigated. Some think that if we had had annual sessions of the Legislature, we should not have suffered so much in some of these departments, as we have heretofore, when we had biennial sessions. For myself, and for the people I represent, I must express the hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) will prevail. I think it is the almost universal feeling of the people that we should have annual sessions. Mr. CONGER. The provision, as reported by the committee, was not the unanimous opinion of the committee. I may say, in justice to the committee, that upon the first consideration of this subject they proposed to provide for a session of the Legislature each year, instead of every two years. Upon a reconsideration of that matter, one of the members of the committee changed his position upon the subject, and then the majority were in favor of biennial sessions, and the comaittee have so reported. I am myself personally, and have been, in favor of annual sessions of the Legislature. I think the interests of this State will be promoted by having annual sessions. I shall, therefore, be very much in favor of striking out the word "second," so as to make the provision read "in every year thereafter," instead of "every second year thereafter." Mr. LUCE. I differ with the chair man of the committee on the legislative department, (Mr. CODGER,) and with the majority of the committee am in favor of biennial sessions Qf'~the Legis lature. As has been sta'ted by the chairman, the committee was first in lined to favor annual sessions; but after a full discussion and full consid eration, and full review of all the facts and circumstances pertaining thereto tha inilssin ol etsb Seveteitrss fteSae n I prhn htfuldsuso n Cosdrto,adrfetoupnts Sujc,b thscmiteo th whlt n hsCneto,wl ed thmt~ h sm eut It nwta h xrsino pno o~thpatothswhhaesoe heetodyiinfvroanulss sin.Ia!o talsrrsdta th( etea rmIga,(r LOt ER)adtepol erpe set,sol1ei ao fana sesos~ mnta l'rrsda tht Buitisadbotegete mnthttercnttetsaeifao ofanatesos u,hv ebe todbI igegetea htgo ~euti on ob copihdb anulssin1f h eilue I have not as much faith in the Legislature coming here and accomplishing some great good, as some gentlemen seem to have. I have had the honor of serving in both houses of the Legislature, and I know something about the manner of legislation. I believe we shall have just as hasty and inconsiderate legislation, if we have a,nnual sessions, as we have ever had with biennial sessions. I hope'that 35 Jul 11) 1867. . y DEBATES ANIJ PROCEEDINGS. 3~~6 COSIUTOA COVw I~' r-ay the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien (r. CooLIDGE) will not be adopted. I know that my constituents do not desire it, and I believe that is the desire of the constituents of a great many other gentlemen here. Mr, LONGSEAR. I hope that no one will consider that my location has any influence upon any suggestions of a general character that I may make in regard to the Constitution we are framing. It is very true, as the gentleman from Branch, (HMr. LycE,) has suggested, that a portion of my constituents would be interested in having annual sessions of the Legislature here in Lansing; there is no doubt about it. But I think it rather an unfair way of arguing, to throw up to a gentleman on this floor, the fact of his location as a reason against his argument. The gentleman has asked for any good reason why we sh6uld have annual sessions instead of biennial sessions. One strong reason, in addition to those which have already been given, is this; we will have about so much legislation any way, whether we have the Legislature meet once a year or once in two years; there will be just about so much legislation in either case. The question is whether you will have your legislation from time to time as it is currently needed, and have it done in two sessions, and deliberately and well digested, or whether you will wait two years and crowd it all into one short session, and thus have the crude legis lation which we have had for the last seventeen years? Who that has been a member of the Legislature I have not had that hQnor, but I have had something to do with the result of the work of those who have had-who does not know that with the best experience and talent in our Legislature-and we have had much of talent there and much of experience-who does not know that subjects of legislation are so crowded upon them, that it has been impossible to give those subjects that degree of attention, and have the work of legislation so well digested, as is desirable in the constructions of laws, especially when those laws must stand for two years without the possibillty of amendment? I say that one great and good result to be accomplished by having annual sessions, will be the greater deliberation with which legislation may be accomplished; and thefact also that it will be had at the time when it is needed. In this way we will avoid the crowding of the business of two years into one, and then into a short time of session. In this way we will avoid the crude legislation which has resulted from biennial sessions during -the last seventeen years, and which has been of great disadvantage to the public and to the State. Those who have most to do with the laws, see the most of these results; whether it be the tax collector, justice of the peace, or the lawyer, it makes no difference; the result is evident to them. It seems to me that with annual sessions, the evil to which I have referred will be very much mitigated. Mr. LOTHROP. I was once very earnestly opposed to annual sessions; I thought biennial sessions would be a very great benefit to the State of Michigan. I was at one and the sa'me time in favor of biennial sessions of the Legislature, and of limiting the length of:the session. I confess that my own experience has not confirmed the soundness of that op'minion. My judgment now is, that it is better to have annual sessions, and leave the Legislature unrestricted, as to the time they may sit, when they come together. The Legislature of the State is the body that is to ordain our laws. Whether we shall have wise legislation or not, will not depend upon the number of times they meet;- or upon the length of time they shall sit. It must depend upon the character of that body. If the character of the body shall be improved, the character 6f their legislation upon questions connected with the Legislature will be improved. At all events, whatever its character, under our system of government, it is the fount from which we must receive our legislation. Whether expensive or not, it is the price that we pay for the form of our government. We gain nothing, so far as I can see, by biennial sessions, and we gain nothing by limiting the time of the session. Indeed some of the faults of legislation, whether justly or not, are attributed to the fact that the period of the session is limited. I am told by a gentleman here that during the session of last winter, for the want of time, bills were stacked: together by the dozen, and passed by a single vote. Now, whether unshackling the Legislature will cure such abuses as that, I do not know. But the Legislature should have no excuse for such abuses, in the trammels imposed upon them. I do not believe ~that we limit the amount of legislation by having biennial sessions. The British Parliament sit every year; the Chamber of Deputies in France sit every year. Yet the bulk of our legislation in two years is larger than the bulk of legislation in th6 -British Parliament. Precisely as we'improve the character of that body will we improve the legislation of that body, and in no other way. You may impose all the restrictions you please, as to time, and to biennial sessions or annual session. But when you retain the Legislature, as the highest body for making laws in the State, you must confer upon: that body a liberty adequate to the power conferred upon them. I am in favor of having the Legislature meet every year, and of: allowing them to sit as long as they may consider necessary. If they fail to make such legislation as sh6uld be made, that is a part of the price which we pay for our form of government. I hope that the amendment will prevail;' that we will have annual sessions, and that the Legislature will be-left to sit as long as they may think proper. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I do not know that I would have been inclined to enter upon this discussion at all, but for the reference made by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LoTHROP,) to the manner in which legislation has been heretofore conducted in this State. Mr. LOTHROP.- I- only stated what I did from information which I had received; I have no personal knowledge upon the subject. I may have been misinformed; if - so, the gentleman will correct me. Mr. P. D. WARNER. The information is perhaps mainly correct; but the reason assigned for the manner in which business was done, is eron eous. I believe that it has been the practice for all legislative bodies that have convened in Michigan, after having been together for about ninety days, to be anxious to be relieved from the restraints of legislation, and permitted to return to their homes. During the last session of the Legislature, business was crowd —. ed upon the House of Representatives to such an extent as to require, I will admit, a little extra effort on the part of some of the officers of the House, in order to dispatch the business under consideration. Several bills were acted upon together; but I think it was with the full concurrence of every member of the House, that that rule was adopted. I think that the journal of our proceedings will show that the forms and requirements of the Constitution were fully met, in the passage of every bill that passed the House of Representatives. Mr. LOTHROP. Will the gentleman allow me] to ask him a question? Mr. P. D WARNER.- Certainly. Mr. LOTHROP. Do0s the gentleman suppose for a single moment, that if the fact be as I now understand him to concede, and if the journal of the House of Representatives properly stated that fact, one single one of those bills could- stand before a court, as having been constitutionally enacted? Mr. P. D. WARNER. That- ques CONSTITUTIONAL CONVFNTIO-N0 86 Thursaa,. -Y) DEBATES. AND PROCEEDINGS. tion I do not propose to determine; I leave that for others better skilled in judicial affairs. But the point to which I desire to call the attention of the gentleman from Wayne, {Mr. LOTHRoP,) is this: that from my understanding of the provisions of the present Constitution there are no limitations whatever upon the length of the sessions of the Legislature. They may convene on the first Wednesday in January, and they may continue until the two years of the term of members expire; and there is nothing in this Constitution to prevent them from drawing their per diem for the whole time. But after the expiration of the first fifty days, they cannot introduce any new matter for consideration, except: in some round-about way which is practiced sometimes. I consider there is no limitation upon the time during which the Legislature may be in session I desire to say that I am opposed to annual sessions of the Legislature for this reason: from the experience I have had in matters of - legislation, I. am led to the conclusion that we now have, and always havead, more legislation than is desirable for the interests of the people at large. Convening the Legislature in annual sessions instead of biennial sessions, will not only not obviate -the difficulty we now labor under, but will increase it, in my opinion, just to the extent that we multiply the times for the Legislature to meet. It is a complaint all over the State, so far as I am informed, that our laws are too changeable; that they are changed too often. Laws are passed at one session of the Legislature, and are amended or repealed at another session, before thepeople hardly know what are their provisions. It is proposed by this amendment that these laws shall not be permitted to stand even eighteen months, as they would now be required to stand, without an; extra session of the Legislature; but that six months after their adoption the Legislature shall again be con vened, for the purpose of amending, changing or repealing those laws. I believe that by the adoption of this amendment, we will only accumulate legislation, and increase the difficulties of which the people of Michigan are now complaining, and have been com plaining for years, without any in creasd advantage. And there is another consideration, one of dollars and cents. The inter ests which I represent are somewhat connected with this question of taxes; although I do not consider it one of great importance as relates to the vital interests of the State. But I believe this question should be taken some what into consideration, in reference to the government of our action here. If any great interests of the State are likely to suffer in consequence of a want of legislation, it is proper, and by the Constitution that we propose to adopt, it is within the province of the executive, to convene the Legislature whenever he pleases; and for the space of twenty days the members of the Legislature receive compensation for their services. Therefore, even with biennial sessions, there is no opportunity for any interests of the State to suffer from the want of suitable legislation. Therefore I am opposed to the amendment; I am opposed to authorizing the convening of the Legislature oftener than once in two years, because I believe no essential good can result from it. And more than this, I believe the people of the State of Michigan at large do not desire and do not expect it of.this Convention. I hope the amendment will not prevail. Mr. WILLARD. I desire to say that soon after our arrival here, when this subject was first talked of by members of the Convention, I was inclined to the opinion that we had better retain; biennial sessions. But upon my return home during the last recess, in conversation with some of our prominent men, reasons were presented in favor of annual sessions which have very great weight with me. I was inclined to give force to the argument which has been presented by the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WANER,) the argument of economy; and also the argument which has been presented by other gentlemen that legislation would be excessive. But there is no doubt but what a great share of our legislation at present, with biennial sessions, is taken up with retrospective acts. Our State is rapidly increasing in wealth and popu; lation. For the past few years most of our municipalities have felt themselves compelled, under the pressure of cir cumstances, to transcend their powers, and then to-wait for the meeting of the Legislature to legalize their acts. I know that last winter a large share of the time of both branches of the Legislature was taken-up with the con sideration of bills to legalize the past action of different municipalities, which would not have been needed if we had had annual sessions of-the Legislature, affording an opportunity for those miunicipalities to obtain the necessary legislation for the performance of those acts which they desired to perform. I believe,.Mr. Chairman, that our State has such diversified interests, ex tending, as it does, from between the forty-first and forty-second parallel of latitude to nearly the forty-seventh parallel, having such extensive agricultural, manufacturing and mining interests, that we demand more frequent meetings of the Legislature thanwe have had during the past seventeen years. I believe that our most enterprising men feel that our interests demand more frequent meetings of the Legislature. I do not know what the large body of the people think upon this subject; I do not know that.they have given any very special attention to it. But I know that in our section of the State the men of character, enterprise and business, are all of the opinion that we ought to have annual sessions of the Legislature. AMid although, as I have said, I was formerly of a different opinion, I have yielded to the arguments which those men among my constituents have presented to me, and shall vote in favor of annual sessions of the Legislature. Mr. WITIHEY. My judgment is entirely in accord with the opinion expressed by the majority of the gentlemen who have expressed their views upon this subject. I,have never been in favor of biennial sessions; I never have thought it-was the part of wisdom to have sessions of the Legislature only once in two years.- I am in favor of annual sessions, and for the reasons which gentlemen have expressed in this Convention. Without repeating those reasons, I will only state that I shall vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE.) Mr. THENDERSON. I have but a word or two to say; I have but very little feeling upon this subject. I think myself, that had this matter been submitted to the people of this State, without any argument to convince them that.annual sessions were necessary, and had they been left to be governed by the experience of the past, they would have furnished us with a large majority in favor of biennial sessions. This may be because a large portion of our voting population have given the matter but very little thought, except, perhaps, so far as relates to the subject of expense; that may be true. And those who would vote for annual sessions would, perhaps, be the men better calculated to judge of those matters which would exercise a controlling influence in the decision of this question. I think, however, the arguments presented by the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LuOE,) with refer ence to the inconvenience to which our people would be subjected by annual sessions-the common people, I mean, for I do not have reference to lawyers and others, whose attention is called to the different acts of the Legislature because of their profession-I think the arguaent of the gentleman from I I i 37 'Tuly: 11, 1867. ~ v O Branch and other gentlemen is entitled to great weight. I think the common people would remain in ignorance of our laws to a much greater extent than now, if we had annual sessions. One word in reference to the argument of my colleague, (Mr. WrTr,iARD,) as to the necessity of frequent meetings of the Legislature, in order to pass laws legalizing the acts of different municipalities. I thlinlr that the reason for so much legislation of that kind during the session of last winter, and the session prior to that, and perhaps for all the sessions sinde 1861, was because of the revolution through which this country has just passed, and the necessities under whichli our municipalities have acted in reference to raising men and money for the benefit of the government, and which have been such as to make it necessary for them to take action which, under ordinary circumstances, would not have been required, and I hope will not be hereafter required. It is true that in the past the development of the material resources of this State have been retarded for want of legislation. But that has not been, however, in my opinion,,; because we have not been able to convene our Legislature every year, but because the time has been limited for the introduction of bills each session. And there has been another very prominent reason, which has given rise to the necessity for this Convention to convene here, and that is the necessity for amending the Constitution. I hope that reason will govern usin our future action more than it has in the past. One great difficulty has been what may be styled the great amount of legislation in the Constitution. That has been the difficulty; those restrictions have been found to prevent the legislation necessary in order to secure the uninterrupted development of our material resources. Those gentlemen who have been here in the Legislature know that every day, and upon almost every bill, some member would rise in his seat and say that the bill under consideration was in conflict with some provision of the Constitution. This difficulty, together with the fact that the time has been limited for the introduction of bills, I apprehend, has, been the great stumbling block in the way of proper legislation. This is a matter to which I have not given much thought, because there was no call for it. If there had been any call for a change of our practice in this respect, I would have heard something of it from my constituents. Had they felt that they labored under any difficulty in regard to this matter, they would have made that fact known. It is true that I have not, as my colleague has, on my return home, consulted my constituents in reference to this ques tion. But if there had been any great anxiety on their part in reference to this matter, I think I should have heard from them about it. I may not express their feelings and wishes, but I represent my own feelings, and do not think I do violence to what they desire, in opposing annual sessions. At least they have not asked me to do differently. Mr. VAN VALIRF,NBURGH. Ihope the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) will prevail. I am decidedly in favor of annual ses.sions. I think the growing interests of our State demand it. Gentlemen on this floor, who were here in 1850, will bear me witness that I, at that time, opposed the introduction of this provision in our Constitution. I have not altered my opinion since then. I was then in favor of annual sessions; I am still in favor of annual sessions. Some gentlemen upon this floor seem to have a holy horror of legislation. I have no feeling of thatkind. I believe legislation is necessary. My colleague, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) tells us that we pass a bill at one session and repeal it at the next. Well, sir, if we pass bad laws at one session, the sooner they are repealed the better. I do not think that is any argument at all against an nual sessions. Bad laws should be re pealed; and if we pass bad laws the sooner they are repealed the better. The argument that annual sessions of the Legislature will increase the expen ses of our State, I think ought not to influence this Convention at all. I do not think it is an argument to array against the correctness of a principle, and against the justice of annual ses sions. If they are necessary we ought to have them, notwithstanding the ex pense. The expense should not deter us from annual sessions. It has been well remarked by the. gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WIL LARD,) that the diversified interests of our State, and-the growing population and wealth of our State, demand the vigilence and care of annual legislation. I say, then, I am decidedly in favor of annual sessions; and hope the amend! ment of the gentleman from Berrien will prevail. There are many reasons which have been urged upon this floor which should have weight with the commit tee of thetwhole, in deciding this ques tion. I have none of that fear of leg islation which is entertained by some members on this floor. They seem to think that we legislate too much in the Convention. Why, sir, haye so many questions arisen as to the construction of our Constitution? Is it not because we have not legislated enough upon the subject; because we have not laid the foundation broad upon which to build the superstructure thereof, so as not to permit of any misinterpretation in regard to what was meant? I think it is our duty fully to consider every subject that demands our attention, and to pass upon it coolly, dispassionately and deliberately. As my friend from Kalamazoo (Mr. GIDDINGS) said the other day,, we should make haste slowly," and deliberate fully upon all questions that come before us. I have not found that the people are fearful that too much time will be spent here in framing the Constitution, and that too much expense will be incurred. I have not found the people of Michigan so penurious that they would hurry us in this work. Many gentlemen upon this floor make daily sacrifices, by their attendance here, of their own personal interests; and all of us certainly would desire to leave here and return home as soon as may be. Some of us make nd sacrifices. As for myself, I am very much in the condition of my friiend from Sanilac, (Mr. DrMNE;) my time is as useful here as it would be elsewhere. But I am not here for the pittance I receive for my services. If my State demanded my services, I should be here although I should receive no remuneration for them, except the pleasure of serving my State. I say then let us deliberate upon this subject, and upon all others that are brought before us, coolly and dispassionately. I hope that the motion of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) will prevail, and that we will hereafter have annual sessions. Mr. BURTCH. It is a matter of some wonder to me that the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LuCE,) who has occupied seats in both Houses of the Legislature, had not made a motion that the Legislature should not meet again for twenty years; he seems to be so much opposed to the meeting of the Legislature. One of the strongest arguments that I have heard in favor of an annual session of the Legislature is the fact stated by the gentleman from Oakland (Mr. P. D. WARNER) on my right. He said that you could continue the session of the Legislature for two years by abjuring the moral obligation of an oath to support the Constitution. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I did not say that. Mr. BURTCH. The gentleman did not use that language, but that was the idea. HMr. MORTON. I am in favor of r ~ ~~~~~~~. I ThurKd' I .1yi 38 CONSTITU.TION AT, CONVENTION. Jul 11 187 J)BTSAD>~CE)K~3 annual sessions, but not of the unlimited time which the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) seems to favor. I think annual sessions are necessary in a growing State like ours. I think if we were to have annual sessions, and limit the time for the introduction of business to thirty or forty days, we would give the Legislature full time to consider and mature all bills which might come before them. If we have annual sessions, we should not have such frequent changes of the laws. They could be published almost immediately after the adjournment of the Legislature, and we would not be obliged to wait, as we now do, for nearly a year before those laws are published. I think that annual sessions limited in time, will be beneficial to the people of this State. I think they are necessary. I think we can see that from the many extra sessions that have been called; I do not remember but one that was uselessly called, and that was the last one that we had which passed the soldiers' voting law. Public opinion did not demand that law, but it was demanded by certain political necessities. We all know how that matter ended. I believe that a Legislature unnecessarily called together will always end in calamity rather than in good. Bat when we remember that our northern counties are growing counties, and are asking almost every year that the executive should call an extra session, we can see that the public Vressure is in favor of annual sessions. I do not know how my constituents feel upon this subject. I think the majority of them are rather in favor of annual sessions. But that has nothing to do with my voting here. When I think the public business requires annual sessions, I will vote for it, whether my constituents want it or not. Mr. McOLELLAND. I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien. I am not like the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON;) ] came here to represent the wishes of my constituents, and I do care what the people of my district would say to me. I apprehend that many of the arguments that have been advanced bfy the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LucE,) and other gentlemen here, are correct; I think they will be found to be correct, if you pass this amendment and have annual sessions. I have had a great deal of experience in this regard; and I do not believe that annual sessions will obviate any of the difficulties suggested by gentlemen here in favor of this amendment. Hasty legislation will take place just as much when you have annual sessions as when you have biennial sessions. Although I have not been in the Legislature for many years, yet judging from my experience when I was there, and from the experience I have since had, I believe that the great difculty in the legislation of this State, so far as time is concerned, is that the time is consumed to a considerable ex tent by matters in which the people are not at all interested. Look at your statutes now. This volume which I hold in my hand contains, as I under stand. the public laws of the* State, those laws in which the whole people of the State are interested. I am in formed that the volume that is to con tain the private acts, interesting alone to private individuals and corpora tions, will be a volume twice the size of this. Mr. P. D. WARNER. It will be a volume of thirteen hundred pages. Mr. McCLELLANI ). The gentle man says it will be a volume of thir teen hundred pages. I differ with my friend from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VAL KrENBURGH,) who was in the Convention of 1850. I think that the people of this State have had too much legisla tion; and that that legislation, from some cause or other, not from the cause which has been suggested here, has been crude, and such as never should have obtained any existence in this State. I believe, with my colleague, (Mr. LOTHirOP,) after an experience of so many years, and after, as has been alleged here, the disregard which has been paid to the obligations imposed upon members of the Legislature by the Constitution, there is no longer any propriety in retaining the restric tion upon the length of the session of the Legislature. At one time I thought there was a propriety in that restric tion; and if the Legislature had ad hered to the provisions of the Consti tution, as they were bound by their oaths to do, the restriction would have -been a salutary one. But as was E alleged yesterday in regard to the inf eligibility to office of certain officers of b this State, I say in regard to this par ticular restriction it is better for us to give way to what the gentleman from r Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) would call the incorruptibility of the Legislature, rather than their independence of all law and everything else, and not com- pel them to perjure themselves by re taining this restriction. ~ - Suppose there should be a necessity - for legislation intervening between the regular biennial sessions; has not the r Governor the power to convene the - Legislature for the purpose of passing upon everything that is contained in 1 his message? If the people of the - State desire it, or if any large portion of the people in any section of the State request anything of the kind, as a matter of course he will not hesitate a moment to convene the Legislature in extra session, for the purpose of taking into consideration' those great interests of the State of which gentle.men have spoken here. In New York they have meetings of the Legislature annually. Is there any less haste, any less crude legislation, any less corrup tion there than there is here? Not at all. So far as report goes, the same charges are made against the legisla tion there that are made against our legislation. I say to you that when the Legisla ture of the State of Michigan met annually, their action was but very little better, as a general thing, in re gard to the general interests of the State, than it is now. Some as bad laws, those that affect the people of this State as injuriously as any, were passed in the year 1840, as ever were passed subsequently. Yet the sessions of the Legislature at that time were annual. ---. 'I do not intend to extend my re marks, because I do not want to take up the time of this body. But I will make reference to an allusion made by the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGHI,) and some other gentlemen, in reference to the expense this will be to the State. This is a subject upon which I have bestowed some little attention. We are now, and have been for several years past, in a state of prosperity. We are ap parently advancing very rapidly in everything that can make us a great, a happy, and a prosperous people. But the day of reckoning may come. In ; my judgment, financial difficulties are ahead of us; it is merely a question of time when those difficulties will beset .us. Now, sir, this is not the time, as 1850 was not the time, to fix upon a great many things that should be left by the Constitution to the Legislature; for instance, such as salaries and E everything of that kiird. I said to the Convention of 1850, "You , are now laboring under a pressure; lthe people are very much involved, and the State also is involved, and taxes are , heavy. Therefore, I beseech you not to I put into the Constitution an article on salaries. Leave that matter to the - Legislature; let them regulate salaries so as to conform to the necessities of r the time, the ability of the State to pay, and the duties that are to be discharg3ed by the officers to be appointed or elected." My advice was disregarded , then; and from the indications here to-day, and the indications we have heretofore had, in all probability my advice will be disregarded now. But I say to you that you had better beware a s t 8 .8 t t t a t i t I DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS.. 'July 11, 1867. 39 I 40 CO-IUI~LC~V~I~ hr~ how you impose upon the people of this State obligations that it will be difficult for them to redeem. The item of sixty thousand or one hundred thousand dollars a year is not to be disregarded by us, when we take into consideration the burdens that have already been cast upon us by the war, which has ended so gloriously for us, and from other causes. We should study strict economy in everything, and at the same time have in view the full and just compensation of every person employed in the public service. Do not, however, permit yourselves to be actuated only by the motives that are actuating us at the present time as indivi4ual citizens,; but let us act as statesmen should, with a view to the past and a view to the future also. Mr. MUSSEY. I can say with the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHnoP,) that I formerly entertained different views in regard to this matter from what I do at the present time. At the time the Constitution of 1850 was adopted, I conceived it to be an error of that instrument that we were to have only biennial sessions. I must say that my experience has convinced me that that was a wise provision. The provision limiting the session' to forty days I then deemed, as I now deem it, an unwise provision. I thinl that a great many errors that have arisen in our legislation have arisen from the fact that the session was limited, and not because the Legislature did not convene oftener. It will be recollected that the session was limited to forty. days, until the session of 1861. Necessarily much legislation was done hastily during the time that provision remained in force. At the time the amendment of the Constitution was proposed by the Legislature, it was a question whether we should remove the restriction as to the length of the session, or change the Constitut[ion so as to provide for annual sessions. The Legislature deemed that it would be better to remove the restriction, so as to have unlimited biennial sessions and not to have annual sessions. The limit in regard to the introduction of bills was still retained; and was made to extend to fifty days, which I think is an unwise provision. The gentleman from Ingham (Mr. LONGYRAR) tells us that we must and will have about so much legislation anyhow, whether we have annual or biennial sessions. I apprehend, if any gentleman will examine our session laws for the last seventeen years, and look at the character of the laws there contained, he will find that that rule will not hold good. But he shakes his head, as much as to say " no." I ask him if he supposes that if the Legisla-: ture met every year, that there would not be as many applications for delay in collection of taxes? That matter takes up, in my judgment, a considerable portion of the time of the Legislature, and of the book of session laws also. Mr. LONGYEAR. I will say right here, in answer to the gentleman, that by this very article, it is proposed to take ftom the Legislature that power, and to confer it, I suppose, upon the board of supervisors. I suppose that question will be settled by this Constitution. Mr. MUSSEY. That does not apply to the past; laws may have a retroactive effect, but the Constitution does not. I say that the experience of the past shows that much of the time of our Legislature has:been occupied by local legislation, and legislation required for the extension of the time for the collection of taxes, and this has increased the volume of the session laws very much. Take for instance, the session laws of 1859, which is, I think, the largest one we have, or ever had, or ever ought to have. By examining that volume, it will be found that very much of it is taken up with local laws, and laws for the extension of time for the collection of taxes. Now, it may be said that.local laws are as necessary as other laws. But this is a remarkable fact in that connection; that the parts of the State which ask the most legislation, ask it very frequently. There were local laws in 1859, which the same parties who obtained their passage, asked should be changed and amended in 1861. So it has been with regard to the local laws passed in 1861, and so with the laws since that time. How was it with regard to the local laws of last winter? We have been told by the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) who was a-member of that Legislature, that the local laws passed the last session will make a volume some three or four times as large as the volume of the laws of a general character. Now, are all these local laws essential and necessary? I apprehend not. It has been the policy of this State for the last >seventeen years to adopt the system of general laws, in all cases: where they can be made applicable. Provision'~ made by general law for the organization of villages. And yet at every biennial session of the Legislature there are applications for special acts to organize certain villages. Do the people interested in these acts desire them, because they think they can obtain a better charter than under the general law? I apprehend not; it is to secure some special legislation. Some member of the Legislature desires to do something for his constituents, and therefore he applies for a charter for his village. I think the better policy is to have general laws whenever they can be made applicable; not to have so much local legislation, taking up the time of the Legislature in passing such acts, and also in passing acts for the extension of the time for the collection of taxes. I hope, as the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) says, that the provision of this article relating to the collection of taxes will be adopted. Now, to show that much of the legislation on local matters is not necessary, I will state a fact known to every one; that every alternate year the people are able to pay their taxes, and we hear no complaints from them on that score. The board of supervisors are authorized to extend the time for the collection of taxes; and yet the people in many cases see fit to applyto the Legislature for that purpose. I make thfat particular matter prominent, because- it accounts for'very much of the-time-of the Legislature that is taken up by this local legislation. I do not believe that the State suffers for the want of general legislation, neither do I believe that localities suffer for the want of local legislation, because our Legislature does not convene but once in two years. I think that once in two years is often enough; that with biennial sessions of the Legislature we will experience no inconvenience and suffer no damage. Therefore, I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) will not prevail. I regret very much that the committee on the legislative department were not unanimous on this subject, and that we have not the able services of the chairman of that committee, (Mr. CONGER,) to SUStain this portion of, their report. Mr. DANTELLS. I want to say a word or two on the economical question that we have heard so much about. I want to know what per cent. of the present State tax is required for the expenses of the Legislature. I know that my tax last year was five pler cent. on the assessed valuation of my property, and that one-sixteenth part of that was for the State. Onesixteenth part of our taxes, or about that amount, is for the expenses of the State. Mr. P. D. WAiNE;R I will state my opinion in regard to the expenses of a session of the Legislature; they are about eighty thousand dollars for a session of ninety days. Mr. DANIELLS. That does not answer my question, unless the gentleman can state the per cent. of the tax. The amount of eighty thousand dol CONSTITUTIONAL,CONVENTION. 40 Thursda'_ y July~ 1,16.DBTSADPOEDN. 41 lars for this State is about as much as a pipe of tobacco would be for me. Mr. COOLIDGE. It is about eight cents a person. Mr. DANIELLS. Yes, sir, about eight cents each for the people of this State. The argument of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) if carried to its full extent, would do away with the Legislature entirely. I suppose this State has yet a great deal of business to perform, in settling and developing the interests of the various portions of the State. I suppose that we want to call the Legislature together, as the law-making power of the State, once in a while. What would you think of a railroad company that did not have their directors meet more than once in two or five years? Is there a railroad anywhere in active business, which does not call its directors together more than once in two years? Do you think that they would raise the economic question, and say that it was too expensive to call tihe directors together? So far as the economy of the thing is concerned, I do not know but my friend from Oakland, (tMr. P. D. WARNER,) thinks that in that word the people will hear what they will conceive to be the growl of the watch-dog of the treasury. But to me it sounds, as I think it will sound to the people, more like the bray of some very different annimal. [Laughter.] The gentleman from Oakland has very curious ideas of economy. A1thoigh he has been a member of the Legislature, and a Speaker of the House of Representatives, if he wants me to follow him he must not get up here and tell me that bills have been pitched through the Legislature in mass, and then the journal falsified in order to make the action of the Legislature appear legal and constitutional. I do not think that is a very good exhibition. Mr. FERRIS. I call the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) to order. With all due respect to him, I think he is becoming personal. Mr. DANIELLS. I mean the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER.) Mr. P. D. WARNER. I desire to state for the information of the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) that to my knowledge no bills were passed in that manner. I think every bill that passed through the Legislature was voted upon. Mr. DANIELLS. Then I misun~derstood the gentleman. I understood him in his explanation, or in his remarks, to say that they- were passed uipon in mass; and that he believed if they had been passed separately they Vol. 2 —-No. 6. would have had the almost unanimous support of the Legislature. Now, for fear that he may mislead this committee on the matter of economy, I want to read a resolution which he introduced here some time since, and which I find on page 321 of the debates; it was an amendment to a proposition which I offered. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must proceed in order and confine his discussion to the question under consideration. The committee cannot allow anything personal. Mir. DANIELLS. The question I suppose is on the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE.) Mr. P. D. WARNER. I hope the gentleman will be permitted to proceed. Mr. DANIELLS. The gentleman from Oakland, argued that we should have biennial sessions. I think we ought to have annual sessions. Now I want to show what is the consistency of the gentleman from Oakland in that regard; but if the Chair rules that this is out of order I will waive it. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not rule the gentleman out of order if he is proceeding to discuss the ques tion before-the committee. Bat the gentleman knows that there is an argu ment which is termed "argumentum ad hominem." Mr.- DANIELLS. I am a member of the committee on phraseology, but I must confess that I do not under stand Latin. [Great laughter.] I therefore will take my seat. Mr. SHEARER. I will say a very few words on this subject. I will say in the outset that I am in favor of an nual sessions. I have become in favor of them from the history of the past. When we refer back to the history of the past, we find that in 1842, the cost of the session was $15,000; in 1843, $20,000; and in 1844 it was some $40, 000. Since 1850 we have had biennial sessions. It appears that there has been no tendency to curtail the expen ditures or lessen the enactment of the laws. I am more convinced in my opinion since it was stated by my friend from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER;) that the laws of last winter, will make some thirteen hundred pages; the probability is that if we had had an nual sessions they would not have made more than three or four hundred pages. Therefore, if we go on and adopt the principle laid down in this section, of biennial sessions, I see no * probability that there will be any curL tailment of the expenditures, or any lessening of- the laws that will be enI acted. So far as that is concerned, I f -believe we will have no more laws enr. acted in annual sessions, no more in fractions made upon the statute laws of the State, than will be the case if we have biennial sessions. Furthermore, I look upon this matter in another light. I think it is highly necessary for the people to get together to elect their members of the Legislature, and enact their laws annually; because by so doing we will continually arouse the masses of the people to the importance of the laws that are being enacted. When they have to wait two years for the enactment of laws, the people become dull, and for the want of a proper knowledge of the laws which should be passed, they become careless about those laws. Hence the difficulties which originated at the last session, of which the gentleman from Oakland spoke, (Mr. P. D. WARNER.) A portion of the thirteen hundred pages of laws which were passed at the last session of the Legislature, interefere with the statutory laws and compiled laws which were good enough before.; — ... I am not advocating annual sessions for the sake of making more laws, or more infractions upon the statutory laws of the State. It is very well known by every person with whom I have conversed, that I have always been averse to making unnecessary changes in the laws. Instability in the laws is a curse, not only to the legs element of the State, but also to the people at large. The better, the more comprehensive and just the laws are, the more stable they are, the better it is for the people, for the judges of our courts, and for all concerned in administering the laws for the benefit of the people. I believe that biennial sessions and restrictions upon the length of the session never will accomplish this great end of passing just and equal laws. We have evidence enough from the past to- convince us that such will aot be the case. We have no evidence that biennial'sessions for the last seventeen years have given the people all the advantages which are claimed for them. If we had any evidence that this practice has given us any remarkable improvement in the character of our laws, then we might continue the biennial sessions. But I believe that before we had biennial sessions, our laws were fully equal to those we have had since, and did not contain half the infractions upon the just laws which were in existence before. Furthermore, calling the people together annually will lead them to look to the interests of the State, and to its financial condition, in order to see that these things are right. Since we have had biennial sessions we have lost vast amounts of money, in consequence of . not having the attention of the people t i DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 41 . July - 11 1 1867. 4~~9 COSIUTOA COY-I~ hrdy called to the way in which affairs were administered. I think the cost of the sessions of the Legislature is very trifling, in comparison with the benefit they will be to the State. Let the Legislature be unrestricted in these matters, and they will work better. I hold that biennial sessions were a restriction, as much as the length of, the session. Two years is a restriction upon the interests of the State, as much as forty days or ninety days, or any other restriction. Let the sessions of the Legisiature be annual; let the people come together through their representatives every year, and let the result of their action be scattered broadcast over the State, so that the people will be posted in regard to the laws they are to live under. Not only so, but the people I have conversed with since last winter are very much in afavor of annual sessions. They say these biennial sessions make no improvement in the laws of the State. And we have evidence from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, that there is no improvement in the legislation; that there was an enormous amount of matter collected together in the laws of last winter. — I have talked with people in different portions of the State since last fall, and the sound practical men, the farmers, the mechanics and lawyers, and judges all say that annual sessions are better for the interests of this-young and growing State than biennial sessions. I have not heard a man speak for the last year in favor of biennial sessions. So far as my acquaintance extends, and I have traveled several hundred miles in this State, and talked with some very sensible men,- eery man is in favor of annual sessions of thie Legislature. I am loth sometimes to disagree with some of my friends, Republicans, Whigs and Democrats; but I stand here to carry out the will of my small constituency, and of my friends'who have spoken to me in relation to this subject. I cannot help disagreeing with others; disagreement is no-crime. If I disagree with a gentleman it proves nothing more nor less than-that he disagrees with me. It is no crime. I think in this Constitutional Convention we have a right to disagree. I am always happy to hear men arise and express different sentiments upon various subjects. I may digress from the rules; I hope not; I hope to keep within the rules of this Convention; I hope I am speaking to the question now, when I say that I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. CooiDse.) I think it is called for universally by the people of this State. Though there may be some objections to it, I am very favorable to the opinion expressed by my friend from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH.) I think he did justice to the subject. His argu-: ment is founded in wisdom; I corroborate his ideas perfectly. I am, with other gentlemen who have spoken, in favor of annual sessions. I hope that so far as this amendment is concerned it will pass. I hope the gentlemen of this Convention will vote for the amendment. So far as the financial question is concerned, I believe it will cost as much for unlimited, or even limited biennial sessions, taking everything into consideration, as it will for annual sessions. The great point is to select men of sense and wisdom, who are willing to stay here just so long as-they can do some good and then go home. If such men are selected for the Legislature, regardless of politics, their principal object will be to pass good laws, and we shall have good and just legislation. If we have the reverse, they will do evil, just as much in biennial sessions as in annual sessions. If we have men here who do not follow up the principles of justice, we cannot correct them by annual sessions, or by biennial sessions, or by limiting their time. I think it is the most simple thing in the world to arrange this matter. We send men here to legislate upon the most important interests of the State. I think it is wrong that they should be limited to a certain number of days, or that they should be limited to meet only once in two years. I believe that annual sessions have been the practice mostly throughout the -UJnited States. I am in favor of annual sessions in this State, and for this reason: In the far north of this State they require annual sessions to carry out the great interests involved there. In the older portions of this State we certainly have an interest in having annual sessions, in having the Legislature meet every year, and letting the members send back their doings to the people. It keeps the people alive; it keeps them awake to what is going on in this State. I do not wish to take up any more time on this question, but I hope this amendment will prevail. iMr. SHELDON. I do not wish to trespass upon the patience of this Convention. I think I do not trouble themxvery often. I do not think there is any great danger of the people of Michigan getting asleep; or, if they do get asleep, they will not sleep long, because the tax collector will wake them up. It may be a very fine thing, and, for ought I know, it may be a very good thing, to have annual sessions of the Legislature. I have never had any experience in legislative bodies. I have had some little experience in handling over the statutes, and I find a great many of them. Most every little justice in the State has a large amount of the Sessions Laws to examine. The laws which are operating upon us are scattered through these various volumes. I think the great trouble with us is that we have too much legislation. Less legislation, and more consideration bestowed on what we have, would be far better. Therefore, I hope that this amendment to strike out every second year will not prevail; or, if it does, I hope that another amendment will be adopted to make it every fourth year, insteadcof every second year. Mr. COOLIDGE. When I offered this amendment I did not know what would be the views of this committee of the whole. But I thought it proper that this committee should have an opportunity to give an -expression of its opinion upon this subject. The question of annual sessions of the Legislature has been agitated in this State, to what extent I do not know. For myself I can say that those with whom I have conversed have been in favor of annual sessions of the Legislature, and expect that such will be the action of this Convention. The subject is certainly of that importance which should secure careful consideration. The change is not one of a trifling character. I have listened with very great interest to the remarks of gentlemen upon this subject. By some it is said that the diversified and ever changing interests of this State demand that the Legislature who are entrusted with the oversight of these interests more than any other persons, should be called together for the purpose of examining the necessities and exigencies of the State oftener than once in two years. To my mind that is an argument entitled to much weight. It commends itself to every business man in this body. We would suppose that the Legislature having the custody and control of the interests of this State, as they have and must have, ought to be called together at least once a year. Then, again, it is said that if the Legislature are called together once a year, there will be less liability to loose, frivolous and erroneous legislation. I take it that that argument has great weight also. I think so from the remarks of a gentleman whose experience in this matter is not limited-I mean the gentleman from Oakland, (Mir. P. D. WARNER,) who says that after the Legislature has been in session forty, or fifty, or sixty days, there is an anxiety to leave here and attend to 42 CONSTITUTIONAL - CONVENTIO-N - Thursday, t DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS.. their interests at home. If the Legislature is composed of such men as I think it ever ought to be, and I hope ever will be-men of business, of thought, of experience-men whose interests at home do more or less demand their attention, then certainly the very result which the gentleman has stated will always follow. There is no worse legislation in the world than that which is made by impatient men, wishing to be away from the hall of legislation. And I should expect precisely those results would follow, which have followed in this State; I should expect just such legislation as we have had. It is said furthermore, that when legislation is hurried the amount of it will be much greater. That is true, and every man knows it. Just in proportion as your legislators are hurried and impatient, just in proportion will your volumes of laws be voluminous; everybody knows that. I can easily see that exigencies may arise, that they do arise as a matter of fact, when annual sessions of the Legislature are demanded; exigencies which could not have been foreseen. Take, for instance, the action of the Legislature last winter. I refer to it simply as an illustration, nothing more. I have nothing to say against that Legislature at all; I have no more fault to find with that than with other Legislatures. It has been said here that the national banks of this State, having capital mostly in United States securities, to the amount, I think, of about $4,800,000, were very much interested in the legislation of last winter. By the act of Congress of 1864, the shares of the stockholders of those banks are subjected to State taxation, to an extent not exceeding that imposed upon other banks andaoneyed institutions. The Legislature of last winter attempted to pass a statute adapted to the act of Congress, of June, 1864, They made a mistake; and every law yer and every judge in the State, I suppose, knows that act to be uncon stitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States have passed upon that question, and have decided it. Now if we had annual sessions of the Legislature, the Legislature which would meet here next winter would correct that mistake. In that single instance, provided these banks do not pay their tax voluntarily, there would be saved to the State over forty-eight thousand dollars. - Mr. MoCLELLAND. Will the gen tleman permit me to interrupt him a moment? Mr. COOLIDGE. Certainly., Mr. MCCLELLAND. Cannot th~ Governor call an extra session of the Legislature?:. Mr. COOLIDGE. I admit all that. Mr. P. D. WARNER. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt himn? Mr. COOLIDGE. Certainly. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I think in relation tQ this subject of taxing the national banks, the Legislature sought to comply with the provision of the United States-statute; but that was opposed by those who were interested in the national banks. It was finally suggested by them that they would pay the specific tax levied upon them, although it was levied without authority of law, if the Legislature would not levy upon them the tax which by the United States law they were authorized to levy. Mfr. COOLIDGE. What is the meaning of that? I do not understand it. Here was an act of Congress requiring certain things to be done. The Legislature'had the right to Sake provision for a tax to be levied upon these banks. -They attempted to do so, and made a blunder. I do not find any fault with them for that. Yet my friend from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARLE,) says that those men holding the capital in the banks came to the State and said: "You need not be very particular about the laws you pass, for we will voluntarily pay the money." Mr. P. D. WARNER. I did not make the explanation in justification of the action of the Legislature, but to say that the members acted understandingly. Mr. COOLIDGE. They did not act understandingly; if they had so acted they would have passed laws that were correct. Furthermore, without casting the least blame upon the Legislature, I will say that this was done in the hurry of the session, when they wished to get home. If they had had an opportunity to look over the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which had already been published, they would have found what errors they had fallen into. In reply to my friend from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) I admit that the Governor has power to summon the Legislature together whenever he pleases. But I would a great deal rather provide in the organic law of the State that the Legislature shall assemble year after year, as a require ment of the Constitution, than leave it to the judgment of a single man, as frail and human as you and I are. If he is a good man, he will be loth to exercise that power on account of the expense which it will be to the State. If he is not a good man he may refuse to exercie the power when it is neces sary.. The question of the gentleman froi Wayne is an argument in favor of my amendment He admits that these exigencies do arise. I say that in such a State as this, it is nothing more than right that the Legislature of the State should be called together as often as once a year. But, says the gentleman from Wayne, "this is a matter of expense." It is no more a matter of expense than it would be for the Governor to call them together. Mr. McCLELLAND. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him again? Mr. COOLIDGE. Certainly. Mr. McCLELLAND. The difference between the gentleman from Berrien and myself I can explain in a very few words. The expense of a regular session of the Legislature is fromn sixty to seventy-five thousand dollars. I do not know what was the expense of the last session; but I am told it was greater than that of any previous session. You cannot hold a general election in the State for less than sixty or seventy-five thousand dollars. That, with the expense of a session of the Legislature,will make one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Then there are the people who will be to the expense of going to and returning from the polls; say seventy-five' thousand of them; that will make at least seventyfive thousand dollars more. Thus the expense will be not less than two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. An extra session called by the Governor, would be a short one if limited as it is now, to twenty days; and it could not cost by any possibility more than twenty or thirty thousand dollars. So the difference is between twenty thou sand or thirty thosand dollars, and two hundred thousand or two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars Mr. COOLIDGE. I will not under take to compute how much it will cost a voter to go to and return from the polls, and how much his time is worth. I do not think that is a matter to be taken into the calculation at all, and I will not do it. Nor am I satisfied at all that this is a matter of much econ omy. I think facts have been adduced here to show that this question of econony does-not-amount to anything. Take the single instance.I have named; suppose the expense of a ses sion of the Legislature is seventy thou sand dollars; the single instance I have named will show that a session of the Legislature, by passing a proper law in that single case, will save the Legislature forty-eight thousand of that seventy thousand dollars. I will not pretend nor intimate that this is a solitary case. But it is one in which you can estimate the amount sawed by dollars and cents. But there are in terests'in this State that cannot be computed by dollars and cents; cases of loss to the State beeause the Legis -1- 7 -,..-.... -..-...- -.-... I -.-. 11....... 11 -'. I.,. I July 11, 1867. 43 I 4 OSIUIALONYTI. Thrdy lature was not in session. There is an economy which is very expensive. My own opinion is that there is economy to the State in having annual instead of biennial sessions. I would say further to the gentleman from Tayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) that it does not follow that, because we have annual sessions of the Legislature, therefore we must have annual elections of senators and representatatives. From my present view of the matter, I would not be in favor of that. I think that item of the expenses must be struck out of the calculation. The expense on account of elections would be no greater in the case of annual sessions than in the case of biennial sessions. But the great argument in my esti-mation is-this; if we are to have laws, let us have those which are salutary and correct. Do not let us have sessions of the Legislature in which members are so hurried that they bundle up fifteen, twenty, thirty or more bills, without thought or reflection, and then have to make an apology whenever those bills or laws are called in question. I say that that legislation is not the wisest or the most economical; but the wisest and most economical legislation is that which is correct and adapted to the wants of the State. And I say furthermore that the amount of laws will, be less where the Legislature is called together annually and given time, without being hurried and con-fused, to pass properly upon the subjects presented to them-for their con sideration. Legislation will be profuse just in proportion as it is hurried. That is true as a matter of fact, both in the history of this State and of every other State. There is an item of expense to be considered on the other sidle, in connection with the printing of books, of their distribution, and everything else. I am not tena cious in regard to this matter. I have really not given the subject as much thought as its magnitude deserves. Mr. MUSSEY. Does the gentleman really mean to say to this Convention, that the amount of forty-eight thou sand dollars, which he says would have been collected from the national banks under a proper law, is over and above what we would receive now as the law stands? Mr.; COOLIDGE. I understand that a portion of the tax has been paid voluntarily this year by the banks; a portion has not been paid. This State has no guarantee that another dollar of it will be paid by them; I do not believe that it will be; for I do not understand that banking institutions any more than other institutions, will pay except when there is a legal obligation to pay; when there is no legal obligation to pay, they will not be likely to do so. Mr. CONGER. I do not consider this amendment as one of vital'interest, although I consider it a very important one. -I rise simply to make one or two suggestions in regard to the objections which have been urged here against annual sessions. I submit to gentlemen of this committee, that if they will take any of our session laws, for the last seventeen years and reduce the actual amount of new legislation which has been passed by any Legislature to its own strict limits, it would occupy a pamphlet very little larger than a New England primer. But in the Constitution of 1850, there is this provision: "'No law shall be revised, altered or amended by reference to its title only; but the act revised, and the section or sections of the act altered or amended, shall be re-enacted and published at length." This is the source of a great portion of our laws; there is the secret of our voluminous laws. That section tells its own story in a very few words. That is what has swelled the volume of our laws so much; the provision of the Constitution requiring a re-publication of every act that is revised, of every section altered or amended, in any particular whatever. Gentlemen may look over these Session Laws and find a section which has not been altered more than one or two words-an act in which fifteen or twenty words have been changed; and yet that whole act has been re-published in our Session Laws, whenever so revised, altered, or amended. Now, the gentlemen composing the Convention of 1850 thought it was better for the interests of the people of this State, for the information of all the people throughout the State, that the laws should be republished when ever they were altered, in order that the whole law as the amendment left it should be before the people, and they not be required to turn over one volume of session laws after another in order to find out what was the law on any particular subject. 4That additional expense of publication, that additional volume of our session laws, arose from the desire to have the session laws contain the revised and amended act or section. That was all very well probably, and very desirable at that time. The people of this State have other business to do than to set down as lawyers may do and trace back the law from any amendment of it, through the revised and compiled laws, and they do not begrudge the expense of publishing large volumes of the laws, so that when they come before our justices of the peace, and our people in the rural districts, they can find out with very little trouble what the law is at the present time. Now, what is the objection to this re-publication? Is it the expense? If that is so, then why not file all the laws with the secretary of state, and let the people find out what they can about them? It is not true that there has been unnecessary legislation in this State. There has been no State in this Union, anywhere from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the lakes of the North to the gulf in the South, there is no State in this Union with such diversified interests demanding legislation as this new, young, giant State of ours. There is no State in this Union that has such an extensive lake or sea coast.. There is no State in this Union that has such an extensive interest. There is no State in this Union where there are so many thousands and thousands of miles of streams supplying the means of convey ing the wealth of the State, in its pine and other lumber, as in the State of Michigan. There is no State in this Union that needs such continued watch fulness, such continued care, such con tinued guardianship and zeal in the Legislature, year by year, to meet the growing wants and interests of this glorious State of ours. Talk about the expense of annual sessions of the Legislature in a State that may become the richest State in the Union; that has beneath its soil and above its soil more wealth than any other State in the Union. This State has lacked development because it did not have proper legislation; be cause we do not take a large and ex pansive view of the material interests of this State; it has lacked develop ment more from that cause than from any other cause whatever. I tell you that if there had been proper legisla tion for this State of Michigan; if there had not been lost to this State in its infancy the paltry amount of five mil lions of dollars; if it had not been for the swaddling'clothes-in which this State was placed, and which has created in the minds of the people of this State the great bug-bear of ex travagance and expenditure, and has prevented the legislation commensurate with the demands of its interests, this State would have to-day outstripped 'Illinois, which started in the race long after we did; would have outstripped Wisconsin, which but a few years ago was merely a single county of this State. And yet to-day Wisconsin is far ahead of Michigan in population and developed wealth; to-day Illinois is far ahead of Michigan. We are re, ferred to those States as having been extravagant in some matters, in their railroads and in their other public in 44 CONS'fITUTION.AT'i CONVENTION. Th'urxday, . t ul 11 187 DEAE A< POEDIG 45 f0 provements. And yet they loom up head and shoulders above our own State in material prosperity and material advancement. Now, I ask gentlemen of this committee, to consider that the mere fact that the five million loan in the early history of this State was not all received, and what was received happened to be squandered-that fact and that alone in its influence upon the fears and prejudices of the good people of Michigan, has retarded its growth, stopped its advancement, and left it a sec ond or a third rate State among the western States; when from its position, its wealth, its material resources, and the intelligence and activity of its in habitants, it should have stood first and foremost among all these western States. Yet it does not. It is hardly known in the old world as a place to which emigrants should come. I can stand on the shores of St. Clair river any day during the season of naviga tion, and I can see vessels loaded with emigrants passing by to Minnesota, Il linois and Wisconsin. I can see the docks of the Grand Trunk depot filled with emigrants, waiting for propellers to take them away from Michigan, and carry them a thousand miles around its shores, in order that they may get to another State. Why? Not be cause other States suit the emigrants better; not because there are more desirable locations in Minnesota, Illi nois and Wisconsin than in our State; not because the climate and the soil are more congenial to those Norwegians or Germans coming to-the west; but be cause there is nobody in the State of Michigan who cares whether they come here or not; or rather because the angel stands with his drawn sword and warns the foreigner from coming here to what may be his Eden. That is the truth. These provisions which were engrafted in our Constitution, and which are scattered all through our laws, are the cause of this. There is no collected voice of our people to encour age emigration, and to promote the growth of this State. That is a sad truth; it is one that weighs upon the minds of our thinking men, when they see the prosperity of other States, and it makes them almost desirous to leave here and go where there is some life, enterprise and advancement in the in dustrial interests of the State; where the whole object of the people does not seem to be to confine by constitutional provisions and laws all the interests of the State within such a narrow com pass that they cannot be developed, and that nobody can enjoy them. That was the fault of all former Conventions, and it is the fault of this Convention; it has been the fault of former Legislatures, and it will be the fault of future Legislatures. I think that years will have to pass before the people of Michigan awake to a realizing sense of the importance of their State, and of the necessity of nourishing, cultivating and fostering its interests, and of encouraging immigration to come within its borders. Now, this one single consideration, the necessity of encouraging from year to year the great and growing interests of the State, of giving more time for men to think of these things,is what in my mind calls imperatively for this action at our hands. I am not making a Fourth of July oration now. Ho These remarks are not spread-eagle remarks. The people of the United States know to-day, just as well as I know, and you know, that Michigan is not advancing as it should, because it is curbed and crippled by the provisions of its Constitution and its legislation. Who comes into the State of Michigan with his wealth to build up manufactories on our rivers? Who comes here with his capital to con centrate and develop our resources? No one; no one seeks for a place in this State to make a permanent home, un less by chance through the chinks of leg islation he sees some little opening for present personal advantage. To-day the benefits of all the industrial pur suits of the northern part of this State, the accumulations of wealth from the energy and capital employed there, do not stop in Michigan. We stand here the richest of all the States in natural resources, and yet foreigners come in here and carry off the net proceeds of those resources out of the State,' and very little of it remains here. Not one-hundredth part of our mines are owned in Michigan, not one-twentieth part of our pine lands are owned by Michigan men. The proceeds of a large portion of our pine lands and mines go into the pockets of foreign ers. I do not know but that is the case with our manufacturing interests. There is no inducement for men to come and settle here, and develop the resources of this State. Unless some thing shall be done to promote the prosperity of Michigan, all this wealth and capital flowing so freely into other States, will be kept out of the State, until we have gone to our silent homes and a wiser and better generation of men shall take our places. I make these remarks because they relate to the question of economy, which has been suggested here. I will make some other remarks.- With the experience of some three terms in the Senate, I know that at least one-fourth of the legislation of each term is for l the purpose of -providing for contin E gencies which, it is feared, may hap pen within the next two years before the Legislature shall again meet. The legislation is passed, even though it may not be all that is desired, to endeavor to bridge over, by some kind of a frail structure, the coming two years, so that business may be caried on without too much interruption for want of legislation. I submit to every gentleman who has ever been in the Legislature whether a great many arguments in favor of proposed measures for the amendment of laws, have not been that they would be needed before two years would have passed away. And, I submit also, whether another great portion of that legislation has not arisen from the fact that there has been t6o little time taken for the pur pose of preparing and digesting the laws which have been passed. They have been passed by. the Legisla ture' under a pressure of crowded business, and the supreme court, in many instances, have-been compelled to decide the laws to be unconstitu tional; and the next Legislature must struggle through in their blindness and darkness to see if they could not pass some law that would be constitutional. I have said, in my place in the Legis lature, that I thought it extremely doubtful whether any law could be passed which would not run against the Constitution somewhere.' And I doubt very much whether half the laws that have been passed are not nowun constitutional, and would be so de clared, except that the courts, thinki'g there must be some laws in the State to meet the necessities of the case, have allowed them to pass for the present. I said at the commencement of my remarks that I did not consider this proposition one of vital moment, yet I deemed it an important one. For my self I am in favor of annual sessions of the Legislature, and biennial elections. This article proposes to have senators elected for the term of four years; one half to be elected every two years. It was thought proper that there should be one branch of the body which is to prepare the laws for this State, which is to act as the guardians of the interests of this State, who should continue along with some degree of permanency, in order that its members might have some knowledge of what laws had been passed, so as to be able to avoid crude legislation, and be able to prepare our laws hereafter with more regard to their fitness and perpetuity. With annual sessions and biennial elec tions, every member who seiwes the first term, although he may be new and unused to the business of legisla tion when he is elected, will come here for the second term, with the advan f I J-uly 11, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 45 -0 I 'CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. tage of the experience and knowledge, which is to be acquired from one ses sion of the Legislature. Therefore, the second term of that two years would be the valuable term of the Legisla ture for the State of Michigan. It would be the term where there would be no really new members, but where all would have more or less experience in legislation. They would all have been here one term, during which they had passed laws, and about which when they returned home, they could con verse with their constituents, and when they came back here again, they would be better prepared than ever before to pass good laws, and to amend and alter the bad ones. The vital matter'- in my mind, the most important, is that of providing that senators shall hold their office for .the term of-four years, the half being elected every two years. With that provision, I do not consider the matter of annual sessions of quite so great importance as it would otherwise be. And yet it is myfirm belief that,annual sessions is a question of very vast im portance to the people of Michigan. For myself, although it may be that such things should not control either me or other gentlemen here, I know that my constituents expected that this Convention would provide for annual sessions. I know that on my return home occasionally during the session of this Convention, business men, old members of the Legislature, men en gaged in various branches of business, have asked me about the business of this Convention. The very first ques tion generally is, "why did not your committee reporb annual sessions?" And all through the term of this Convention, whenever I have visited my home, that has been the inquiry; they have said to me, " There must be annual sessions of the Legislature." Of course that will not control other gentlemen here; they will be governed by the voice of their own constituents, and by their own views of propriety. I speak of it as illustrating what the people of my part of the State desire and expect. In the main, with but one exception I think, the press, so far as I have observed it, without respect to party at all, have expressed a desire for annual sessions of the Legislature. But if it were not so, we are here to provide in this organic law for the future great and growing interests of the State of Michigan. We are here, I trust, to remove somewhat the incubus which has been imposed upon this State by its former Constitutions, and its former legislation. If we are not here for that purpose, if we are here merely to leave the State bound and tied up as it has been heretofore, then we far better have remained at our homes. I-had almost said we had better leave this State, and go to some other where there is more progress, more life, more desire for development and the placing of the State in its proper rank among the other States of the Union. Sir, I hope that we will have first and foremost in view, that which will be best for the future happi ness and prosperity of our State, so that when w9 are done here we can look back on our work with pride and satisfaction. Mr. W. A. SMITH. I am-in favor of the section as reported by the commit tee, especially that portion of it which provides for biennial sessions of the Legislature. I do not believe with the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoxNGER,) that all the emigration from the old country passes around us to go to Illinois, Wisconsin and other States, on account of the want of proper laws in the State of Michigan., I do not be lieve that those emigrants understand what are the laws of Michigan or Wis consin. Therefore, that cannot be the cause of their going around the State of Michigan and locating in other Western States. Look at our books of statutes since 1850. Every session of the Legislature has amended the laws passed at the former sessions. Look over the session laws of last win ter and you will find there something like two hundred amendments of our .statute laws. Are the laws of to-day any better than they were ten years ago, after all the amendments which have been made to them? I hold that they are not. The laws are such that we can live under them without all those amendments. And I believe if any person should think proper to set tle in the State of Michigan he would be able to live under these laws as well as we can. That is not the cause why Michigan is behind other States; it is not that we are not provided with sufficient legislation. The gentleman speaks of the looseness of our legislation. That, in my estimation, is not owing so much to the number of sessions that we have, as to the character of the Legislature. If we have annual sessions instead of biennial sessions, have we any guarantee that the character of the Legislature will be any better than it is now? It is entirely owing to the character of the Legislature, not to the number of sessions, that these things are so. It is my opinion that the item of eighty thousand dollars is worth saving to the people to assist in paying the debt of Michigan. That seems to be considered by some as a paltry amount not worth looking after; and yet it is these small amounts that make up the great aggre gate of the indebtedness of the State of Michigan. For my part I am in favor of this section as it stands. I think we have all the laws that we need now. If the gentlemen who represent us in the Legislature think it necessary to pass more new laws, then they can let the old ones alone. Mr. STOCKWELL. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the Chair, Mr. PRINGLE reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Legislative Department;" had made some progress therein, and had directed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. HOLMES. I move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly, (at five minutes past 12 o'clock, p.m.,) the Convention took a recess until 3 o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at 3 o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.'. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. CORRECTION OF THE DEBATES. Mr. BLACKMAN.' I desire to make a personal explanation. in regard to some remarks I made some time since, which remarks will be found on page 355 of the debates. In the first line of the last column of that page the word "is" should have been "might be," so that the sentence would read: "it might be provided that the House shall have the sole power of imBeachment, and that the Senate shall try all impeachments." I make this explanation now, because it is too late to correct the error in the proof-sheets. Without explanation,~ I might be placed in rather an awkward position. In speaking in regard to the article on "Impeachments and Removals from Office," I stated that it was not absolutely necessary to have a separate article upon that subject in our Constitution. As an illustration of my position I cited the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of some of the other States, where provision on that subject was made in the article on the Legislative Department. The sentence in which this error occurs reads as printed as follows: t I 46 ThursdayI July 11, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDI)INGS. 'And in the Constitution of this State, when speaking of the powers of the Senate and House of Representatives, it is provided that the House shall have the sole power 9f impeachment, and that the Senate shall try all impeachments." It should read "it might be provded that the House should have the sole power of impeachment, and that the Senate should try all impeachments." I knew that such a provision was not in our present Constitution; andit would have been in my judgment, an inexcusable blunder to have made such a statement. I therefore desire to make this correction in order that-it may go upon the record. lMr. BURTCH. I rise merely to a matter of inquiry or explanation as the case may be. I find by reference to page 215 of the debates, that I am reported as offering a substitute for section seven of the article on corporations other than municipal. The substitute is there printed as follows: "Corporations and joint stock associations may hold any real estate hereafter acquired tfor the period of ten years, and until the Legislature shall pass a general law authorizing the confiscation of such real estate, unless the same be actually occupied by such corporation or joint stock association in the discharge of its franchises." I apprehend that at that period of the history of this Convention there was a considerable disposition not to attach a great deal of importance to what I did here. I think that at thattime my head was too much deranged to have ever got off such a substitute as that. (Laughter.) I would like that some person who propagated that creature would father it. (Renewed laughter.) LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. M-USSEY. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the wlhole upon the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. PRINGLE in the Chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Legislative Department." SESSIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE. The CHAIRMIAN. When the committee arose this forenoon, it had under consideration section eight of this article, as follows: SEcTION 8. The Legislature shall meet at the seat of government, on the second Wednesday of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and on the second Wednesday of January in every second year thereafter, and at no other time or place, unless as provided in this Constitution. The time of meeting shall be at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and the time of final adjournment shall be at twelve o'clock, noon. The pending question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) to strike out the word "second," where it last occurs in the section, so that it shall read "and on the second Wednesday of January in every year thereafter," etc. Mr. BRADLEY. Before the question is taken upon this amendment, in order that I may vote intelligently, I desire to make some few inquiries. or suggestions. I listened with a great deal of interest to the very eloquent debate of this morning. I have been closely on the look-out for facts and arguments as presented by that debate, in order, if possible, to be prepared to gratify some of my friends here by voting for this amendment. The argument in favor of the amendment has generally been stated -in something like these words: "Owing to the varied and great interests of our State, and the - constantly changing condition of those interests, we need legislation every year, instead of depending for our legislation upon biennial sessions of -the Legislature." That is simply a general statement of the matter. If the friends of the amendment had gone on to substantiate that statement with a sufficient array of facts, then the argument to my mind would have been a conclusive one. But a simple statement of what I ac knowledge to be the truth, in regard to the great interests of our State, does not prove that those interests are to be advanced by annual sessions of the Legislature. I inquire then, in regard to some of these interests, our fisher ies, our mines, our lumbering inter ests, and our interests generally, either in the southern or northern part of the State; how is it that they are so very changeable, how is it that those inter ests- are undergoing changes every twelve months to such an extent, that they require additional legislation for their protection and development? I confess that I do not understand. The gentleman from Calhoun (Mr. WILLARD) referred to the necessity of frequent legislation for the benefit of municipalities, referring, I suppose, to charters of cities and villages, and of other corporations. Now, I can very readily conceive that cases may arise when cities would desire an extension of their charters, or an alteration of the law under which they are organ ized, to such an extent as to enable them to levy taxes for railroad pur poses, and the like of that. I can understand how it may be that some railroad company going out from Lan sing down to Battle Creek, and reach ing on to Schooleraft, etc., may want an opportunity to come to the Legis lature next winter. There might be some little embarrassment, if they had to wait twelve months longer before they could get such legislation. as they thtk: they need. But how those in terests are to be injured by the elay, I have not yet been told. In reference to the excellent and eloquent speech of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mir. CoNGER,) I desire to say that I think his facts go against his arguments. He says here that the State of Illinois is a progressive State, and- that the State of Wisconsin has gone far ahead of the State of Michi gan, because, as I understand him to say, they had more frequent legislation there. Now, the fact is, if I have read the history of the State of Illinois cor rectly, they have always there depended upon biennial sessions. That has con tributed to the great prosperity of the State of Illinois; and why shouldnot the same kind of legislation contribute to the prosperity of the State of Michi gan? - There are other points which might be noticed; for my mind has not been satisfied with this kind of argu mentation. We have been referred to the ex pense, of holding biennial sessions of the Legislature. I apprehend that the expense of the legislative term will be about the same from one year to an other, whether we have annual or bi ennial sessions. You may reckon from sixty to a hundred thousand dollars per year, as the expense if you have an annual session, and about the same for every two years, if the sessions shall only be biennial. Because in re gard to the length of time consumed from 1835 to 1850, the time occupied in the annual session, was about as long on the average as the time occu pied in biennial sessions, from 1850 to 1866. So that, on the score-of econo my, we can save money by having bi ennial sessions. I am aware that mak ing money as fast as we do, it matters very little whether we spend fily or a hundred thousand dollars a yeas Yet that may become an item worth looking after in the history of Michigan here after. If some of these difficulties could be solved in my mind I might be con verted to the principle of the amend ment, and be prepared to vote for it. But until I am able to get out of this darkness of apprehension. in regard to the point and force. of the arguments which have been made here, I shall be compelled to vote against the amend ment. Mr. GIDDINGS. I did not intend to say one word upon this subject; and I should not have done so if my colleague, (Mr. BRADLEY,) had not taken the po sition that he has. I want to state one single reason which will induce me to vote for this amendment. That one single reason, if there was no other, will be sufficient to induce me to give that vote. That reason is, that in a It 47 .... -O~IUTOA................'. u-...... matter of so great and grave importance as taking care of the interests of eight hundred thousand people, there is to be found sufficient reason for requiring the assembling of some body of men charged with that duty as often as once in twelve months. While I hive an abundance of reasons, that alone to me is sufficient; that the interests of eight hundred thousand people are to be cared for, and they who have the duty of overseeing and establishing the laws to govern those interests ought to meet as often as once in twelve months in order to look after them. Mr. McCLELLAND. The argument made use of by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDnGs,) has been made use of by others upon this floor. I wish merely to refer to the rule in other States, some of them containing even more than eight hundred thousand inhabitants. Notwithstanding the glowing descriptions of our grand interests given by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) this morning, I think other States present quite as prosperous a condition, to say the least of it, as ours. They have biennial sessions in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Iowa, Oregon, Maryland, North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky, thirteen States. Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. McCLELLAND. Certainly, I will. Mr. GIDDINGS. I would inquire if the fact is not that the Legislature of the State of Ohio meets every year? Mr. McCLELLAND. Not that I know of. Mr. GIDDINGS. I have been told by several members here that the Legislature of Ohio does meet every year. Mr. McCLELLAND. That is a matter of indifference to me. What I allude to is the provisions of their Constitution. As I have already remarked, if the Governor of this State is impressed with the belief that the great interests of the State require an extra session of the Legislature, as a matter of course he would ~call that Legislature in session. We have had numerous extra sessions of the Legislature, arising from the exigencies of the times as they existed when-the Legislature was called together. But unless they are necessary no Governor of the State, if he discharges his duties as faithfully as he ought, will call an extra session of the Legislature. Mr. BLACKMAN. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments which have been adduced for and against this amendment. And I find my mind in about the same state that it was when they commenced; that is, I am inclined to favor the present system of biennial sessions. I have not much to say upon the question, but there are one or two ideas I wish to hint at. The gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) says that the Legislature should meet as often as once in twelve months, to look after the interests of the eight hundred thousand people of this State. Now, if there is any great interest likely to suffer for the want of a meeting of the Legislature oftener than they now meet, as has already been remarked here several times, there is provision made in the Constitution to meet that exigency by having a special session called by the Governor. One gentleman, in speaking of this amendment and alluding to the special sessions, the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) I believe, says that these useless sessions are of very little importance, or something to that effect. He conveyed the idea that extra sessions of the Legislature are very bad things. Now, if sessions of the Legislature are useless when specially called' by the Governor, would they not be equally useless and bad even if required to be held by the Constitution? It is a very common thing with a great many people if anything, no matter what it is, has not worked to their full expectation, to seek to remedy it by a change, no matter whether the change is one hlikely to accomplish the end or not. They seem to think that because a change is necessary, any change will remedy the evil. Because we have hasty and crude legislation, and perhaps a great deal too much of it in biennial sessions of the Legislature, the impression seems to be that it is because we have biennial sessions, and that a change to annual sessionswould remedy the evil. Now, we have upon this question, like many others, only to go back for a few years to our previous experience, to see whether this is the case or not. Did we not have the same complaints, and the same cause for them, when we had annual sessions that we have now? Then annual sessions would not remedy the evil. In regard to the changing of our laws, we may possibly make bad laws; and if we do, then they should be corrected. One gentleman has argued in favor of annual sessions, in order that those corrections may be made as speedily as possible. Now, when a change is as likely to make good laws bad as bad laws good, I think that argument has no force. This constant changing, without regard to the goodhess or badness of the laws, is in itself a greater evil many times than weuld be the enduring of some laws which are not just as they should be. When we have laws which are certain and fixed, although they are not exactly what they ought to be, we adjust ourselves to them in time, and can get along with them very well. It is this constant changing from one thing to another that creates more confusion and difficulty and litigation than all the errors in the laws themselves. Perhaps we feel this inconvenience in our locality as much as, if not more than, they do in some others. I understand that it is customary when the session laws are published and bound, ready to be sent to the different counties, to send them off to those counties in their alphabetical order; and as we are clear down to the foot of the alphabet we generally get the laws about the last. Perhaps if we were in Berrien, the county adjoining ours, we would not feel this difficulty quite so much. The only difficulty is that when we have a session of the Legislature, we get the session laws along in the fall or in the latter part of the summer. If we had annual sessions those laws would be changed the very next winter, and we would not have them more than a month or two before the Legislature would change them. I think the great difficulty is this continual and frequent change of our laws. Mr. W. E. WARNER. It seems to me, that the argument upon this matter is about exhausted; and I do not propose to make any myself. I desire simply to make a few remarks. I am opposed to this amendmentfor the reason that I am not satisfied that the people desire this change. I think that it is the experience and observation of the members of this Convention, who resided in Michigan in 1850, that the cause of the acceptance of the present Constitution in'its crude state by the people ofthe State of Michigan, was the fact that it embraced a clause providing for b~iennial sessions of the Legislature, as much as on account of any other clause in the Constitution. The people were satisfied with it; they believed it was right; they believed that it was for the interests of the State to adopt that course in preference to aunual sessions. I Now, do the people want a change in this respect? Some members have said that some of their constituents have expressed a wish for~ annual sessions. Now, if the inhabitants of the State generally, or to any great extent desire this change, it seems to me that they would have memoralized this Convention upond the subject; they would have made known their desire to us here in some tangible form or shape. I cannot see that anything is 48 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 'Thursday, July 11, 1867. DEBATES AND PROO]EDINS. 49 to be gained by this change. During the extended discussion which has been had here upon various subjects, we have all heard it said that the State of Michigan has been troubled with too much legislation, that too often and repeated changes have been made in the laws of the State, and that too many amendments have been made in the acts of former Legislatures. Now, if that is true, how is any remedy to be effected by increasing the number of sessions of the Legislature? It does seem to me that this is a very absurd proposition. I cannot see that this change is going to remedy that evil; on the contrary, it seems to me that the evil will be increased by it. If we have annual sessions of the Legislature, knowing, as many members do, that whenever the Legislature have convened here,they pursue ordinarily the same course, whether they come here annually or biennially, I believe that the same evil will be found to exist that is complained of in regard to biennial sessions. If there is good to be gained by annual sessions of the Legislature, very certainly there is a difficulty to be met in the way of additional expense occasioned by the more frequent sessions. That, I think, is'an item worthy of consideration. Treat it as lightly as members may, I apprehend the people will keep their eye on these items. * And the increased number of these items, when thrown intq the aggregate, will, in my judgment, swell to an amount that will have its effect and influence upon the people. If the interests of the people of the State can be properly ensured without an increase of expense, then I am opposed to the change. I shall vote against the amendment. Mr. STOCKWELL. I expect soon to be called upon to vote for the amendment pending before the committee. In casting that vote I desire to cast it in such a way that it will accomplish the greatest good for our growing and enterprising State. I have listened with interest and attention to the remarks which have been made by the friends of this amendment. But nothing that I have heard has carried conviction to my mind that a change from biennial to annual sessions of the Legislature will be a benefit to us as a people. I know that we have been told by the friends of this amendment, that we need sessions of the Legislature oftener than once in two years; that the great interests of the State suffer in consequence of not having sessions of the Legislature more frequently. This has not been the complaint in the section of the State which I have the honor to represent. The great complaint has been ~sol,2-no. 7. that we have had just the reverse; that we have had too much legislation, that our laws were changed too frequently; that before the people could come to understand what the laws were, they were changed to something else. This has been a source of great inconvenience and complaint on the part of the great mass of the people. They hate complained that there has not Then that stability in our laws that there should be; that there has been too frequent change in them. It does not seem to me that the remedy for the evil will be found in annual sessions of the Legislature. It appears to me that if we should have annual sessions, the only effect would be to make the evil worse than it now is; our laws would be changed more frequently than they now are under the present system. We are also told that in consequence of- having sessions of the Legislature but once in two years, there is a great deal of hasty legislation, I do not know but this may be the case, but I am inclined to think that that evil would not be remedied by having a session of the Legislature every year. It is generally known that a great deal of business is hurried through the last days of the session; and that would be the case whether the session was only once in two years or every year. Much of the business of the session gets laid aside until towards the close of the session, and then during the last few days it is crowded through with perhaps more haste than it should be. But it seems to me that this is not necessary under our present system. The Legislature have all the time they choose to take for completing and maturing the work before them. If they do not take sufficient time for.the purpose, then the fault is in them, and not in the fact that we do not have a session of the Legislature every year. I am not convinced that the people desire this change. In fact I believe that they do not desire it; I believe that the great mass of the people in the State would feel very much disappointed if this change should be made. They watch with some degree of interest the question of the expense of each session of the Legislature. The hard working.people of the rural districts do not see the importance of having a session of the Legislature for three or four months eyry year. Ithink that,tak ing the great mass of the people in the State which I represent, not one-tenth 9f them would be in favor of this change. I may be mistaken in this, but such is my understanding of the matter; and I have conversed somewhat extensively with persons in different parts of my district upon this subject. Believing as I do that it would not be for the interests of our State to make this change, that the people of the State do not demand it, I shall vote in favor of the section as it came from the committee and against the amendment. Mr. GIDDINGS. I do think that the line of argument used here is somewhat unfair, and I desire to call the attention of members to it. The suggestion is frequently made upon the floor of this Convention, that if you have a session of the Legislature every year, there will be as much time consumed in each session as is now taken for the biennial sessions. I do not think that is true; I do not think that such would be the fact.'If you look to the New England States, where the sessions of the Legislature are annual, you will find that the Legislatures sometimes accomplish all the work of the session in two or'three weeks; generally, for the last twenty years, they have not taken more than three weeks on the average. Therefore, I think there is no ground for the assertion which is made here so frequently, that annual sessions of our Legislature would require as much time as biennial sessions. We did have annual sessions at one time in this State, and for some years we did consume considerable time in legislation. But that was because we were a new State, and there were men here from different parts of the Union, who had different views upon the various subjects before the Legislature. They did not harmonize so well in their action as might be expected at this time, in the present condition of the State. The very fact that they came from different parts of the country to this State, for the purpose of organizing here a new State government, would for a time naturally produce some conflict of views among them. Men came here from Massachusetts, New York and. other States; and at first more time was required, until a system of government for this State was established, than would naturally be required at this time. Therefore, I do not think it is right to say that we would now require as much time in the Legislature as was required when the State was new, and a system of government for the State was not fully established. Now, I may not have said anything new upon this subject. I did not intend to do so when I was up before. All I intended was to express.at leant one reason in particular whieh would influence my vote upon this subject. I do not desire to take up the time of the committee; I have no desire to do so at any time. I do not desire to speak except when I have something e f I t t J,uly 11, 1867. DEBATES AND- PROCEEDINGS. -,dQ X. -V 0 50 COSIUINLCNV~I~ hrd which I consider may be of importance to say upon any subject. Therefore, it was not necessary for the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) in referring to what I said when I was up before, to say that I had said nothing new at all. But I thought it was about time somebody said something which was not in the Constitution of 1850. And whenever that gentleman shall get outside of that old Constitution and allow something to be done which may be in conflict with that Constitution, I shall be rejoiced. I have had the condemnation of the Constitution of 1850 blazed away at my head for the last ten years, until I have got tired of it. I would be glad to get away from it and hear something spoken-of besides the Constitution of 1850. Sir, one of the points of condemnation against that Constitution, is the fact that it provides for the meeting of the Legislature but' once in two years; that in that session the Legislature would remain for ninety or a hundred days, and then at the last -end of it all the work of the session which was left undone would be crowded through in two or three days; andin such a manner as to be very faulty in many respects. Now, if you will only do the work once a-year, there will be no necessity for spending ninety or a hundred days here. Men like our President, and others I might name here, could come to the Legislature and spend twenty, or thirty, or forty days a year here, who would not be willing to spend ninety or a hundred days every second year. I did not intend to make all these remarks; I intended to stop where I did before. But inasmuch as I did not say anything new before, I thought I would try to say something new this time; and that is, that I do not think the gentleman from Wayne has ever got outside the Constitution of 1850. Mr. McCLELLAND.I I think it is well enough at all events that gentlemen here should become acquainted with one Constitution, should know something at least about one Constitution, before they undertake to make another. Now, sir, I said nothing at all about the gentleman's not saying anything new; I made no such re — mnark. The gentleman is ascribing to me a remark which was made by some other member of the Convention; and therefore he gets into a terrible flurry and gives me a terrible lashing. If the ~gentleman had noticed what I sald here just now, and what I have repeatedly said, he would not charge me with being wedded to the Constitution of 1850; it can be testified to by every gentleman on this floor, who was with me in the Convention of 1850, that I resisted, as far as I was able to do, many of the provisions that are engrafted upon that Constitution. There is one provision recommended by the committee on the legislative department of this Convention, for which,I contended in the Convention of 1850. I refer to the distinction made between the terms of sensors and representatives. That distinction is a good one, and I am glad to see that this Convention is disposed to sustain the recommendation of their committee in that respect. If the gentleman had listened to the remarks which I made at the commencement of this session he would have understood that I prefer the Constitution of 1835. Mr. GIDDINGS. I did not refer to what the gentleman did in the Convention of 1850; I alluded to the tenacity with which the gentleman clings to the Constitution of 1850. Mr. McCLELLAND. I beg the gentleman's pardon again; I have voted for every salutary amendment of the Constitution of 1850, which has been offered in this Convention; and I will continue to do so hereafter. Let me tell you what is the great defect of the Constitution of 1850; there is too much legislation in it. I was opposed to so much legislation being placed in it in 1850, and I am opposed to it now. The gentleman does not even recollect what I said this morning; because, in the remarks which I had the pleasure to make not the pleasure, because it does not afford me a great deal of pleasure to speak at any time. I think the older a man grows, the wiser he grows in this regard, and does not like to speak very often. I do not speak, and do not want to speak, until I feel that I am compelled to do so. In the remarks which I made this morning, I took the ground, and I generally speak loud enough so that any gentleman can hear me if he is in the Convention, (if he does not understand me it is my fault or his fault, as likely to be his fault as mine,) I said that I had resisted that clause in the Constitution of 1850, which, with another question about which I am not going to say anything now, gave rise to the calling of this Convention. I refer to the article on salaries. If that article had been stricken out of the Constitution, as I myself moved in the Convention of 1850, I do not believe we would have had this Convention to-day. But while there are a great many bad things in the Constitution of 1850, I believe there are a great many good things in it. I am here for the purpose of sustaining those good things; and the gentleman must excuse me if, with the little ability I pos sess, I attempt to sustain them, both in Convention and in committee of the whole. Mr. BRADLEY. I am not in the habit of taking up much of the time of this body. I desire to refer, however, to one point upon which my colleague, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) has spoken once or twice, in regard to the time which will be occupied by the Legislature in annual and biennial sessions. I do not know of any method of arriving at what will be, except by referring to what has been. The circumstances being somewhat equal in the two cases, it is to be expected, that the results will be similar. In looking over the records from 1835 to 1850, it will be found that on the average, as, much time was spent each year, as has been spent each two years, from 1850 to 1866, in the sessions of the Legislature of this State. And it is to be supposed, as a fair conclusion, that there will be the same amount of time spent hereafter as has been heretofore. If the sessions of the Legislature held annually, would make a change in the amount of time occupied, it might be supposed that there would have been a great change immediately after 1850, when the sessions were changed ftom annual to biennial. But the fact is, that there was no perceptible change in the length of the sessions from 1850 to 1866. Mr. BILLS. Will the genitleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) allow me to ask him one question? Mr. BRADLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. BILLS. I would inquire of the gentlemen whether previous to 1850, the length of the session of the Legislature was limited by the Constitution? Mr. BRADLEY. I suppose not; that would have had its effect during the faist part of the-last period of time to which I have referred. But it has not had its effect more recently. We are not to judge in regard to the length of the sessions, when held annually, by. what the State of Rhode Island or the State of Connecticut may do, because as we have been told here time and again, our State is under far different circumstances from the older Eastern States, and consequently we are to be expected to occupy more or less time according to the circumstances in which we are placed. Mr. FERRIS. How will we guide ourselves in the decision of this matter, whether we shall retain the system of biennial sessions of the Legislature or adopt the system of annual sessions? In the first place, if the people of the State require such a change, then it seems to me that the change should be made. But it has been remarked, by one gentleman at least, that if the people desire to have such a change as this, they 50 CONSTJLTUTIONAL'CONVENTION.-' Thursday, 0 July - 1 D would have expressed that desire by petitions, memorials or addresses to this body. Now that is not necessarily so; for I take it that every man on this floor is an impressive memorial from the constituents that sent him here, and he can speak with as much authority, on this or any other question, as could a written paper signed by some few of his constituents. If gentlemen have taken notice of the parts of the State represented here by those who have advocated this change, I think they will see that if the majority of the people of this State have not given expression to sentiments in favor of this change through memorials, certainly a large proportion of the people have so expressed themselves through their representatives here. My experience has been just the same among my constituents, as has been stated by other gentlemen here. The soundest business men in the portion of the State where I reside, have from time to time expressed themselves to me very much in favor of the change from biennial to annual sessions of'the Legislature. -They gave as a reason, not only the present circumstances of the State, but also the fact that in making this Constitution we should be providing a law for the regulation and government of the State f6r many years to come.. With our State growing rapidly as it has done, and just entering now upon the period of a grand development of its natural resources, they thought that in no way could we so completely secure the development of those resources, and the proper guidance of the State in this formation period of its history, -as by having the Legislature assemble once a year. So far as my acquaint ance goes I am satisfied that the sound thinking men of the State, or the majority of them, are in favor of this change. Of course I cannot say any thing. myself for constituencies repre sented by other gentlemen on this floor. if it be true, then, that the people of. the State desire this change; or if the leading business men of the State, 'the men who handle and control its material resources, are really in favor of this change, then it should be made. That class of men are the men who make a State great,.who bring out its iron, its copper and its salt; who lay great lines of railway, and do every thing else that makes a State great and prosperous. In the next place, we want to con sider whether there is a sufficient quan tity of work of a legislative character to be done to require the meeting of the Legislature oftener than once in two years. I think we can obtain an answer to that question very easily. The Legislature now meets once in two years, and does a great amount of work, so much that the bulk of it is complained of. It does that work so miserably, that the quality of it is complained of; and the people. are hampered in many departments of their business by this erroneous, hasty and incongruous legislation. In making any change in the organic law, or any other law of the State, one of the first inquiries should be, is there anything wrong in the workings of the present system? The answer has been given to that question a dozen times on this floor, both by the advocates of this change and by its opponents. The opponents of this change, headed by the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LuoCE,) insist that we now have too much legislation; and if anything, that the change should be the other way, and that the Legislature hereafter should meet only once in four years, rather than once in each year. Now, how comes it to pass that we have so much legislation once in two years; such a bulk of- it, and legislation of such a quality and character-? I will tell you why- I- think such is the case. - It is because the legislation necessary for the growing interests of the State has been accumulating for two years, and then it is rushed in here upon the Legislature when it meets, and goes through the committees and the two houses somewhat in bulk, as it came in, without being refined down by careful examination, without being sufficiently scrutinized, without being so trimmed and prepared as to express the real wants of the people and nothing more. Every man who has looked through the session laws of this State, that have been issued after each session of the Legislature.for many years past, must have seen with astonishment the evi dences of great haste; yes, sir, of the ind,cent haste that has stamped itself upon the pages of those session laws. What sort of a story does that tell to a thinking man outside of the Legislature? It is either that the men who did the work were not competent to do it well, or if competent had not time-to do it well.- I have nothing to say in regard to the capacity of the gentlemen who have represented the different perts of the State in the Legislature. They are perhaps on an average equal to our best business men. We must then fall back on the other reason; that they had not; sufficient time in which to do their work properly. Then we should give them more time in which to do their legislative work. I think the clear result is that they will have more time, and the practical ques tion here is: shall we give that time to them once in two years, or shall we divide it up and give thema portion each year? If instead of sixty or seventy - days in two years which they have had heretofore, they should be allowed one hundred and twenty days to do that same work as it ought to be done, do we really lose anything as far as time and expense is concerned, if we devote sixty of those days to one year and the other sixty to the other year? Would we make any gain, either in the compensation of members of the Legislature, or other expenses of the State, except in the matter of mileage perhaps, if we put the whole one hundred and twenty days in alternate years, instead of dividing it up and allowing sixty days to each year? All legislative bodies are liable to commit mistakes in the enactment of laws,. particularly in a growing new State like ours. From the want of experience in the operation of - similar' laws under similar circumstances, they are liable to make those laws imperfect. An amend-menof the law is but an indication that that imperfection has been discovered. Now, nobody doubts the fact that we have very imperfect legislation of this character. The question comes up, will it be better for the interests of the people, for the development. and growth of the State, to be compelled to bear the burden of the error for another year? Can any man hesitate a moment in an answer to that question? If the Legislature of the last winter, in getting up a scheme to promote and develop one of the great interests of the State, by accident, oversight, or want of experience, left out some important matter in the scheme, and there is found to be difficulty in applying the scheme in practical operation, is it for the interests of the State that we should wait until a year from next winter before the change can be made? Will it not be clearly fore the interests of the State that this very coming win ter the defect in the 4aw should be remedied? Look, if you will, at the way we transact our business in this State, in counties, townships and cities. I do not know but wlrat those gentleman who are so much opposed to annual sessions of the Legislature, really entertain the opinion that our boards of supervisors for counties and townships, and our city councils, are such a superior body of men that they can be trusted to assem ble once a year, while we cannot trust the Legislature to assemble oftener than once intwo years. Our boards of supervisors are required to meet to gether atleast once a year, perhaps twice DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 51 July 11, 1867. 14 f# CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTTION. a year, to look after the interests of their counties. Why is it? Are the interests 5f this great State, extending as they do north, south, east and west, With nearly a million of population, to be handled so much more readily and easily than the mere local interests of a county or township? If bodies hav ing a less interest in proportion should meet at more remote periods, then if the Legislature of this State should meet but once in two years, the boards of supervisors of counties should meet but once in twenty years, and in town ships but once in one hundred and sixty or two hundred years. But gen tlemen who are friendly to expediting the business of these local communities will claim that it is necessary that they should meet as often as they do. Then why does not the same necessity rest upon the people of the State to get their Legislature together once a year, to look after these interests, as much so as it is for counties and towns to get their representative bodies together? One gentleman has stated that the great difficulty in connection with our legislation, is the constant change that is made in it. I would ask that gen tleman how it came to'pass that there is such constant change in our laws? Sir, it is because of the imperfections of those laws as made. And whatever will tend to lessen the chances of such imperfections, will tend also to lessen the necessity for change. If you get together a body of men but once in two years, and they are required to hurry theirsbusiness through in a crude and undigested state, the result necessarily is, that the next Legislature must take it up and tinker it, and they do so in the very same haste that characterized the action of the Legislature in the first place. And probably the third Legislature will be required to do the same thing, and so on. It seems to me to be beyond all question that if the Legislature meets annually it will save less work pressing upon it, and will have to attend only t such interests and necessities as require their actions during one year instead of during two. Even if they take the same amount of time, they can devote more thought and labor to the business before them, and perform their work far better. In this way cautious men will have time to scrutinize every proposition brought into the Legislature, and see whether it conflicts with the Constitution or any provision of the common law, or whether it is adapted to the interests of the people or not. An& in that way many measures which are brought in in high feather will be rejected by the calm, cool action of the members of the Legislature. And you will not see then, as has been seen upon this very floor, bulky bills introduced, tied up with red tape, referred to committees and reported back to the House and passed, without the string being even untied. The reason such things take place is because of the hurry members are in; they are in haste to get their work done, that work which has in creased soreaeatly within the two years. I submit that if they should be brought together annually there would not be anything of this kind, because they would have more time to devote to their labor. One gentleman has referred us to the remedy contained in one of the provisions of the Constitution which authorizes the Governor to call special sessions of the Legislature. If you examine that provision yog will see that there is a difficulty about the remedy, because, mn the first place, the Governor would not call the Legisla ture together unless upon some very great emergency, such as was produced by the war we have just gone through, or somethingof very great magnitude which would justify him in assuming the responsibility of calling a special session of the Legislature; and in the next place, when the Legislature is thus called together in special session, it is hampered with restrictions which in my opinion are derogatory to the character of a legislative body. They are only to legislate upon such subjects as are mentioned in the proclamation of the Governor, or as are submitted to them by the Governor. I do not want to occupy a great deal of time in regard to this matter; but I have felt from the beginning that this was one of the changes which this Convention ought to make in our Constitution. I do not see that it is going to increase the expense to any very great extent, except perhaps in regard to the mileage of members; becqse, as I said before, it will require about the same length of time to do the work well, whether the session is held once in two years or every year. But it will. give an opportunity for the more speedy correction of evils and imperfections in the laws. I think it will gratify'a majority of the business men of the State who have instructed some of us in regard to the matter. My friend from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) asks how it is that annual sessions are required? We cannot, perhaps, go into all the details, and show all the particular classes of business which would be immediately benefited by annual sessions. But being a Yankee, I would answer his question by asking another. How is it that biennial sessions are required? The gentleman's answer must be, be cause there is business to do. And my answer to the gentleman's question is, because there is business to be done; it is the same business that is now done biennially. These are the reasons which influence my mind to support this amendment. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. COOLIDGE, to strike out the word "second," before the word "year," so that the section would read as follows: " The Legislature shall meet at the seat of government on the second Wednesday of January, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-nine, and on the second Wednesday of January in every year thereafter," etc. The amendment was agreed to, upon a division, ayes 31, noes 30. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I would in quire how the Chair voted upon this question? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not vote. Mr. P. D. WARNER. If the Chair had voted it might have changed the result. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Or increased the majority. Mr. BILLS. I move -to further amend this section by striking out the word "second," where it occurs before the word "Wednesday," and inserting in lieu thereof the word "first," so as to require the Legislature to meet on the first Wednesday in January. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I desire to state briefly my opposition to this amendment. The first of January is classed in this country among the holi days; it is one of those days which even members of the Legislature are often desirous of spending with their families at home/ By requiring the Legislature to meet on the first Wed nesday in January, the time required by the Constitution of 1850, the first day of the meeting of the Legislature, will sometimes occur on the first day of January, which occasionally makes it very inconvenient for members of the.Legislature. That I think is the reason why the committee on the legislative department proposed tbe change in that respect contained in'* this section. I hope for this reason that the amendment will not be adopted. Mr. BILLS. My reason for making this motion is simply this; we have already provided in another article, that the annual meetings in townships shall be held in March instead of April, as heretofore. It is desirable that the Legislature should finish its session annually before the time for the annual township meetings. Heretofore, the Legislature has met, if I remember correctly, on the first Tuesday of January. 6' Thursda'' . Y) 0 Jul. 1 1867 — --. - IT~ A ~ D P ~ C E I -..,-~ 1. I.GI.. 1,.... 1......1 153.....-.I..~z.. Mr. CROSWELL. The first Wednesday. Mr. BILLS. I am corrected; they inmt on the first Wednesday of January. This section as it now stands provides that the Legislature shall meet on the second Wednesday of January, thereby losing one week of that month. It seems to me that we should not lose that week at the commencement of the term. It is a question in my mind whether it would not be better to have the sessions of our Legislature commence even earlier than the first day of January. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. BLLS, and upon a division there were ayes 18, noes 24, no quorum voting. The CHAIRMAN. The motion of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) is lost. Mr. LONGYEAR. As it- will appear in the record of our debates, that no quorum voted on the vote just taken, I raise the point of order, that no fur-. ther business shall be done in committee until a quorum shall appear. I understand the rule to be that whenever it shall appear by any count, or vote, or otherwise, that there is no quorum voting in committee of the whole, no further business can be done until an actual count shall show a quorum; and also that no question can be decided one way or the other unless a quorum shall vote. I think that in this case it is the duty of the Chair to announce that no quorum voted on the last vote, in order that the committee may take such action as they may see fit. Mr. CONGER. In regard to the point of order raised by the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) I must say that it is entirely new to me. I have never had the honor of being a member of such high legislative bodies as the gentleman has. There may be such a rule in the House of Representatives at Washington. Still, I have, while sitting il the galleries of that House, repeatedly known questions to be decided when there would be but four or five, or eight or ten, voting in the affirmative, and none in thie negative; still, the motion was declared to be carried. Mr. LONGZEAR. Never, upon a count. Mr. CONGER. When -it appears that there is no quorum present by any legitimate mode of ascertaining the fact, then the business of the body, whether in committee of the~whole or not, must cease. But, it is apparent to us here, by more senses than one, that a quorum is now present. The mere fact of members voting or not voting is no way of testing whether there is a quo ruim present'or not. If the fact of there being a quorum or not is questioned, then the proper way is for the Chairman to direct a count to be made. The committee can take no action, can order no call to be made; they can only rise and report the fact to the Convention. I venture to say that the point of order raised by the gentleman was never raised in any. parliamentary body in the world; that is, the point that because a quorum did not vote on any question, therefore all proceedings .must be stopped. Mr.,LONGYEAR. When the gentleman gets through I will read him the law on that subject. Mr. CONGER. If it were so, then all legislation, except when by yeas and nays, which are required to be recorded in a legislative body, would be stopped, whenever upon any-question there was not interest enough taken by members to lead them to vote one side or the other in sufficient numbers to make a quorum Mr. LONGYEAR. It is true that in the House of Representatives in Congress, when a vote is taken viva voce, it is not a matter of any iinportance whether more or less vote, because there is no count in such cases. But always when there is a division of the House, and the members voting are counted, the Speaker of- the Ibuse, or, in committee of the whole, the chairman never announces the question to be decided if less than a quorum vote. After announcing the number voting on each side, if they do not make a quorum, the presiding officer always makes the announcement, "n o quorum voting." Then under the rule of the House of Representatives the Chair orders tellers, if there is no objection. If upon the vote being again taken by tellers there is no quorum voting, then the rule requires that the roll of members shall be called. If upon the call of the roll there shall still appear to be no quorum, the committee rises and' reports to the House the fact that there is no quorum. The general parliamentary rule I understand to be this: I read from Barclay's Digest, quoting as he does from Hatsfield: "'In general, the Chair is not to be taken till axquorum for business is present; unless after due waiting, such a quorum be despaired of, when the Chair may be taken and the House adjourned. And whenever, during business, it is observed that a quorum is not present, any member may call ior the House to be counted, and having found a deficit, business is suspendod." It is always considered in the House of Representatives as evidence that there is no quorum, when a quorum does not vote upon a- count. I do not raise this question here for the purpose Of being captious or merelyto be tech-. nical. I raise it because there are so many votes taken here in which a quorum do not vote. It is the right of each side of the question, affirmative or negative, to have the vote of every member present. It is true that the practice has grown up under a sort of accommodating disposition on the part of the presiding officer, in cases of this kind, to pass over the fact that there is no quorum, which is well enough perhaps at times. But upon all important questions, the votes of all the members present should be given; and this i~ the only way by which they can be obtained; especially where less than a quorum vote upon any question, to treat it as coming within the rule forbidding business to be done without a quorum. The Chair should notify the body over which he- presides, that a quorum has not voted. Then it should be ascertained whether a quorum is present or not, either by a new count or by tellers, or by the call of the roll. Mr. MUSSEY. I raised this same question in the early part' of ithe deliberations of this Convention. I am surprised that the gentleman from St. ,Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) should say that he never heard it raised. I think the question has been before this Convention several times, and it has been ruled that the point of order was well taken. Mr. CONGER. I called upon the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) to show that there had ever been a case in any parliamentary bodywhere because the vote did not show a quorum, that was considered of itself evidence that there was not a quorum present. The gentleman says that where there is a division, and it is questionable whether there is a quorum present, the Chair can order a count.I have also said that myself. But I said that I never heard that the mere fact that a quorum did not vote, was considered* an indication of itself that there was not a quorum present, and that, therefore, the vote should not stand as a vote of the committee of the whole, or of the Convention, as the case may be. The gentleman did not read any authority at all on that p6int. Mr. LIONGYEAR. If the gentleman will allow me, I will state what the fact is, if he can take my statement. I state as the fact, that the question is always raised, in such cases as that, by the presiding officer of the House of Representatives. He never declares the question, if there is no quorum voting upon a division, nio matter how many members may be present. If no quorum vote, the presiding officer states the fact that no quorum has voted. Mr. PRATT. I would inquire of the gentleman how he is to carry out Jul ill 1867. . Y. " -DEIBAT-E-S AND PROCEEDINGS. 53 74 CO. ~TITUTIO~ AL CO.VENTIO~. Thursday, his point of;forder? Suppose no quorum does vote upon a count where the committee of the whole divides; how is the gentleman to enforce his point of order? What step is to be taken? MIr. LONGYEAR. It is for the committee of the whole to decide what step they will take in order to obtain a proper vote. Any member can de mand a call or count of the members present, and if a quorum appear to be present, the vote must be again taken, because no quorum having voted before, the question is not decided. If upon a new count' no quorum vote, then the same proceeding must be gone over again, even if a quorum of members be present. If a sufficient number of the members present see fit not to vote in order to make up a quorum, then business in committee of the whole must stop. It is for them to determine whether they will do so or not. But if a quorum cannot be obtained upon a vote, then the committee of the whole must rise, go into Convention, where members can be compelled to vote, I suppose; I do not know how that will be. But it certainly must be in the power of the Convention, when a quorum is present, to' compel the members to vote upon the question one way or the other. The CHAIRMAN. Upon the last vote there were thirteen voting in the affirmative and twenty-four voting in the negative, upon a division; being fourteen less than the number required to constitute a quorum. The Chair following what he had understood to be the general custom of the committee, declared the motion lost; he will, however, take the advice or direction of the committee. If it shall be the desire of the committee, the vote will be taken over again or there will be. a count made, in order to ascertain if a quorum be present. Mr. MUSSEY. I move that the vote be taken again.' Mgr. LONGYEAR. I do not desire to be placed in any otherposition upon this matter than that which I am willing to occupy. I do not raise this question from any captious motive, or 6n account of not being satisfied with the result announced by the Chair; but in order to have the rule settled in this case. Mr. PRATT. I am opposed to the motion of the'gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MussEx,) that the vote be taken again. I cannot agree with the point of order raised by the gentleman from Ingham, (1r. LONGYEAR.) We have no rule requiring a quorum to vote in committee of the whole; we cannot compel a quorum to vote here. Still it is perfectly apparent to every one that a quorum is present. Three minutes before the last vote was taken, p there was a vote taken disclosing the fact that there.were sixty-one members present; you cannot make the point any more apparent by calling for another vote upon this question, because it is perfectly optional with members whether they vote or not. There is no rule requiring them to vote in committee of the whole, and you cannot compel the committee to rise except by a majority vote. Mr. LONGYEAR. The record shows that there was less than a quorum voting. Mr. DANIELLS. I would inquire if the number voting on each side is not recorded in the debates? The, CHAIRMAN. It is recorded in the debates, but it is not entered upon the journal. Mr. DANIELLS. I have raised the point before. As I supposed the number voting upon each question upon a division is recorded in the debates, I thought it would not show a very good record for us to have it appear that vwe did business with less than a quorum voting. lMr. MUSSEY. I.have made the motion that the question be again put, and a new vote taken, because I thought that was the easiest and the shortest way to settle the matter. I do not see the difficulty which the gentleman from Hillsdale (Mr. PRATT,) seems to see. If we fail to secure a number equal to a quorum on any vote, and the members refuse to vote, I think we can rise and go out of committee of the whole with lessg than a quorum. And then I believe there is a way pointed out by which we can secure a quorum when we get into Convention, or if there is less than a quorum, adjourn from day to day. The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. MUSSEY, that there be another vote taken upon the amendment of Mr. BILLs, and the motion was agreed to. The question was accordingly again taken on the amendment of Mr. BILLS, to strike out "second," before Wednesday, and insert "first," and upon a division it was not agreed to; ayes, 20, noes, 37. Mr. FERRIS. I move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. STOCKWELL. I move to amend this section, by striking out the word "Januaiy," wherever it occurs, and inserting in lieu thereof "December." I offer this amendment in view of the fact that we have changed the time for holding our township meeting~, so that they will be held one moRth earlier than under this present Constitution. The change of time for the meeting of the Legislature which I propose would give the Legislature the same amount of time between their convening and the holding of the township meetings, that they had under the present Constitution. The members of the Legislature desire to be at home when the township meet ings are held. I think that the time from the second Wednesday in Janu ary to the first Tuesday in March would be allowing too little for the members of the Legislature to complete their work, and be able to return home for the township meetings. I, therefore, offer this amendment in order to test the sense of this committee upon the subject. Mr. P. D. WAARNER. I do not ap preciate the importance of the amend ment suggested by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL.) I have learned from experience that members of the Legislature desire to be at home when the warm weather comes in the spring, which is about the first of April, not so much for the purpose-of attend ing the annual township meetings as for the purpose of being upon their farms to attend to their other business. I infer, therefore, that the effect of adopting this amendment will only be to give us a session of four months for the Legislature each year, instead of a session for three months, which we would be likely to have without the amendment. I cannot see any benefi cial object to be gained by the adoption of this amendment. I hope that if we are to have annual sessions no system will be adopted by which those sessions will be prolonged beyond the three months ordinarily occupied by the Legislature. Mr. FERRIS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. P. D. WARNER. Yes, sir. Mr. FERRIS. Have we not changed the time for our tQwnship meetings, to the first Tuesday in March-? Mr. P. D. WARNER. I presume that if it is necessary, the members of the Legislature would be able to take a recess so as to permit therm to at tend the annual township meetings, and then' return here for the discharge of their legislative duties. As I said before, the only result ef the amend ment would be to add another month to the ordinary session of the Legis lature. ' Mr. CROSWELL. I desire to ask the honorable gentlemen from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) if the majority of the sessions of the Legislature have been three months in length? Have they not been from sixty to seventy days since the adoption of the forty day limitation? The gentleman speaks CON.STITUTIONAL, CONVENTION. 54 T-hursclay, 0 July ~vai 11 187 DEATS AP)rOED~~5 about the Legislature taking a recess for the March elections. In my opinion, if you give an intimation to the Legislature that they may adjourn for the township meetings, and then come back here again after the township meetings have been held, you will probably have a session for four months. It seems to me to be better to provide in some way that the Legislature shall terminate their session about the time they have heretofore terminated it. * Mr. P. D. WARNER. My recollection is, that the session of 1865 continued for seventy-eight days. The session of 1867 continued for eightysix days. Mr. CROSWELL. The Legislature of 1867 were in actual sesson for eighty two days. MIr.-MORTON. I do not see the necessity for making any change in order to accommodate members of the Legislature, and enable them to go home to attend the township meetings, unless it is the fact that the majority of the Legislature are supervisors who desire to be reelected. I cannot see any reason in theworld why they should not continue to sit here and attend to their business. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. I think perhaps the reason which has been suggested by the gentleman from Monroe (Mr. MORTON) may be a very good one. It is very frequently the case that many of the members of the Legislature have been, and may wish to be supervisors. As a matter of course they would want to go home, and probably would go home to attend the township meetings, and be there a few days before they are held. It strikes me that in order to obviate the difficulty, it would be better to adopt the proposition suggested by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL,) and have the sessions commence in December instead of January. Mvr. HENDERSON. After this is done it will be necessary to change the year named in this section; the section provides for the meeting of the Legisture in 1869. If the change is made as suggested by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. M. C. WATKINS,) the year must be changed, or the Legislature will meet in the last month of 1869, instead of the first month as proposed by the section. Mr. BARBER. I was about to make that same remark; that if the amendment should be made to the section as it now stands, we would have no ses sion of the Legislature provided for until two years from next December. Therefore, by making the time of meeting December instead of January, we would, in fact, be postponing the meeting for eleven months. I am opposed to the amendment for another reason. It seems to me that if the time should be changed to the second Wednesday of December, the Legislature would only have fairly commenced its work before the Christmas holidays would come, when there would probably be a recess for ten days or more. I think it would put back the work of the Legislature fully three weeks. It seems to me, also, that if the proposition to hold annual sessions which has been adopted by the committee, should be adopted by the Convention, then the months of January and February will give ample time in which to perform the work of legislators each year. But even if it should not, I cannot see any reason, as has been remarked by the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) why members of the Legislature should go home to attend the annual township meetings. I do not think they are of sufficient importance to call members of the Legislature home simply to vote or to electioneer at that time. Mr. BILLS. In a casual remark which I made on a previous motion to amend, I alluded to the fact that it was desirable that the Legislature should close its session before the annual township meetings. I did not say so with any vie-that the members of the Legislature sould go home and procure an election to some other office; or, that it was necessary for them to be there at all. I had this idea is mind; as there are changes being constantly made in the law which affected the elections held in the spring, it is. desirable that these changes should be known to the electors of the several towns in the State before the annual township meetings are held, so that they may act in accordance with the provisions of the preceding sessions of the Legislature. It is, perhaps, a matter entirely immaterial when, or at what time in the year, the session of the Legislature is held. We desire to subserve certain convenient ends in the selection of this time. If there is sufficient time between the secbnd Wednesday of January, and the township elections in March, for a report of the doings of the Legislature to reach the people in time to enable them to act in accordance with the changes the Legislature may have made, the whole purpose is served, which we should have in view in fixing the time. My own conviction, however, is, that the close of the session of the Legislature would come so near the time of holding the township meetings, that inconvenience might arise in reference to what was done in the previous session of the Legislature. It was in view of that consideration that I suggested the change of time, so that the Legislature might meet earlier than in January. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. STOCKWELL to strike out the word "January," wherever it occurs in the section, and to insert in lieu thereof the word " December," and it was not agreed to. Mr. BURTCH. I move to amend this section by striking out the word "second," before the words " year thereafter,"-and inserting in its place the word "twentieth," so that the section will read, "on the second Wednesday of January in every twentieth year thereafter." Mr. WILLARD. I would inquire if the word "second" has not already been stricken out? The CHAIRMAN. That word was stricken out on the motion of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE.) Mr. MUSSEY. Then I would raise the point of order that the amendment of the gentleman firom Eaton, (Mfr. BURTCH,) is not in order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can make a motion to insert the word twentieth," before the words "year dthereafter." Mr. BURTCH. I make that motion. The amendment of Mr. BURTCH was not agreed to. -No further amendment was offered to this section. POWERS OF EACH HOUSE, PIC. The next section was read as follows: SEcTION 9. Each House shall choose its own officers, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution; determine the rules of its proceedings, and judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its members, and may, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members elected, expel a member. No member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause; nor-for any cause known to his constituents antecedent to his election; the reason for such expulsion shall be entered upon the journal, with the names of the members voting on the question. Mr. HOLT. I move to amend this section by striking out the words "no member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause; nor for any cause known to his constituents antecedent to his election." It seems to me that this clause contains not only a useless proposition, but one that is entirely impracticable. It is useless, for the reason that there never can be any danger that any member will be expelled from either branch of the Legislature without sufficient cause. It seems to me that it is impracticable, because the question of the knowledge of the constituents could not be determined. I cannot imagine how the :question could be determined; how it could be ascertained whether cause or reason for an expulsion was known to the constituents of that member prior July 11, 1867. DEBATES ANID PROCEEDINGS. 55 I ol I 5,6 CQSTITUTIOAL C,OVETI() Tliurday, to his election. I cannot see how the House can determine that question. At any rate, it could not be determined without a great deal of trouble and expense. Suppose a member is brought up before the House on certain charges; if he claimed that the reasons urged why he should be expelled were known to his constituents before his election, I cannot see how that question can be properly determined. At any rate, it must be shown that a majority of his constituents did not know, those reasons, or the member would be retained in his seat. Not only is it impracticable, but it seems to me that it would lead to mischevious and injurious consequences. Suppose there was such a provision as this in the Constitution of the United States; I cannot understand how a member could be expelled from Congress for any cause, if he could find a constituency who saw fit to send him there. Take for instance a member of rebel proclivities; suppose the people of the south should send to Congress a person who was a known and avowed rebel, I cannot see how he could be expelled from Congress, if there was such a provision as this in the Constitution of the United States. I do not suppose that we would ever have such a case in this State; still we cannot tell what may occur before our Constitution is again changed. For these reasons I have moved to strike out this portioQn of the section. Mr. FERRIS. I move to amend the clause proposed to be stricken out by striking out these words, "nor for any cause known to his, constituents antecedent to his election." The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIs,) will be first considered, as it is to perfect the portion of the section which the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT,) proposes to strike out. Mr. FERRIS. I desire to say a fdw words upon my amendment. It seems to me that a legislative body has a right to protect itself under all circumstances. If it should unfortunately so happen that a constituency should send here a representative, who, from any cause, by reason of mental disease, or personal habits, should be unsuitable to such a position, or be disqualified for the place, and he was really unfitted to be here, it seems to me that the Legislature should not have its hands tied, so that it could not protect itself, and expel such a member, if it should think proper to do so. Mr. WITHEY. I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,) simply because I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT.) 'II believe the only safe rule to be, that the Legislature should possess at all times the power to purge itself of imn proper members; of pers6ns who, for any cause, may be unfitted to occupy seats in the Legislature. I believe there is no other safe rule than that, and I do not see why this clause was put in this section. This Con vention ought to possess, and does possess, the unlimited power of purg ing itself of any obnoxious member, who renders himself by his conduct an improper person to hold a seat here, and the Legislature should be placed in a position where it can do the same thing. Unless I can see some good reason for retaining this clause, I shall certainly vote to strike it out. The clause is as follows: "No member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause; nor for any cause known to his constituents antecedent to his election." Now, I would like to know why, if there is cause for expelling a member once from the Legislature, the same cause should not be regarded as sufficient to expel him a second time? If there is an offense which justifies his expulsion to-day, and he is' sent back here to morrow, should the offense again arise to-morrow, would it not be a sufficient cause for his expulsion? I think that if an offense which was committed this year is good ca;use for expulsion, it should be regarded as a sufficient cause for expulsion if committed next year. I do not believe that this clause should remain in this section. I might give other reasons, but I have given those which are sufficient to control my vote on this question. Mr. CONGER. The provision which it is now proposed to strike out of this section has been a provision in the Constitution of this State from the be ginning of our State existence; at all events, it was in the Constitution of 1835. It may not be necessary, in a State like ours, or under a government like ours, to have such a provision. Yet, acting as we do in behalf of lib eral principles and the rights of the people, it might not perhaps seem very proper to strike it out at this time. The origin of such a clause in the Con stitution of any government arose under another form of government; it arose or had its culminating point in the English Parliament in the days of Wilkes, who was expelled two or three times in succession for the same cause, that cause being his professed love of freedom. That gave rise to such a provision in our Constitution. I can see no objection to it. I do not know why a man should be expelled from a'legislative body a second time for the same cause, whenhe has once been sent back to his con stitutents with all the opprobium the Legislature could cast upon him, and that constituency, knowing all the facts, have adhered to the determnina tion that he should still represent them. The only reason that can be given L fol striking out this clause is a want of confidence in the Legislature, or of confidence in the "very dear people,". about whom we have heard occasionally and at rare intervals in this Con vention. In reference to this provision, pro hibiting the Legislature from expelling a man for any cause known to his con stituents antecedent to his election, it has been said that a man's habits may be such as to render him unfit for a seat in the Legislature; he may be a drunk ard, and offensive and annoying to the Legislature. I apprehend that objec tion would not be well founded. If a nman had been a confirmed drunkard before his election, that would not pre vent the Legislature from expelling him. For, although he may have been a confirmed drunkard in- his shop, or store, or office, or on his farm, it could not have been known before his election that he would be a confirmed drunkard in the halls of the Legislature. The drunkenness in the halls of legislation would be a new offense, which would bring the member within the pow'er of the Legislature. In regard to the fact of its being known to his constituents, I think it is a matter concerning which proof can very readily be obtained. A legislative body might, if'not restra'ined, expel a man for his principles; he might be obnoxious to them because his principles were too liberal, or not liberal enough. But in this country we prefer to believe in the judgment and ability of the people to.select their own proper representatives, to express their own particular notions in our legislative halls. A man may be sent here who has heretofore been charged with and convicted of a crime, and been pardoned. His own immediate neighbors might believe him to be innocent of that crime, and worthy of being sent here to represent their interest. And yet the Legislature, if not restrained, might, upon the bare record of his conviction, deem themselves contaminated by his presence and expel him. I do not propose to enumerate all these cases; but I can see very well why the principle of this provison might very safely and properly be left in the Constitution, as we have had it heretofore. I cannot see how that can work any injury whatever to anybody. I consider it right, if only as an assertion of the rights of the people to elect their own representative; although he may, fom his opinions, be obnoxious to .,I 1 1 s I 56 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVFNTION. Thursd.Y) July 11, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDINGS. 57 other members of the Legislature, still it is their right to send and keep him here. Such a case, I consider, would very rarely occur, perhaps not in the lifetime of a nation. But I can well remember that a few years ago Congress undertook to expel a man whom we now look upon as a very good man, merely for his opinions upon the subject of slavery. Congress did not expel him, but they passed a vote of censure, which, to an honorable man, was equal to a vote of expulsion. The member censured, although not expelled, resigned his place, and returned to his constituents. By the unanimous vote of his constituents, irrespective of party considerations, without an opposing candidate, he was again returned to Congress. Suppose that that had been a case of expulsion, instead of one of censure? l He is in his grave now, and I will mention his name Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio. Suppose that, instead of being censured he had been expelled, and had been returned to Congress? Under the rule which gentlemen desire to adopt here, he might have been again and again, and again expelled, although all the people of his district would vote to return him to Congress as often as he was expelled. It is to be hoped that such occasions, from such causes, will never again arise in this country. But there are still human passions. and human prejudices which will operate upon men, and the fact that a similar contingency might arise, it seems to me, makes it very proper that the rights of the people, and of a minority, should be guarded here. Mr. VAN VALKENBUTRGH. I hope the amendment now pending may be adopted. I respond most heartily to the remarks made by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) I think every deliberative body should' have the powder to protect itself against the intrusion of men who are unfit to be admitted into that body. I do not see any force in the remarks of my friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CoSGER.) It is a right which every deliberative body has to protect itself, and no constituency has a right to impose upon any deliberative body a man who is obnoxious to them, or whose conduct or sentiments in the body render him obnox ious. I hope the amendment may be adopted. I think it will improve the section very much. I think it will leave legislative bodies with power to protect themselves against the intru sion of men unfit to hold seats in such bodies. Mr. CONGER. I desire to ask my venerable friend from Oakland, (Mr. VA VAT.KENBURGH,) whether he would VoL 2-No. 8. desire to have a legislative body protect itself against such a man as I alluded to? Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. The power of expulsion was not exercised in that case; the good sense of Congress prevented them from excluding Mr. Giddings from a seat in that body. I do not believe that power would be exercised on any occasion under such circumstances. MIr. WITHEY. I desire to say a word further. I think that the position taken by my friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) begs the question. According to this section, it would require a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to the Legislature to expel one of their number. It is not probable, it is not possible, that two-thirds of all the members elected to the Legislature would vote in favor of expelling any man for mere opinion's sake. That never has been done in this country that I know of; I believe it will never be done. I believe no man will ever be expelled from the Legislature, unless there is conduct on his part that would make him so obnoxious and so objectionable that he would be unfit to hold a seat as a member of that body. In no other case will two-thirds of the members elected ever be willing to vote for the expulsion of a member. This clause, if it applies to anything, applies to cases where a person is wholly unfit to be a member of the Legislature, and the Legislature ought to have the power to purge itself of such a member. Take the instance cited by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) A person may be sent to the Legislature from one of the legislative districts of this State who is a confirmed drunkard. That habit follows him wherever he goes, and he is unfit to sit in any deliberative body; he is a nuisance to that body, and delays its proceedings by his habit of intoxication, during the session of the body. Upon investigation it is found that he ought to be expelled and he is expelled. He is sent back to his constituents, and at the next election that constituency return him again to the Legislature. It is said that because that constituency knew his habits, krrew that he was a man of such extreme intemperate habits that he was disqualified for his position, therefore they should be allowed to return him to the Legislature. In that case the Legislature must be compelled to submit to the will of the people of one representative district, and be forced to submit again to the presence of such a person. Mr. FERRIS. Will my colleague al:: low me to ask him a question? Mr. WITHEY. Certainly. Mr. FERRIS. If that person should be expelled a second time, it would not be by the same legislative body, but by a subsequent legislative body. Mr. WITHEY. This clause may be applied to a person on the first effort for his expulsion, or on any subsequent expulsion which is sought to be-had. In either case, I apprehend that the clause should not be retained in the section for the reason I have mentioned. I hold that notwithstanding this clause may be in the present Constitution of this State, and in the Constitutions of other States, it never had any business in any Constitution of any State in the Union. I hold that under our form of government, every legislative body should have the power of purifying and purging itself, of allowing only such persons to hold seats who are qualified- to exercise, and who do exercise, the duties of their office in accordance with their obligations under their oath. I think it is perfectly safe to leave this matter in the hands of the Legislature. In regard to the argument that a person may be expelled for mere opinion's sake, I do not think that two-thirds of the members elected to any Legislature could be obtained to cast such a vote. That is but casting an imputation upon the intelligence of every Legislature that has convened or ever will convene in these halls. Mr. MORTON. I see no harm in retaining this provision in the Constitution as reported by the committee. There may be cases in time of high political excitement when the majority might do that which they would not do in their cooler moments. We have seen such things in Congress recently, when Mr. Brooks was excluded from his seat, but was afterwards triumphantly returned by the people of his district. I remember when in 1853 King Strang of Beaver Island was elected a member of the Legislature of this State. Some of his constituents wanted him arrested for crime, but the Legislature would not expel him because the crime alleged against him, was known to his constituents before he was elected. They desired to have him arrested by the sheriff, but the Legislature refused to permit it to be done. A committee was appointed by the Legislature who examined the parliamentary law in England, and they found that members of parliament were protected from arrest during the sesion of the Parliament, and for so long before and so long after the session. They found that they could not take action as his constituents desired under parliamentary practice. He (Strang) certainly was as obnoxious a person as could well be selected to send to the Legislature of Michigan. July 11, 1867. .DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS, 57 0 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. The section gives the people the right to elect whom they please to rep resent them. I do not consider the majority of the Legislature have any right to deny representation to a peo ple, if they have made their selection of a representative. If that was al!owed the Legislature might act under the influence of passion and prejudice. I do not think that I should vote in a legislative body to expel any man who had been duly elected by any constitu ency, with a full knowledge of his character previous to. his election. If it was old Ben. Butler himself I would not do it. [Laughter] Mr. BLACKMAN. I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT.) I have no fears that the Legislature, or either branch of it, would abuse this power by a two-thirds vote. I think the danger is much greater that they will suffer longer than they ought to suffer, than it is that they will exercise this power when it ought not to be exercised. I can see no reason in the world, if there is just cause to, expel a member and he is expelled, and he is again returned by his constituents, why the Legislature should be compelled to submit to his presence. They may be iclin ed to submit to it rather than to expel him a. second time, and if they should conclude to do so,of course there would be no objection. In regard to the case referred to by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) of the distinguished member of Congress from Ohio, Mr. Giddings, he was not expelled after being returned the second time, but it was not on accQunt of any prohibition like this in the Constitution of the United States, because there was no such restriction. If we needed such a restriction as is here proposed, then I think the case alluded by the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) afforded a good reason for it. I do not know from any actual knowledge, what were the facts in that case. But it was said that the. person was living in this State in open polygamy; he was living in constant and direct violation of the laws of God and of the State of Michigan, if report was true, and also in opposition to the best interests of society, and in opposition to its most sacred relations. Now, because his constituents knew these facts when they elected him, if we admit that his conduct afforded sufficient grounds for his expulsion otherwise, I do not know-why:he should not have been expelled. I do not understand that that is any good reason why the Legislature should be precluded from the right to expel such a person.! think the case quoted by the gentleman is a good illustration in favor of the amendment proposed. I think the dangers of the abuse of this power are less than the danger that it might not be exercised when it ought to be. Mr. FERRIS. I desire to say a word. My colleague over the way, (Mr. WITHEY,) said he was opposed to my amendment simply because he was in favor of the amendment of the gen tleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT.) Now, I desire to suggest to those who are in favor of his amendment, that they should certainly be in favor of striking out the part covered, by my motion. I would inquire if they had not first better vote for my amend ment, and then vote for his amendment? Mr. BURTCIH. I move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. FERRIS. Mr. BURTCH. I have a word or two to say in regard to that amendment, and I desire to say a word in reply to gentlemen who have preceded me, and who have agreed in favor of expelling men from such bodies as this. I heard my friend from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALEENBXURG,) and my friebnd from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,). Say that, the Legislature ought to have the right to purge itself of those who are obnoxious to it. Sir, men have been obnoxious to public bodies who were the purest men that ever lived on God's earth. When purity enters where there is impurity, it is always obnoxious. Sir, I appre hened that those gentlemen had in their mind's eye a certain member who had become obnoxious to them. (Laugh ter.) I protest that if this doctrine is to be established in this country, we may conclude that the last vestige" of freedom is flown from the soil of Mich igan. Without any cause, without al lowing a man to be heard in his de fense, a body rises in lits majesty of numbers, and expels a man who has been sent to that body by his constit uents. And it is proposed that that body may keep him out, even if his constituents return him again. Sir, I trust in God that that will never be the judgment of this house. Mr. LOTHROP. I do not feel quite as much alarmed as my friend from t Eaton (Mr. BURTcH) seems to be; still I do not feel quite willing to part com; pany with these old words; they have : traveled with us for upwards of thirty , years. They arose on an occasion L-which profoundly impressed popular sentiment in this country; and I trust L the lesson is not entirely lost on the i people now. Me.mbers of this Con, vention will remember that John ~ Wilkes was expelled from the British Parliament. He was triumphantly re turned again by the electors of West minster; he was again expelled and again returned. It was a contest be tween the people, as the constituents of an elective body, and that elective body. It so profoundly impressed the public mind of this country, as an as sault by Parliament upon the rights of electors, that this provision passed into many of our State Constitutions; I believe it was adopted by us at that time. It is in our Constitution now. It has worked no harm. It stands as the monument of a great event, and I think it should still stand as such a monument. Now, I do not think I am at all be hind my friend from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT,) my learned friend from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) and my very venerable friend from Oakland, (MIr. VAN VAL EENBURGH,) in my desire to maintain the purity of deliberative bodies in this country, whether I am a member of such a body or not. I would have the power preserved to -enable such a body to preserve its-purity. But take the case presented by my friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER.) A man is ex pelled from this body or from any other for drunkenness, and is returned again by his constituents. Shall he be .expelled again? If he commits the offense again, then he may be again expelled. But if his former transgres sion has been punished, by the humane provisions of our law he should not be punished again. But if he again defiles himself, or renders himself ob noxious to the body, by a repetition of the transgression, that is a new cause for which he may be expelled. And so for any other offense of personal im purity; if the impurity is not repeated, there should be no authority anywhere for vindictiveness on account of past offenses. Hardly ever will such a punishment fall upon a member of a legislative body for misconduet of this kind. I will take a case which no doubt is pressing upon gentlemen, in conse quence of circumstances through which we have just passed, a case of flagrant disloyalty. Should such a man be ex pelled? I agree that he should be exa pelled once. But suppose his constituents return him again. Sir, if his constituents return him, then there is this grave suggestion to be borne in mind, there is at least a difference of. opinion between the legislative body and a constituency in the State, whiether the person has been guilty of disloyalty or not. A legislative body is but a transient body of persons. Such a person may be unpleasant to the body; it may be unwise for his constituency to send him there. Yet, con I .Thtirsda-'y' 58 40 July 11, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 59 sidering the case as a difference of opinion between the body and the constituency, it is better in my opinion for the body to bear with this offense and to leave the truth and right to work their way out among his constituents, rather than to expel him again from that body. If he has been once expelled and his constituents send him back again, that is ground for action, not against him, but against the constituency which elected him; they should be disfranchised rather than he .should be punished. At all events the chances of injury are so few under this clause that it seems to me it would be better if we should keep the company of these good old words originating in a grand occasion, keep them in the new Constitution, if we should be so fortunate as to make one that will command the approval of the people. The question was upon the amendment of Mr. FERRIS to strike out the words "nor for any cause known to his constituents antecedent to his election." The amendment was not agreed to, upon a division; ayes 20, noes 39. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. HOLT, to strike out the words, "No member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause; nor for any cause known to his constituents antecedent to his election." The amendment was not agreed to, on a division; ayes 14, noes not counted. Mr. BURTCH. I move to amend this section by inserting before the word " qualifications," the word "legal." The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. FARMER. I move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the Chair, Mr. PRINGLE reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Legislative Department;" had made some progress therein, and had directed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mfr. ESTEE. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at twenty-five minutes before 6 o'clock p. m.,) the Convention adjourned. THIRTY-NINTH DAY. FRIDAY, July 12, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by the -Rev. Mr. POTTER. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. PETITIONS. Mr. SUTHiERLAND presented the petition of C. H. Winslow, F. Pistorins and 83 *other residents of Saginaw county, praying that a clause may be inserted in the new Constitution requiring the Legislature to authorize the issue of licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors under proper restrictions; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr. MILLER presented the petition ot E. L. Slawson, E. L. Baker, D. A. Slawson, S. J. Hitchcock and 403 other persons, residents of the city of Saginaw, asking to have section 47, article 4, of the present Constitution, retained in the new; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr. MUSSEY presented the petition of Mrs. Alice Hawscomb, Mrs. Ayres and 70 others, asking that the clause in the present Constitution prohibiting the granting of licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, be retained in the new; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr. WALKER presented the petition of Rev. E.G. Vandusen, E. Chase, J. D. Sickles and 35 other citizens of the town of Essex, Clinton county, and its vicinity, for the retention in the new Constitution of section 47, article 4, of the present Constitution; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr. BARBER presented the petition of Robert Swaffield, Phebe J. Howland and 51 other citizens of the town of Ovid, Branch county, praying that the right of suffrage be extended to women, the same as to men; which was referred to the committee on elections. Mr. DIVINE presented the petition of F. L. Walter and 65 other citizens of Lexington, Sanilac county, in favor of a license law; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr. WRIGHT presented the petition of John W. Stebbins and 30 others, citizens of Barry county, in favor of prohibition. Also, the petition of A. P. Moore, S. C. Prindle, A. D. Rork and 70 other citizens of Barry county, on the same subject; which were referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mlr. HOLT presented the petition of Wesley F. Wood, L. Reed, Thomas Wheeler, Samuel H. Stevens, Edward H. Wylie, Thos. J. Rand, Joseph H. Hackley, HIenry J. Pemberton and 58 other citizens of Muskegon, Muskegon county, praying for the retention of section 47, article 4, of the old Constitution, in the new instrument; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. UNLAWFUL.USE OF PUBLIC MONEY. Mr. LOTHi.ROP offered the following resolution, which was referred to the committee on miscellaneous provisions: Resolved, That the committee on miscellaneous provisions, be instructed'to inquire into the expediency of adopting some corstitutional provision, by which public officers having charge of public moneys, shall be more effectually prevented from the unlawful use thereof, by loan or. otherwise, and from receiving any compensation for such unlawful use. CASES PENDING IN CIRCUIT COURTS. Mr. SUTHERLAND offered the following resolution, which was adopted: Resolved, That the Secretary of this Convention request, by circular addressed to each county clerk in this State, that such clerk report to this Convention, as speedily as practicable, how many causes, civil and criminal, were pending in the circuit courts of their respective counties, on the first day of January, 1866, and on the first day of July, 1867, and how many were, in that period, disposed of by trial or judgment, and the aggregate amount of judgment.-in the civil causes. DELEGATES IN LEGISLATURE FROM COUNTIES NOT ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATIVES. Mr. BURTCH. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That each organized county not entitled to a representative in the Legislature, be entitled to a delegate to represent the interest of such counties; but that said delegate shall have no vote, with such compensation as shall be provided by law. Mr. PRINGLE. I move that the resolution be referred to the committee on miscellaneous provisions.~ The motion was agreed to. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. BLACKMAN. I move that the Convention now resolve itself ito committee of the whole on - the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. PRINGLE in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Legislative Department." POWERS OF EACH HOUSE, -ETC. The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose yesterday it had proceeded in the consideration of this article as far as section nine, which reads-as follows: SECTION 9. Each House shall choose its own officers, except as otherwise provided ia this Constitution; determine the rules of its proceedings, and judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its members, and may, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members elected, expel a member. No member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause; nor for any cause known to his constituents antecedent to his election; the reason for such expulsion shall be entered upon the journal, with the names ot the members voting on the question. Mr. BURTCH. I move to amend this section by adding after the words CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. "expel a member," the words "and no member shall be expelled without cause, or-without being heard in his own defense." The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. BURTCn, and it was not agreed to. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I move to amend this section by transposing the last clause of the last sentence to the beginning of the sentence. That sentence will then read: "The reason for such expulsion shall be entered upon the journal, with the names of the members voting on the question. No member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause; nor for any cause known to his constituents antecedent to his election-" This is merely a transposition of the language, but I think it is a material improvement of the section. Mr. FERRIS. I would suggest to the gentleman from Oakland that this matter of the arrangement of the section would come properly before the committee on arrangement and phraseology. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. The committee on arrangement and phraseology might overlook the matter, as well as the committee who reported this section. Mr. DANELTLS. I was about to make the very remark which was made by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS.) Mr. NORRIS. Will the gentleman promise that the committee on arrangement and phraseology will not overlook the matter? Mr. DANIELLS. I will promise that the committee will do it. There is no Latin in this section. LLaughter.] We certainly can understand this much, at all events. The amendment of Mr. VAN VAT,-:NBURGH was agreed to. Mr. BURTCH. I would like to offer as an amendment to this section the last portion of the amendment which I offered a few minutes since. I think, at this age in the history of the world, we should not become more tyrannical than the old Jewish Sanhedrim. I renew the latter part of my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will reduce his amendment to writing. Until the gentleman has done that, and forwarded his amendment to the Chair, if there is no amendment to be offered to this section, the committee will proceed to consider section ten of this article. Mr. BURTCH subsequently moved to amend section nine by inserting after the words "expel a member," the words, "but no' such member shall be expelled without being heard in his defense." The amendment was not agreed to. No further amendment was offered to this section. NUMBER NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE A QUORUM. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 10. A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members ii such manner and under such penalties as each House may prescribe. No amendment was offered to this section. COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 11. The compensation of the members of the Legislature shall be four dollars per day. When convened in extra session their compensation shall be four dollars per day for the first twenty days, and nothing thereafter; and they shall legislate on no other subjects than those expressly stated in the Governor's proclamation, or submitted to them by special message. They shall be entitled to ten cents, and no more, for every mile actually traveled, going to and returning from the place of meeting, on the usually traveled route, and for sationery, postage and newspapers, not exceeding fifteen dollars for each member durinz any session. Each member shall be entitled to one copy of the laws, journals and documents of the Legisla ture of which he was a member; but shall not receive at the expense of the State, books, newspapers, or other perquisites of office, not expressly authorized by this Con stitution. Mr. MILES. I move to amend this section by striking out of the second sentence the words, "for the first twenty days, and nothing thereafter." Mr. FERRIS. I move to amend this section by striking out all of the second sentence, as follows: "When convened in extra session their compensation shall be four dollars per day for the first twenty days, and nothing thereafter; and they shall legislate on no other subjects than those expressly stated in the Governor's proclamation, or submitted to them by special message." The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILES,) being to perfect the part proproposed to be stricken out by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,) will be first put to vote. Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to offer an amendment at the proper time, and I will ask of the Chair now an opinion in regard to it. I desire to move to strike out all of this section except the first line, which fixes the compensation of members of the Legislature at four dollars per day. I would inquire if it would be in order for me to submit that motion at this time, or must I defer it until after other amendments now pending have been acted upon? I do not desire to lose the opportunity to offer the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. It would be in order for the gentleman to submit the motion at this time; but before the vote could be taken upon it, all amendments to the portion he proposes to strike out must be disposed of. Mr. MYTTLES. I would not object to the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDINGS,) if his proposition can be carried out. I care nothing about my amendment; but if his cannot be carried out, then I desire to have my amendment adopted. I believe it is' the duty of the people of this State to permit the Governor, when he calls a special session of the Legislature to have the Legisture in session so long as it may be necessary for them to transact the business laid before them at that time, whether it take twenty, thirty or forty days. I would leave the Legislature to perfom all the duties which might then be required of them, and I would pay them for all the time they were so occupied, the same as members of the Legislature are paid while in regular session. Mr. FERRIS. It seems to me that the amendment which I offered is properly an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MLERs.) If the amendment proposed by the gentleman from St. Clair should be first considered and not adopted, that is, should this committee refuse to strike out the words covered by his amendment, then it would, interfere very materially with my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not understand that there is any difficulty in the matter. The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,) proposes to strike out an entire sentence of this section. The amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MIES,) is to strike out some eight or ten words of the section. In the opinion of the Chair the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair should be first considered, in the same way that amendments to perfect any clause should be considered before a vote is taken upon the motion to strike out that clause. Hence it would be entitled to the precedence, which it already has in point of time. The question therefore will be first taken upon the motion of the gentleman from St. Clair. Mr. WALKER. I appreciate the distinction made by the Chair, and approve of his ruling in regard to the order in which the question shall be taken upon these amendments. I propose to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair; but with my present feelings, I cannot vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS.) Consequently I think it is desirable that the vote should be first taken upon the motion to strike out a portion of the sentence, and then upon the motion to strike out the entire sentence. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. MILES to strike out the word, "for the first twenty - I — 60. Friday, Jul 12 18w DEAE - ~OEIG.6 days, and nothing thereafter;" and the amendment was agreed to. The question recurred upon the motion of Mr. FERRIS, to strike out the sentence as amended. Mr. FERRIS. I desire to state the reason why I have made this motion. Whenever the Legislature is convened in special or extra session, it is just as competent to judge what the public interests require in the way of legislation, as is the Governor himself. I do not believe in this one man power. I would strike out that clause so that when the Governor calls the Legislature together in extra session, they shall be at liberty to exercise their judgment in reference to the legislation then proposed, and not wait to be told by the Governor whether they might legislate on this matter or that. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. It strikes me that, as we have decided that there shall be annual sessions of the Legislature, the amendment of my colleague, (Mr. FERRIs,) is improper. Whenever a special session is called by the Governor, it is for some special purpose; for some important business, which it is necessary to have transacted at that time. As a matter of course, the Governor would make a communication to the Legislature in regard to that business. When the Legislature have transacted the business for which they were called together, I do not think they should be at liberty to go on and legislate upon other business. If we were to have biennial sessions, then I might perhaps be in favor of this amendment. But if we are to have antral sessions, then when the Legislature is called together in extra session by the Governor, I think they should legislate on no other subjects than those presented by the Governor. Mr. CONGER. If it is the design of the committee to allow extra sessions at all, I think this amendment should not prevail. There is no authority for calling the Legislature together in extra session, except in the clause which is now proposed to be stricken out. By the terms of section eight of this arti cle, as now amended, the Legislature is restricted to meeting on the second Wednesday in January in every year, "unless as provided in this Constitution." And the only provision in this Constitution for an extra session at all, is the implied permission in the first portion of the sentence proposed to be stricken out: "when convened in extra session," etc. I refer-to this matter in order that gentlemen of this committee may act advisedly. For myself, I cannot see any reason why the Legislature should be at liberty when call ed together in extra session, to go over the whole ground of legislation. Mr. BLACKMAN. I desire to say to the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) that a section in the article on the executive department authorzes the Governor to call the Legislature together in extra session. Mr. CONGER. That may be; my attention was directed more particularly to this article. Perhaps the section to which the gentleman refers would cover this case. But even if so, my objection to striking out this clause would still remain. If this committee of the whole shall adhere to its action in regard to annual sessions, there should be allowed legislation only upon such matters as may be'submitted to the Legislature by the Governor. I think this clause is a very proper and desirable provision, especially now that the committee have, upon motion of my colleague, (Mr. MILEs,)- tricken out the limitation as to time. Mr. McCLELLAND. Profiting by the advice given to me by my friend from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) yesterday, I would suggest to the chairman of the committee on the Legislative department, (Mr. CONGER,) whether it would not be better to strike out the whole of this section eleven. I think it is a very clumsy section as it stands in the present Constitution, and also in this article. I think it better to strike it out, and in its place to insert the section in regard to this subject found in the Constitution of 1835, with a little addition to it which I will read: "The members of the Legislature shall receive for their services a compensation to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury; but no increase of the compensation shall take effect during the term for which the members of either House shall have been elected; and such compensation shall never exceed four dollars a day." In the Constitution of 1835 the com pensation was limited to three dollars a day. I propose to change it now to four dollars a day. But I also propose to add to the section the following: " When convened in extra session, they shall legislate upon no other suhjects, except those expressly presented to them by the Governor." It seems to me that would be better than the section as it now stands. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. FEaRIS, and it was not agreed to. Mr. McCLELLAND. I now move to strike out this section and to insert in lieu thereof what I have just read. Mr. GIDDINGS. I have an amendment which I desire to have voted upon. Mr. McCLELLAND. If the amendment of the gentleman is a good one, I will -vote for it. Mr. GIDDINGS. I propose to strike out; all of the section but the first sentence. As I suppose this Convention would desire to determine the question of compensation for members of the Legislature, I will not move to strike out the first sentence, which proposes to fix that compensation at four dollars a day; although I think the whole section might very well go. I understand from what was said by the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) that the subject of extra sessions of the Legislature is provided for by the article on the executive department. Thus, the inference alluded to by the gentleman from St. Clair, (MIr. CONGER,) as being in this section, is not needed at all. The second sentence of this section goes on to say that the compensation of members of the Legislature when convened in extra session shall be four dollars per day. I suppose it would be four dollars a day whether that sentence was retained in the article or not, because the amount is fixed by the first sentence of the section. I am unable to see why this Convention should undertake to determine the necessities for all time to come in regard to what shall be done in extra sessions. This section says that members of the Legislature, when convened in extra session, shall receive four dollars per day. It then goes on to say that "they shall legislate on no other subjects than those expressly stated in the Governor's proclamation, or submitted to them by special message." Now, I think the representatives of the whole people of the State are as competent to judge of that matter as the Governor himself. I am unwilling to admit for one moment that the Governor of the State of Michigan is wiser than the people of the State of Michigan. I know we have proceeded upon that idea, and we are continually taking some rubbish from the past and incorporating it in this Constitution. "They shall be entitled to ten cents, and no more, for every mile actually traveled." So we have a ten-cent clause in the Constitution, and I have no doubt that we will have a nine-cent clause in it before weget through. "Ten cents, and no more, for every mile ac tually traveled, going to or returning from the place of meeting, on the usually traveled route." Now, be careful and take "the usually traveled route."' The representatives of the people are not honest, and we are afraid that the Legislature who shall meet after us, may get ten cents too much in some way. Now I want to know if the Leg islatures of this State have not been economical enough to suit us all? What necessity is there for us to un dertake to settle all these little ten-cent questions in the Constitution of the State of Michigan?' July 12, 1867. ,DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 61 62CNTTTOA OVNI- rdy "And for stationery;" be careful that you do not get too much of that. The Legislature fixed the amount of stationery for members of this Convention at five dollars each. I would rather pay my own expenses for stationery than to have such a little matter as this in the Constitution. "Postage;" that does not mean postal currency, I suppose, but postage stamps. "And newspapers;" you cannot even take your own newspaper, if the amount for stationery and postage for any session, shall exceed fifteen dollars. I just want to read this to show the ridiculousness of the whole thing. I do not mean any disrespect for the chairman of the committee who reported the article, or for the committee themselves, for they evidently followed the Constitution of 1850. "Each member shall be entitled to one copy of the laws, journals and documnents of the Legislature of which he was a member." Do you suppose that any member of the Legislaturewould take two copies of the laws, or two copies of the journals, and put them in his coat-tail pockets and carry them off? "And shall not receive, at the expense of the State, books, newspapers, or other perquisites of office, not expressly authorized by this Constitution." If there is any legislative document that you want to use, you can not have it unless it is "expressly authorized by this Constitution." This Constitution is to last for all time, unless we are to have another Constitutional Convention, which I hope will not be. I have a paragraph here from the New Yorkc Post which expresses my views on this whole subject exactly. It does it better than I can do it myself. After referring to what we are doing here in the State of Michigan, speaking of what a Constitutional Convention should do, it goes on to say: IThe real animus of this whole system of forestalling legislation, and tying the hands of the future representatives of the people, is nothing less than a blind distrust of public institutions. As such it ought to be rebuked everywhere. It is- high time that Americans at least, should act upon the proIessed belief in the competency of the people for selfgovernment, and should see that it is better to act freely and correct their errors by their experience, than to deprive them of the just control of their own affairs.'" We have been condemning this Constitution of 1850 for the last ten years, because there was so much legislation in it. Now here we have reported for our, action a section embracing ten lines in print. I will not say that it is upon one subject, for that is not the case; it is upon widely different subjects; upon the most incongruous and incoherent subjects that could be incorporated in any one section. I say the Constitution would be better without a single word of it, than it is with it. I insist that all the wisdom of the State of Michigan is not confined to this Constitutional Convention. I have found some wisdom every where among the people, and to quite as great an extent as it is here.. I in sist that just as wise men will probably be elected by the people of the State of Michigan to their Legislature as they have elected to this Convention. They will be just as powerful in intel lect, just as economical, and just as able to judge upon all these subjects of ten cents, and newspapers, and stationery, and postage, as we are. I feel ashamed to be sitting here day after day incorporating little ten-cent propo sitions into the Constitution of the State of Michigan. It may suit some men to do it, but it does not suit me. We must trust the people; we have insisted all the time that some matters should be left to the people. If the mem bers of the Legislature come here, and stay more days than are necessary to perform the business of the State, the people will take care of them for that. But the idea that members are coming here to occupy their time and fritter it away uselessly, is a matter I think we should not trouble ourselves about at all. That is a thing which will regulate itself. The people outside of this Convention understand these things just as well as we do here. I shall be happy when we begin to put off these little frivolous, useless things, and permit the Legislature to have something to do in the years that are to come after we have left here. Mr. MUSSEY. I do not propose to try to answer the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDNGS, ) for it is very evident that he is considerably exasperated over this section, and he has succeeded very well in. ridiculing it. But there is one clause of this section which he has not noticed. I think it is the most liberal provision which was ever in our Constitution. The very first line of this section, as I read it, provides that the members of the Legislature shall receive a compensation of four dollars a day for three hundred and sixty five days in the year, whether the Legislature is in session or not. And then it goes on to provide an extra compensation of four dollars per day, when they are convened in special session. The gentleman certainly ought not to talk of this Convention being penurious and engaged in little ten-cent business, etc. I think it is a little outrageous on his part to get up here and talk about this being a little ten-cent affair, when it is the most liberal provision that any man ever thought of for a constitution. It strikes me that the gentleman did not see that exhibition of liberality. Mr.GIDDINGS. Well, that is the part that I propose to keep in. Mr. MUSSEY. Yes, sir; but he is going to cut out extra - compensation, which it is proposed to give to mem bers when they are convened in special session. Now, I think the gentleman should endeavor to reach an equilibri um somewhere. Mr. WRIGHT. I have noticed the point in regard to this section, to which reference has been made by the gen tleman from Macomb, (MIr. MusseY.) I desire to offer the following substi tute for the entire section. "The Legislature shall determine the com pensation of its members: Provided. That such compensation shall not exceed six hun dred dollars per annum to each member." The CHAIRMAN. The substitute of the gentleman from Barry (Mr. WRIGHT) will be held in abeyance until the amendment designe &-to perfect the section shall be first considered. Mr. GIDDINGS. I suppose that my motion to strike out can be dis posed of, and if agreed to by this com mittee, then anything else that may be necessary can be inserted. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I do not see why it is necessary for us to re main here any longer, if we are to fol low the lead of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS.) Why not strike out the whole Constitution? He is opposed to anything in the shape of legislation. Now, I apprehend that the very object of our coming here is to legislate. We are here to make laws, the organic law of the State of Michigan, and that law cannot be made without the use of language. That language should be explicit; so explicit that we shall not have to refer to the courts on every occasion for its mean ing. The gentleman from Kalamazoo has a perfect horror of legislation. I think if we follow his lead we might as well strike out the whole Constitution and return to our constituents, and tell them that we were directed so to do by the gentleman from Kalamazoo. It appears to me that we-are altogether too hasty about these matters. We were sent here to deliberate upon these matters; to make a Constitution, not to complain against everything in the shape of legislation. We cannot make a Constitution without legislation. That is the object of our convening here, and we all ought to do our work deliberately. I am of the opinion of the gentleman from Kalamazoo that we are not to be penurious. We should not be penurious in regard to time; we should not be hasty in our action; we should deliberate on all the subjects before us, and act un 62 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.. Fr'lday, D1BATES AND PROCEEDI)IGS. derstandingly. He'says " Why all this legislation?" Why, sir, that is the object of our being here, to legislate. We should so express our sentiments upon paper that they may be understood; that he who runs may read, and that every man may understand it. I am opposed to all this intolerable horror of legislation. Gentlemen get up here on this floor and express themselves perfectly horrified at the idea that we are legislating. I understand that is the very object for which we were sent here. We were sent here to make the organic law of the State, and if any law needs deliberation, certainly that law needs deliberation and consideration. I am only afraid that we shall not legislate enough; that we shall be in too great haste to leave here to return to our homes, and not do the duty which we were sent here to perform as it should be done. I am not afraid that my constituents will say that we spent too much time here, and that we are frittering away our time. I am afraid that they will censure us for not taking time enough, for not deliberating sufficiently, for not considering properly all the matters which come before us. I am' really astonished that men of sense and understanding should get up hexe and blaze away so furiously against legislation, when we were sent here to legislate. That is the object of our convening here. Still these gentlemen get up here and say,,Oh, this is all legislation! let us strike out this whole section." I see nothing reprehensible in this section; I think it is good just as it is. I think the gentlemen who reported it here have done their duty, and I shall sustain this section as ft came from the committee. I hope it will not be stricken out, or- any part of it. Mr. McCtLELLAND. I desire to have a vote, at the proper time, taken upon the substitute I proposed to this section. Gentlemen will find that it is precisely the same as section eighteen of the article on the legislative department in the Constitution of 1835, ex cept that, the amount is changed from three to four dollars per day, and a clause is added providing that when the Legislature shall be convened in' extra session they shall legislate on no other subjects than those expressly submitted to them by the Governor. The CHAIRMAN. The substitute of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MOCLELLANSD,) will be voted upon after the other propositions have been disposed of. M]r. CONGER. I move to amend the first sentence of this section by inserting after the word "Legislature," "during the session thereof;" so that it will read, "the compensation of the members of the Legislature during the session thereof shall be four dollars per day." The CHATIRMAN. There is a motion pending to strike out all of this section, except the first sentence. That motion would have the precedence, as it does not relate to the part of the section referred to by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) Mr. GIDDINGS. I am willing that the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair shall be voted upon, before my motion is submitted to a vote. The CHAIRMAN. That can be done if there is no objection. No objection being made, the question was stated to be upon the amendment Of Mr. CONGER. Mr. CONGER. My friend from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) seems to think that the compensation provided for in this section would run all through the year. Although the committee on the legislative department were not of that opinion, still we are willing to be advised upon the subject. The insertion of the words I have proposed would probably make the meaning of the section more clear. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. CONGER, and it was agreed to. 'The question recurred upon the motion of Mr. GIDDINGS, to strike out all but the first sentence of the section. Mr. BILLS. I move to amend the portion proposed to be stricken out, by striking out the words " their compensation shall be four dollars per day;" so that the sentence will read, "when convened in extra session, they shall legislate on no other subjects than those expressly stated in the Governor's proclamation, or submitted to them by special message." The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. BILLS, and it was agreed to. The question then recunred upon the motion of Mr. GIDDINSS. Mr. BLACKMAN. I desire to inquire whether it would be in order to insert anything in, or to add anything to the section, if the motion to strike out shall prevail?. The CHAIRM~AN. The Chair is of the opinion that should the motion to strike out a portion of this section prevail, it would be in order to' insert any words the committee of the whole may desire to have inserted. Mr. LONGYEAR. I think that the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr VANVALKENBUGeH,) in his reply to the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (.Mr. GroDINGS,) misapprehends entirely the force of the argument, and the views of that gentleman. I do not under stand that he is opposed to our'deliberations here upon what we have to do. I understand his opposition to be against such legislation in matters of detail, as will tie up the hands of the Legislature. I entirely agree withthe sentiments of the gentleman from Kalamazoo in that respect. There seem to be two extremes here, if I may so speak, in regard to this subject of Constitution making. Those on the one side seem to want the Constitution to consist simply of a declaration of principles, so far as practicable, and not to include any provisions upon matters of detail, tying up the hands of the Legislature any further than may seem to have been proved to be necessary from past experience. The other extreme seem to be desirous of proceeding to make provision in reference to matters of detail, treating the legislative body as a sort of necessary evil, to be regulated and restricted in almost every particular; to make provision against what seems assumed to be a disposition on the —part. of that body to transgress upon the- rights of the people on every occasion where the Constitution leaves it open for them to do so. Now, I confess that I belong to the former class of this Convention. I believe that the legislative body of -the State of Michigan are just about as virtuous a set of men as usually get together in any State or nation; that they are as competent judges upon these matters of detail as we are; that they are no more liable to transgress upon the rights of the people, if their hands are not tied, than this body, or any other elected by the people. Following out this idea of these gentlemen who desire to proceed to legislate upon matters of detail in this Convention, following out those views to their natural and legitimate results, we should sit here and proceed to make a complete code of laws, and not form a Constitution merely, and then abolish the legislative department entirely, and leave the legislation of the State hereafter to the boards of supervisors of the different counties; and as a friend near me suggests, "without appeal." Although I entirely agree with the views expressed by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, I do not entirely agree to his motion to strike out the last part of this section, unless it be for the purpose of adopting the substitute of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND.) In my view, that substitute is the best proposition which has been submitted for the perfection of this section, with perhaps a single addition. Mr. GIDDINGS. I do not care ,tuly- 11 2) 1867. 63 7 f,,,.... _ much what is put in there, if you do not keep in the words that are there now; you cannot make it worse than it is now. Mr. LONGYEAR. The substitute of the gentleman from Wayne (/Ir. McCLELLAND) proposes to strike out the whole of the section. The addition I would make to the substitute would be in regard to the mileage, for the reason that, with the compensation fixed in the section, it would be doubtftil whether the Legislature could make any arrangement about mileage. Mr. McCLELLAND. I will say to the gentleman that mileage was always allowed under the Constitution of 1835, although there was no provision in regard to it in the Constitution. Mr. LONGYEAR. I would prefer to have a provision in reference to mileage embraced in this section, so, as to have it fixed, and not leave it to the Legislature entirely. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. I have, perhaps, as great confidence in the Legislature as the; gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LoNcYEAR.) I have also confidence in the judges of our courts and in the other officers of the State. But I am not inclined to allow them to fix their own salaries; neither would I allow the members of the Legislature to fix their own compensation. I think that matter should be fixed in the Constitution. Mr. LONGYEAR. Will the gentleman allow me a single word? Mr. M. C. WATKINS. Yes, sir. Mr. LONGYEAR. That was my proposition. I was in favor of the substitute of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) which does limit the compensation. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. Isthink it is very proper that the Constitution should fix the conmpensation, mileage, and perquisites of the members of the Legislature. I do not know but the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Wayne would do that also. But I am entirely opposed to the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (M1 r. ~IDDINGS.) I would no more leave the Legislature to fix their compensation, than I would leave that matter to any other State, county or township officers. I think that matter should be fixed definitely in the Constitution. Mr. BLACKMAN. I desire to say a word or two in regard to. this matter. I am in favor of a limitation being placed in the Constitution in regard to the perquisites which the Legislature may allow themselves, as well as in regard to their regular compensation. I can see no reason against limiting their compensation, which would not apply equally well to limiting the perquisites they may allow themselves. The fact is I would rather leave them free to fix their own per diem, their ostensible compensation, than to leave the other matter uncertain, where they can make allowances to themselves to any extent without the people knowing precisely what is done. I think there is more reason for fixing a limit to the perquisites, than to the regular compensation. Mr. CONGER. As I understand the question, it is to strike out all but the first sentence of this section. It is said by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) that there is too much legislation in this article, and the gentleman has read a portion of an article from the " New York Post." I had an extract from that paper sent me in a letter, and upon examination I find that the gentleman has read correctly the last paragraph of the article. I intended to use that article for a different purpose somewhere; but the gentleman seems to have had friends abroad, who supplied him with the same article, and therefore he has forestalled me, so that my thunder is gone, and not much lightning left. I do' not myself see any particular incongruity in the language of the section. Not being the original author of this section, and the committee reporting the article not being the original authors of it, there can be no impropriety in my saying that I think it is very good language. It expresses in brief words exactly' what the committee intended to express, exactly what I desire to have in the Constitution. It is much more direct and much more specific than the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLnLLAND.) For instance, the first line of this section is as follows: "The compensation of the members of the Legislature shall be four dollars per day." The gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MuSSEY,) raised the question whether under that clause members of the Legislature would not be allowed four dollars a day during the whole two years of their term. But section eighteen of the article on the legislative department, in the Constitution of 1835 was no limitation. It provided only that members of the Legislature should receive three dollars a day. There never was any" pretense under the section that they might receive three dollars per day for every day of their term. I think there was never any question raised in regard to that matter. If there was, the proposed substitute is objectionable to the same extent as the first line of the section. I therefore call the attention of my friend from Macomb to that, so that it may be corrected. Mr. MoCLELfLMND. Will the gen tleman allow me to make a suggestion in regard to the Constitution of 1835? Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir. Mr. McCLELLAND. The Constitution of 1835 did not profess to do anything of the kind which he charges. It provided that members of the Legislature should receive for their services a compensation to be ascertained by law. The Legislature was to fix that compensation. Mr. CONGER. The restriction was three dollars a day, I think. Mr. McCLELLAND. The compensation was not to exceed three dollars a day; but the Legislature was to fix the amount of compensation within that limit. Mr. CONGER. As I said, there was nothing in the Constitution of 1835 to prevent the Legislature from fixing their compensation at three dollars a day during the entire term for which they were elected. Now, there was an object in making the change which was made by the Convention of 1850. Gentlemen will remember that on one or two, and perhaps on three occasions, the sergeant-at-arms left his post here and traveled off in certain directions to bring back some forty or fifty dollars' worth of stationery, which persons, not members of the Legislature, had received from their friends in tlie Legislature. I remember it; other gentlemen probably remember it. In the Constitution of 1835 there was no limitation placed upon the amount of stationery which members might provide for themselves. There is a gentlemanI think, still living somewhere in this State, who was requested to return to the Legislature after having travelled some forty or fifty miles, and to bring back some stationery here which some friends had provided him with. Perhaps my friend from Wayne (Mr. MCLELLAND,) may recollect the circumstance.- I think it occurred somewhere in the neighborhood of the county of Wayne, perhaps in some one of the adjoining counties. I will even go so far as to say that it was somewhere bordering on the St. Clair river. Although that may hit my county a little, still I will say that it was somewhere on that river that the gentleman resided who took that stationery off with him. When ttie Convention of 1850 met, that fact was recollected. Provision was made that in future the Legislature should not be deprived of the services of the sergeant-at-arms, by his going off to look up the stationery of the State.= It was not so much to prevent the loss of the stationery, as it was to prevent the loss of the services of the sergeant-at-arms. That was one reason for the restriction which was CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 64. Friday, 9 Jury 12, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDINGS. 65 placed in the Constitution of 1850. The public papers were so full of comments upon these matters, that gentlemen who resided here in the State at that time, must recollect that public attention was called to the necessity of some provision in the Constitution of 1850 on this subject; therefore the Constitution of 1835 was changed, and the last clause of the section adopted by the Convention of 1850 effectually provided for that sort of traveling stationery. It was thought to be a very good provision, There is nothing of that sort in the proposed substitute, and the same difficulty might occur again under that substitute; there might be the same tendency to activity and liveliness in the stationery of the State as before; it might go off without any provision of law. The last clause of the section is as foftllows: "Each member shall be entitled to one copy of the laws, journals and documents of the Legislature of which he was a member; and shall not receive at the expense of the State, books, newspapers, or other perquisites of office, not expressly authorized by this Constitution." The gentlemen of the Convention of 185-2 had reason for inserting that clause. There was necessity for it at that time, and there is a necessity for it now. The only remaining part about which there is any particular trouble, is that in relation to mileage. The question of mileage has been a troublesome one in other bodies than the State Legislature. It* has created some trouble even in the national councils, where the wisest of the wise gather together; it has created a great deal of annoyance there, and has been a matter of a great deal of criticism by the people all over the United States. If ten cents a mile is not sufficient, when by our laws we restrict railroads to three cents a mile for passengers traveling over their-lines, if ten cents is not sufficient for traveling, and little incidental expenses connected therewith, then it should be increased. Mr. GIDDINGS. Would the gentleman be in favor of incorporating a provision in regard to mdileage in the Constitution of the United States? Mr. CONGER. I do not know whether I would or not. But I do not profess to have all the wisdom that was possesed by those who did frame the Constitution of the United States. If I remember aright, even those ven erable old men, after they had come through the fires of the revolution, did condescend to introduce in the Consti tution of the United States such a question as mileage; and provided that each of the members of: Congress, should have for mileage the pay of one day for every twently miles traveled. My friend certainly is tog learned in VoL -No. 9, ithe Constitution of the United States, not to recollect that provision. Mr. GIDDINGS. That is not the question I put — to the gentleman. I asked the gentleman if he would, today, put into the Constitution of the United States, a clause upon the subject of mileage? Mr. CONGER. I say that those venerable old men did provide that the mileage of members of Congress should be fixed at a certain rate; they fixed that rate at a day's pay for every twenty miles traveled; that is eight dollars for every twenty miles. Now, it might have been very trifling in these -id gentlemen, with their wigs on, to condescend to such little fooleries as that. But I do not think it would be any disparagement in me, to admit that I myself would condescend to such little matters, if I was engaged in preparing a Constitution for the United States. Mr. DANIELLS. The gentleman says railroads are confined to charging three cents per mile. I would ask the gentleman if Governor Crapo has not got a railroad which charges a little more than that? - Mr.- CONGER. The gentleman has no right to ask that question, because I believe he does not come here by that route. [Laughter.] Mr. DANIELLS. I have had occa sion to travel over it. Mr. CONGER. Still that is not the usually travelled route -from DeWitt to Lansing. The gentleman has, there fore, no right to make that inquiry. But, seriously, all this talk about legis lation in the Constitution has no appli cation to this section at all. This is a restriction and a limitation upon the Legislature itself. It is not. legislating about matters in the State, butprescrib ing rules which shall controlthe Legisla ture; and with all due respect for the' Legislature, and for the members thereof, I think if it is proper to fix their pay, it is proper to fix their mileage, and the perquisites of office. This section, notwithstanding the committee on arrangement and phraseology have the supervision of our work, this sec tion, with the amendments that have been made to it here, expresses in just. as perfect and concise language as can be used exactly what the committee desire. If this committee of the whole choose to make: other provisions -if they choose to alter this-that is another thing. EBut I deny that this section is clumsily expressed, that it is ungrammatical, that there can be any question about its meaning, or that it at all corresponds with Talleyrand's idea that words were to be used only to conceal ideas. . Now, to come to the proposition be fore the committee: Shall the compensationi of members of the Legislature be four dollars a day? If it is intended to fix the compensation at four dollars a day, then I think this is clear and explicit. Mr. LONGYEAR. I would inquire of the Chair, whether the question'now before the committee involves the striking out of that part of the section which fixes the compensation of members of the Legislature at four dollars a day? The CHAIRMA'N. The motion of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (MrGIDDINGS,) is to strike out all of the section except the first sentence. Mr. CONGER. - I understood that there was:a substitute pending for this section, being the section of the Constitution of 1835. The CHAIRMAN. There is a substitute pending, but it is held in abey ance until after the amendment of the gentleman from Kalamazoo shall have been voted upon. Mr. LONGYEAR. I -do -'not under stand that the substitute proposes-to strike out that clause of this seetion which fixes the compensation of mem bers of the Legislature. The CHAIRMiAN. There are two substitutes, both of which relate to the compensation. Mr. LONGYEAR. Does either pro pose to strike out the clause fixing the compensation? Mr. HENDERSON. The substitute of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) proposes to strike out this entire section, and leave the ques tion of compensation tothe Legislature. Mr. LONGYEAR. Does not the substitute of the gentleman from Wayne provide that the compensation of mem bers of the Legislature shall not exceed four dollars per day?- - -The CHAIlRMAN. The Chair will state the nature of the substitutes now pending. The substitute of the gen tleman from Barry, (Mr. WIGHT,) is as follows: -: The Legislature shall determine the com pensation of its members: Provlded, That such compensation shall not exceed six hun dred dollars per annum." That'seems to relate entirely to compensation. The substitute of the gentleman from Wayne leaves the mnanner of compensation to the Legislature, and restricts them from an increase of their compensation during the term for which they were elected, and also restricts them to'four dollars per day. The question, however, now is upon the amendment of the gentleman ifrom Kalamazoo,'(Mr. GIDDINGS.) — The- debate perhaps should be alowed to extend to all matters before the committee upon this subject. c I .1 July 12, 1867.. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 65 I _.,.., day Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to ask a question. Mr. CONGER. I do not wish to give way any longer. I will give way by-and-by, after I have collected my thoughts a little. Mr. GIDDINGS. I rise to a point of order then. The question under discussion is my proposition to strike out all of the section but the first sentence. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. COaGER,) is speaking upon. a proposition which is not now before the Convention. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state in reference to the point of order, that the gentleman from St. Clair is discussing this section generally.- He is illustrating what he wants to say by a reference to the first sentence of the section,, which provides specifically for the compensation, as well as to the other parts of the section, which provides for other things relating to the pay of members. Mr. CONGER. It would be a very easy matter, even in the case of my learned friend, who has gained confidence from his position in the courts, and has familiarized himself to public speaking, for me to interrupt him with my feeble abilities, and disturb the strength- and coherency of his argument with all his power and intellectual might. But that a modest man like myself should-be interrupted with no earthly object under heaven except annoyance, and to interrupt a discussion which has been allowed to go on uninterrupted until I commenced, I think is not altogether fair. The gentleman from Kalamazoo acts under the impulse of a little feeling. I excuse him, for like myself, he is a little impulsive. I propose to discuss all the- matter now under consideration so as not to be required to rise too often, and to speak too much. I was speaking to the proposed substitute of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND.) When there is a motion to strike out, and there is a substitute held in abeyance, I take it that I have a right to discuss the two propositions, and to give my reasons for or against them. I was saying that the compensation fixed in this section for members of the Legislature was four dollars a day during the session. I was going on to say that the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Wayne does not limit the compensation to the session. I was going on to say that the proposed substitute fixed a limit above which the compensation should not go. Now, coming to that point, I desire to suggest to this committee that, if the limitation was fixed at ten dollars a day, no man believes that the Legisla ture would ever be very likely to cut it down below that amount. If the people in this organic law suggest to the Legislature that their compensation might be ten dollars a day, while in actual session, I take it the members of the Legislature would satisfy their consciences by allowing the compensation to remain as the Constitution fixed it, and. would never make it less than that amount. So that whatever limit we fix in this Constitution, will be the limit that will be adopted by the Legislature. Therefore, it would be no better to say that the compensation of members of the Legislature shall not be more than four dollars a day, than it would be to fix it at exactly four dollars-a day. My own idea of the proper amount ol compensation is not expressed in this section. But the amount here fixed was what the committee thought was proper, and I agreed to let it go. I myself would have fixed the compensation of member of the Legislature at five dollars per day. If the people send to the Legislature a man of business habits, and capacity, and talent, who at home requires for his services, even while living at home without any extra expense, from three to five, or ten dollars a day, then I think he should have something commensurate to the value of his services to pay him for his services in the Legislature; not so much as he was making at home, not so much as to make it an object on account of the salary, but at least enough to partly compensate him for his loss of time, and the injury to his business. But I will propose no amendment to that effect. Now, I will so far gratify the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR) and the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GoIDDINGS,) as to confine myself to the matter immediately pending. Is it desirable that we should strike out the portion of this section which the gentleman from Kalamazoo proposes to strike out? This committee have decided, by a very large majority, that it is not desirable to strike out that part of the section. This committee have decided that when the Legislature shall be convened in extra session, they shall legislate on no other subjects than those stated-in the Governor's proclamations, or submitted to them by special message. I think the good sense of this committee of the whole will see that it is not desirable to strike out that part of this section, especially when it is borne in mind that we have now decided to have annual sessions. Now, is it desirable to fix in the Constitution the mileage of members of the Legislature? I have not spent my time in looking over the Constitutions of other States to ascertain what provisions they contain upon this subject. But the Constitution of the United States did fix the mileage when members had a per diem compensation. Mr. MQCLELLAND. Will the gen tieman point out the section in the Constitution of the United States which fixes the mileage of members of Con gress? Mr. GIDDINGS. If the gentleman will permit I will read the section of the Constitution of the United States, which I think will satisfy him that there is no such clause in it as the gentleman seems to suppose. Mr. CONGER. I am informed that I am mistaken on that point; I am told that the clause to which I referred is in an act of Congress, instead of the Constitution of the United States.- I admit that I was mistaken. My impression was that the Constitution pro vided that the mileage of a member of Congress should 7be — at the rate of one day's pay for every twenty miles traveled~ that, however, only shows that I am human like the rest of the gentlemen, for" to err is human." It brings me within the scope of humanity, where I desire to be placed. Mr. MoCLELLAND. If the gentleman from St. Clair will permit, I will read the provision of the Constitution of the United States which relates to the compensation of members of Congress. Mr. CONGER. I have no objection so that it is not taken out of my time. [Laughter.]: Mr. McCLELL.&ND. The provision of the Constitution of the United States upon this subject will be found on page 16 of the Manual, and is as follows: "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury ot the United States." This is very nearly the same as the provision which was contained in the Constitution of 1835 of this State. Mr. CONGER. That is so, then. Well, my view of the Constitution of the United States was good for my argument as I was making it. Finding my mistake, and reading the Constitution as it actually is, I find that it is very good for my argument as I make it now. [Laughter.] It is the same provision which the gentleman from Wayne proposes to put in our Constitution now. Yet, I submit to gentlemen here, who are old members of Congress, and to other gentlemen of this Convention, whether that question of mileage has not been a continual source of irritation in the Congress of the United States, from the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the 66 -CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Friday, July 12, 1867. DEBATES' AND PROCEEDINGS. 67 United States down to the time when the compensation of members of Congress was fixed at an annual salary? It ought to have been fixed in the Con stitution, if it was not. Is ten cents a mile too much? I say that mileage should be fixed in this Constitution. It is not a proper matter to be left for the Legislature to de termine. The members of the Legislature do not desire it shall be left to them, or if they do,'the people do not desire it. - Now is ten cents a mile too .much? If it is then reduce it. Is it too little.? Then increase it. But fix it in the Constitution at some rate. There should be limitations and restrictions upon the Legislature, in regard to their compensation, their mileage, and their perquisites of office. The whole history of this - State shows that before these things were fixed, there were continual encroachments upon the rights of members and upon the people, by the appropriation df stationery, books and other things from the State, for members and their friends. The gentleman from Wayne will remember that the records will show the amounts of old bills, which were paid by the State. Our own recollections will remind us that there were old bills for liquid stationery paid by the State, under the Constitution of 1835. The paper in those days was firm and thick, and held liquids in large; quantities. [Laughter.J And members' bills in some cases, amounted to from forty to two hundred and thirty-six dollars for stationery, which was said in the common language of the people, to apply to a great deal of fluid matter, and not writing fluid either. Perhaps that is all that I ought to say on the subject. Perhaps it is more than it becomes me to say. But I felt that it was due to the gentleman from Wayne, that I should refer him to the good old timnes, when these things needed a little restriction, a trifling restriction; when some of the smartest and shrewdest men of the State, ac knowledged by us to be so, were mem bers of the Legislature, and had large bills for stationery as I have described. I wanted to refer him to the time when one gentleman started from this capitol, got into an adjacent county he did not go off on the railroad, I believe, but on the plank road —with a large amount of stationery, which was taken and brought back here. He was not a member of the Legislature, however; that was furnished to him by a friend who was in the Legislature. I think these things might happen again, even with persons along the St. Clair river; the last place in the world where such a thing would be thought of. It may be so with other parts of the State, where we do not expect so much morality, if we do not have this restriction. Mr. LOVELL. I desire to ask the chairman of the committee on the legislative department, why that committee omitted certain words which are to be found in the Constitution of 1850. On page 8 of the Manual, section fifteen, article IV of the Constitution of 1850, will be found this provision: " The compensation or members of the Legislature shall be three dollars per day for actual attendance, and when absent on account of sickness." The section under consideration seems to contemplate that members shall recieve the same pay when absent, no matter on what occasion, as when present. It seems to me, from the little consideration I have given to this subject, it would be very desirable for the State to employ members of the Legislature, and perhaps all other public servants, precisely as people ordinarily employ others to perform services for them. If I employ a man to labor for me in any capacity, and he is taken sick, that is usually his loss and not mine. If his indisposition is an indisposition to serve me, and a disposition to attend to business of his-own, I certainly should never think of paying him. I would myself rather see the compensation fixed aelittle higher, -if it is any object, though I do not propose to ask that it shall be over four-dollars a day; but I would like to see the members of the Legislature paid for their work, and not paid when they are indisposed to work. I suppose it has happened with members of the Legislature.heretofore, as it has with members of this Convention, that there has been very little indisposition on account: of sickness, but considetable indisposition on-account of private business, and other sorts of indispositon which, perhaps, need not be mentioned, but which have taken members away. Now, members may find it necessary to be away; but if they are away attending to their business, and not. to the business of the State, then why should the State pay them? In other words, why should the State adopt a rule in employing its servants, which private corporations, or individuals, never adopt? Why not fix the compensation for the actual labor performed, at the price which the actual labor should command, and say that they shall be paid only for their actual labor? I suppose there is a reason for omitting that provision. And, hence I ask the chairman of the committee why those words were left out.' Mr. CONGER. I will answer the question of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL.) It is within the knowledge of every gentleman present who has been a member of the Legislature, that the rule referred to in the Constitution of 1850 is never enforced by the Legislature. The only case that I ever heard of, when that rule was enforced, was during the last session of the Legislature, when one of the senators did not appear here until during the latter part of the session, or who was here only a day or two. In that case I think the President of the Senate did not certify to his account. Mr. FERRIS. He was paid for four days., Mr. CONGER. If I recollect, it was the case of the Senator from the Upper Peninsula. Now, when you say that the person shall be paid for actual attendance, it is very difficult to tell.how you shall apply that rule. If there is a committee sent to visit an asylum, or sent away from actual attendance on the Legislature, if this rule is applied strictly, they can draw no pay. If a member goes away for a day or two, it is not certain -that he is not in the service of the State. The Legislature has never applied - the rule to a member in such a case. It was thought by the committee that this provision was useless in the Constitution; it was rather an occasion for an indirect violation of the Constitution, than a practical benefit. For that reason the committee struck it out, leaving it to each House of the Legislatue to decide in what cases compensation should be allowed when members were a]sent, and.in what cases it should not be allowed, as was done in the Senate during the last session of the Legislature. That is the only reason that I'now of for changing the language of the section in that respect; that for all practical purposes it has been, and will be a dead letter in the Constitution, no matter what we may say; an occasion in the opinion'of some, for the violation-of the Constitution, and no practical benefit. My own idea is, that if a member is generally in attendance upon the Legislature, or upon the Convention here, ,having left his business for the purpose of being here, perhaps provided for somebody else to attend to his business during the whole term, and he should be gone for a day or two possiblys upon matters connected With his business here, or it may be upon matters connected with his own private business, there is no necessity for limiting his compensation on that account. A man may be away from the Convention or the Legislature, for a day or two now and then, and still be more useful during the days that he is here, than some other men who are never out of their seats or away during the session. f t I t 67, July 12, 1867. DEBATES — AND - PROCEEDINGS. 49 0 68 COTITITTIOAL CONYETIO. Friday, Mr. 1MORTON.- The question, as I understand it, is upon the motion of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDNGS,) -to strike out all but the first .sentence of this section. I suppose it has been sufficiently discussed. But as I have uniformly agreed with that gentleman as to the necessity of not restricting the Legislature upon almost all the subjects that come before them, I desire to state my reasons for disagreeing with him upon this subject. The Legislature is called to consider matters of public interest; and I say that they should not be restricted as much as they have been. But when the question is one of a kind which applies solely to the members of the Legislature themselves, then I say they. should be restricted. It is not in relation to matters of public interest, that this section is incorporated in this Constitution. It is intended to apply to members of the Legislature as such members, and to compel them not to do that which is wrong. Therefore, I believe in restricting members of the Legislature-upon matters which relate to their own personal interests. The propriety of such a restriction is altogether different from what it is when they come to act upon matters of public- interest, entirely disconnected with their own private interests. Therefore, I.think that this section, or something similar to it, is necessary. We all know that members of the Legislature would run to excess if left to their own judgment in regard to the value of their services. I believe it is necessary to have the mileage fixed; also the amount which members can draw from the State for stationeryi and such other matters. * I would wish to restrict.them in all these -things, because they cannot be styled matters of public interestsmatters in whioq'the people are as deeply interested as in the ordinary subjects of legislation. I have no objection to the section as: it stands. I'should like the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. )ICCLELLAND,) with two or three amendments attached, much better than I'do this section. But I do not object'to either. I only desire to say that members must see that there is a necessity for legislating in the Constitution upon these matters, more than in reference to other subjects which have been.considered by this body. I believe the minds of members are made up upon this subject. I believe they intend to allow members of the Leislature so much for their regular compensation, and to restrict them in all these other matters. As I know that members aretprepared to vote upon this question, I hope that there will be no more discussion upon it. Mr. GIDDINGS. One word in reply to the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) who has been so muchfi in accord with me on this subject of legislating in the Constitution. I suppose the people of Michigan are as honest as the people of other States generallIy, and as capable of managing their own affairs as are the people of other States. I believe that a legislative body, assembled in the State of Michigan, would be as competent to take charge of such: matters as these, and other matters pertaining to the State, as congressmen are to take care of the the affairs of the United States. And a single clause which I am going to read, I think will be a sufficient excuse for the proposition, which I have offered here. Although it may not be adopted by this committee, I will at all events have done my duty. I will read -a claus6 which has been: deemed suM!cient under the government of the united States for the purpose of determining this whole question of compensation as it is called, for members of Congress. "The Senators and Representatives shall received a compensation for their services to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury'of the United States." The gentleman across the way (Mir. CONGER) objects very much to leaving this matter to the Legislature. Now, my own impression is that the Legislature is as competent and as safe a body with which to leave the questions covered by the section under consideration, as is this Constitutional Convention; at least the government of the United States so held with regard to the Congress of the United States. That was the opinion of the "'fathers," about which the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER) talks so much. Mr. HENDERSON'. It seems to me that the gentleman fromKalamazoo, (Mr.: GIDDaGS,) in his last remarks especially, as well as in-his former'emarks, either designedly or otherwise, ignores the main question entirely. When he says the compensation'is to be fixed by law lhe stops there, and does not go on to say that the Legislature is to make the law which shall fix that compensation. I have often during the session here, even at the expense of disagreeing with my colleagues, opposed- legislation in the Convention. But-I think the remarks of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, have'more of ring than of significance in them, when he sets up the hue and cry of " too much legislation" here. Ini the article on counties is a section which met the unanimous vote: of the Convention. Why was it adopted? Ii section eleven of the article on cou ties, we provided that' the board of supervisors might have jurisdiction over certain things, except as otherwise provided. And among- these things "otherwise provided," it was distinctly and clearly asserted should be the compensation which they themselves should receive. There has been existing a state of things under which the people felt aggrieved. The supervisors in our localities have been in the habit of fixing just as much compensation for themselves, as they saw fit to-. establish. The committee therefore thought proper to append to that section something which was not perhaps strictly necessary, "such compensation as is provided by law." What is the principle involved? It is that the body itself, or the individual, whether corporate or personal, were not at liberty to fix their own compensation, or to regulate their own mileage, or in any way to control their perquisites of office. I do not think there — is any - reason whatever in saying- that we are legislating on these matters. It is not proposed to legislate upon those matters of general interest in which the people of the State at large have a concern, or about which they expect that the Legislature will make provision,. or over which they desire the members of the Legislature to have jurisdiction or control. I hope that the motion to strike out will not prevail; unless the substitute of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) shall be amended in regard to mileage, and then I should prefer that to this section. MIr. FERRIS.- I greatly prefer this section as it is reported from the.committee on the legislative department,. and as amended by the committee of the whole, to either of. the substitutes which have been offered here. I was in hopes that my friend from Monroe, -(Mr. MORTON,) when he had the floor, would have stated a reason which I am about to state here, why it is preferable that this Convention shall fix all these matters, and not leave them to the: Legislature. He approached that reason very nearly, when he stated he wanted to give an excuse for differing with the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. Gr)InSns,) in regard to legislating in the Constitution. By the way, in regard to that matter, I hope gentlemen here have rung the changes on the subject of legislation here to their heart's content. They cannotluppose that any gentleman on this floor will be: either intinidated or moved by any of that kind of talk. I have noticed once in a while that when any~ man is opposed to an amendment or proposition, he cries out "Oh! it is legislation." But when I . COXSTITU —TIONAL CONVENTION. I risky, 68 ih July 12, 1867. DE13ATES A1) rOcEE"i)IG. 69 he is in favor of an amendment equally full of legislation, he says nothing about it. Now, let us quit this boys play. The reason why I prefer this section,: and am opposed to leaving this matter. to the Legislature, in addition to other reasons which have been given, is, that: if you leave these" little ten-cent matters," as my eloquent friend from Kalamazoo calls them, to the Legislature for their determination, there will be an enormous waste of legislative: time. No matters in the Legislature occupy so much time, cause so much cavilling, create so much little petty discussion, as these matters of compensation. I would refer this comimittee to what took place in the Convention here in regard to our own postage. We all recollect the humorous debate we had, in which the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER) said that his constituents'did not send him here to use his tongue in licking postage stamps. The time of the Convention was taken up for two or three days on such little matters as that. And, unless we fix these matters'in reference-to the Legislature, there will be discussions about them in every session. Even if this were legislation, it would be a great saving of the time of the people of the State to put it in this Constitution. Mr. CONGE4R. Before we pass upon this section I desire to say that, as this committee, by striking out the words, their compensation shall be four dol lars per day for the first twenty days and nothing thereafter," have removed the only reason for having the para graph -in this section, it might be proper, in order to0have some harmony in' the arrangement of the sections, to have that clause omitted, perhaps to insert it in some other place. The idea of the committee was to bring together"' ill each section such provisions as would naturally come together. As the amendment already mnade removes the only reason, that of fixing the com pensation when in special session, for having that clause in this section, I should desire, if the section is to re main as amended, that that clause might be stricken out and added to section eight of this article, which re lates to the meeting of the Legislature. This section would then relate entirely to the compensation, mileage and per quisites of members. I will, however, not make any motion at the present time. The question recurred upon the motion of Mr. GIDDIrGS to strike out all of section eleven except the first sentence, reading as follows: '.'}he compensation of members of the Legislature, during the sessions thereof, shall . be tour dollars per day." The motion to strike out was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. MCCLELLAND to the substitute offered by Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. BLACKIAN. I was under the impression that this would be a proper time to offer. an amendment to the original section. The CH-ATRMAN. It is still in order to move to amend the original section. MIr. BLACKMAN. I move to amend the section by adding the following: " The members shall not receive their per diem compensation during a temporary adjournment ot a longer period thaL five days." I have a few-words to say.upon that amendment. I offer it in good faith. I do not want to make much- of a speech upon it, for I do not think it is a popular subject upon which to speak. It may be said that this shows a distrust of the Legislature, and that we ought not to distrust them. Perhaps we as members of this Convention ought not to distrust them on this particular question. But it seems to me from past experience that it is as just and proper to have a limit upon this subject as upon some others. The question was taken upon the amendment of, Mr. BLAC:KMAN, and it was not.agreed to. Mr.. STOUGHTON. I move to amend the last,sentence of this section by striking out the word " laws," and inserting the words, "statutes and one copy of the;" so that the sentence will read, "each member shall be entitled to one copy of the. statutes, and one copy of the-journals and docxuments of fthe Legislature of which he was a member." My object in offering this amendment is this: the section as it now stands provides that each member of. the Legislature shall be entitled'to one copy Of the laws, journals, and documents of the Legislature of which he was a member. Now, i~-seems to me very proper that each member of the Legislature should be.provided with a copy-of the statutes of the State. It is almost indispensably necessary that he should have a copy' of the statutes, to enable him to' discharge properly the duties incumbent upon him. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I would in quire if a motion t/o amend by striking out a portion of this section is in order, ~ after the committee have refused to , sstrike out a portion of the section int eluding that embraced in the:amend'ment of the gentleman from St.:Joseph3 (Mr. STOUGHTON?). The. CHAIRMA XN. The Chair is, of the opinion that the amendment of the gentleman-from St. Joseph is not'!in a order. Mr:. CONGER. I hope that for the purpose of perfecting this section, or endeavoring to do so, unanimous consent will be given to members to offer such amendments as they may desire. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was not disposed to raise the question himself; but it- being raised by the gentlemen from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) the Chair had to rule upon it.. Tke Chair would, therefore, rule that the amendment is not in order, because the committee of-the whole have voted to retain the words which the gentleman from St. Joseph moves to strke out. If there. is no objection on the part of any member, the amendment can be entertained by unanimous consent. No objection being made, the amendment proposed by Mr. STOUGHTON was entertained. The question was taken on the amendment, upon which a division was called. Mr. M. C. WATKINS.'I do not know that I fully understand the effect of the amendment of —the geantleman from St. Joseph. I would- inquire if it is intended that each member of the Legislature shall be entitledtoone copy of the revised statutes? Mir. STOUGHTON. Yes, sir. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. Compiled laws? -Mr. STOUGHTON. "Statutes" would embrace the "laws," of course; whatever statutes we may have at this time. If there should be a subsequent revision, it would embrace them. Mr. FERRIS. Do I understand that the proposition is that each mem ber shall have a copy of the compiled laws as his own property? Mr. STOUGHTON. Yes, sir; that it shall be furnished to him for his own use during the session of the Legisla ture, and that it shall be his property, the- same as documents furnished to him at the expense of the State at large. Many members who come here are not in possession of the statutes of the State, and they Will need them during the session of the Legislature. Mr. FERRIS. Is not the law such now, that. they can procure them for use.during the session? Mr. STOUGHTON. They can pro cure them at a very slight expense, but that might not be satisfactory. There will probably be hereafter a re vision of the laws, and it may be more , difficult to obtain them. Mr.. W,5ITHEY. I was surprised that there were so many ayes in favor of this amendment. It seems tome that 'ti is inexpedient to provide a copy of the laws of the State for each member 3 of the Legislature. To do:that now would certainly require a re-print of the compiled laws. It is altogether probable that there will be a further s a c r t t e c i I d A a t i .:.:,...;. bi.;.. D 13 TJMS' - AND Pilo iCF,., S;., 69 Jul 1-2 1867. - Y., 70- OOSIITOA X O~~TI~ FnaK compilation and publication of the general laws of the State. But in a wvery short period of time, the Legislature would exhaust the number of cop — ies which the State might have on hand, and thus necessitato a republication by the State, in order to supply subsequent Legislatures with the general laws of the State. For these reasons, without saying anything further upon the subject, I must oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON.) Mr. MUSSEY. I can understand the object of the mover of this amendment, and I think it a good one; still I do not think it necessary to make this change in the section in order to secure that object. The section which he proposes to amend is in the Constitution of 1850; and I think the members of the LegislatureS'have had no difficulty in obtaining the use of any books that are in the library; but they do not have the privilege of taking those books as their own'at the close of the session. A regular account is kept with each member of the Legislature, and at the close of the session he is required to return those books to the library, before he is entitled to receive his pay. Members of the Legislature can have access to the library and obtain the books to use, as far as they need. I fail to see the necessity of the amendment. I can see the importance of members having access to the library, and having the use of such books as are the property of the State, during the session. I can hardly favor the amendment, according to my present understanding of it. Mr. BLACKMAN. When the vote was taken before, I-did not understand this question as I now understand it. If this amendment is designed to give ' each member of the Legislature a copy of all the statutes of the State, then I certainly am opposed to it. That wouldnot only include the compiled laws, but a copy of all the previous session laws. It would go even further. If a person should be elected a member of any Legislature, he would be entitled to a copy of these laws; and if elected to the next Legislature, he would be entitled to'the same thing over again. It seems to me that it would require quite a supply of these books to meet the demand that would be created by this amendment if adopted The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. STOUGHTON and it was not agreed to. Mr. CONGER. I now ask consent of the committee to strike out, as I suggested a few minutes since, the second sentence of this section, which has been amended so as to read as follows: "When convened in extra session they shall legislate on no other subjects than those expressly stated in the Governor's proclamation, as submitted to them by special message." As suggested then, I think this sentence would come more properly at the close of section eight of' this article. The CHAIRMAN. The committee has once refused to strike out these words. Mr. CONGER. I ask the unanimous consent of the committee, that this may be done. Mr. BILLS. I hope there will be no objection to the suggestion made by the gentleman from St. Clair. It is simply a question of arrangement, an amnmendment having been adopted to this sentence, rendering it unnecessary in this section, it should be taken from here and placed where it properly belongs. Mr. CONGER. I will not press my motion but will leave the matter for the committee on arrangement and phraseology. Mr. WITHEY. I move to amend the first sentence of this section by adding the words " for actual attendance." That sentence will then read, "the compensation of the members of the Legislature during the session thereof, shall be four dollars per day for actual attendance." My object' is simply to prevent the paying of the members of the Legislature for the time that they are not in attendance here. As the section now reads, I think the construction which must be given to it would require that a member of the Legislature who did attend for a single day of tile session would be entitled to pay for the whole time. I have no objection to the construction heretofore given to the words "actual attendance;" but I think it should be in the power of the Legislature to protect itself against any member claiming pay for the entire session, when he m:ight not have'been in attendance more than a day or two. ' The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. WITHEY, and it was agreed to. Mr. BURTCII. *I move to amend; the section by striking opt of the second sentence the words, "or submitted to them by special message." The CHAIRMAN. That amendment can be received only by. unanimous consent, as the committee of the whole have once refused to strike out that section.' M0r. GIDDINGS. I object to the amendment. Mr. BURTCH. I believe it has been the habit of this body when a member introduces an amendment or resolution to allow him to say a word upon it. The CHAIRMAN. The amepdment of the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BURTCH,) not being in order, he is not entitled to speak upon it. The question was upon the substitute of Mr. MCCLELLAND for the substitute of Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. BILLS. I desire to ask the mover of that substitute if there might not be an embarrassment in changing the compensation at any time, so far as it may relate to members of the Senate. By this article a portion of the members of the Senate go out at'one time; of course, upon any change being made in the compensation, a portion of the Senate would remain in office for the next Legislature. Mr. MCCLELLAND. Then the compensation would not be changed for these members of the Senate who remained in the Legislature. Mr. HENDERSON. It occurred to me, after taking my seat, that in alluding to the substitute of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) I failed to express fully what I meant. I only excepted to thepart with regard to mileage. I should have included also the fact that I took exception to allowing members to fix their own compensation. Aside from that I prefer the substitute to the original section. Mr. WRIGHT. I hope the substitute of the gentleman from Wayne will not be adopted. I think the substitute I have offered is much better, more perfect and comprehensive. I have never been charged with being a conservative in politics; yet, in offering this substitute, I desire to be a conservative man to occupy a position between my friend from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) who is so strenuously opposed to legislation by this Convention, and those gentlemen who take the opposite grou d. The proposition I submit in my substitute is, that the Legislature shall be restricted to a certain extent in providing for their own compensation at a per diem rate, if they choose, and also to fix their mileage; but, in no instance shall they exceed the limit of six hundred dollars per year. With the gentleman from K'lamazoo, I think this section, even as now amended, contains too much minute legislation. The substitute which I have offered proposes to do away with all these minutiae, and to tie the hands of the Legislature only in reference to the sum total of the annual pay of members. In other respects, it proposes to leave them without restriction. It is a very easy matter for us here to make some sort of estimate as to the probablalength of time the L'gislature will be in session each year. Suppose we calculate th]e length of the session to be one hundred days. Then, 70 CONS.L-L-Ll.,Tl-lONAL CONVENTION. Fridak, - I J DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. by my proposition, they could allow compensation not to exceed six dollars per day, which shall include all' perquisites. There is no doubt that at a regular session of the Legislature, the pay of many members would /reach that amount; perhaps in some cases it might exceed it a little. But in my estimation it would be more apt to fall considerably short of six hundred dollars for the session. If the Legislature should find it preferable, or more convenient, to simply provide that each member shall have the sum of six hundred dollars per annum fdr his services, in lieu of all other compensation, pay or perquisites, then I think it highly proper that they should be permitted to make such provision. As to the provision contained in this section; that each member shall be entitled to one copy of the laws, journals, and documents of the Legislature, of which he shall be a member, there would be no difficulty about that under my amendment. Every member of the Legislature would have access to the State library where he could procure for himself a copy of the laws, to be used during the session of the Legislature. As a matter of course every member would be entitled to a copy of the journals and documents of the session. The session journals and documents would be no part of course of the compensation of members for their services. They might order those things for themselves; but I would not restrict them in that particular. I think that on the whole, it appears to be the aim of many members of this committee to tie the hands of the Legislature too closely, to leave them too little to do, to mistrust them too much. I am unwilling to take this ground; I am unwilling to occupy the position of saying, or implying, that I have no confidence in the future Legislatures which shall convene in this city. I think the substitute I have offered comprehends enough; it- restricts the Legislature enough. I hope, therefore, that the proposition made by the gentleman from Wayne will not~ be adopted. I hope the majority of this committee will vote down this proposition, and that when they come to vote upon the substitute I have offered, they will adopt it. Mr. BURTCH. I am placed under the necessity, in order to secure the rights of the people of the State of Michigan, to sustain the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MoCLELLAND,) in preference to the section reported by the committee. There is one part of the section reported by the committee which, to my mind, is quite obnoxious. Notwithstanding I am regarded by the com mittee as a little deranged, I hope they will look not at the man but at the idea he advances; if the idea is sound, then let the derangement pass. The provision of the section is, that the Legislature, when convened in extra session, shall legislate on no subjects but those stated in the Governor's proclamations, or submitted to them by special message. I have — in my mind a transaction that took place not a great way off, where a constituency, only eleven miles from this place, did not learn of some clap-trap legislation until they were tied hand and foot. The persons in the Legislature,interested in this matter went to work, prepared all the machinery, fixed the matter all up, and it was not known generally that any such thing was to transpire. In a stealthy hour a message came from the Governor to the Legislature, and in a moment, as it were, in the twinkling of an eye, there was a great wrong perpetrated upon individuals in this State. And what has transpired may transpire again. I am opposed to any such clap-trap being put in the Constitution. Take all your traps and snares out of the Constitution, so that the people may not be jeopardized by any such operations. It is easy enough to be seen that by political manoeuvering a trap of this kind may be sprung upon the people of this State, and they would have no chance what'ever to resist it, unless they rose in revolution. I hope that the legislation of the State hereafter will be so conducted as to avoid all disposition to revolution. When legislation tends to revolution, it produces blood. It may be agreeable to some gentlemen to have blood drawn, because it requires a great many servants to go round with a sponge and take it up. I am in favor of having such legislation as will tend to keep the people quiet. I am in favor of having such a Constitution as will quiet the apprehensions of the people, secure them in their interests, and save them from all clap-trap operations.: The question was upon the substitute of Mr. MCCLELSAND, as follows: " The members of the Legislature shall receive Ior their services a compensation to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the public treasury; but no increase of the compensation shall take effect during the term for which- the members of either House shall have been elected; such compensation shall not exceed four dollars. per day, with ten cents mileage, for the distance actually travelod by the usual routes, and an allowance for stationery, postage and newspapers,:not exceed'ing filteen dollars for each member, during any one session. When convened in' extra session, they shall legislate on no other subjects than those expressly submitted by the Governor." .The substitute upon a division, ayes 19, noes 35, was not agreed to. -The question recurred upon the substitute offered by Mr. WRIGHT, as follows: 44"The Legislature shall determine the compensation of its members: Provided, That such compensation shall not exceed six hundred dollars per annum." The substitute of Mr. WVRIGHT was not agreed to. No further amendment was offered to this section. COMPENSATION OF PRESIDENT OF SENATE AND SPEAKER OF HOUSE. The next section was read as follows: SECTION. 12. The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall each be entitled to six dollars per diem compensation, and the same mileage as members of the Legislature, and no more. Mr. FERRIS. I move to amend his section by striking out the word "and," after the word "Senate," and inserting after the word " Representatives," the words, "and the chairmen of the standing committees;" also to strike out the words, "and the same mileage as members of the Legislature and no more." The section, if so amended, will read: "The President oft:'the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the chairmen ot the standing committees shall each be entitled to six dollars per'diem compensation." I am in favor of this compensation of six dollars per day to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, because of the responsibilities that rest upon them, and the great labor they have to perform. I think it is right that these officers should have their increase of compensation; and gentleman who have had experience in matters of legislation will sustain me in the assertion, that chairmen of the standing committees have a vast amount of labor to perform. It seems to me that they are equally entitled to the favorable consideration of this Convention with the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I think it is no more than right, that they should receive additional compensation. In reference to the latter clause of this section, in relation to mileage, I think it is wholly unnecessary. They would receive their mileage any way, as members of the Legislature. Mr. DANIELLS. I hope this aiend-ment will not prevail. It would be very invidious to make such a distinction between members of the various committees. The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,) is the chairman of a very important committee in this body. The committee on smoking tobacco in the public streets. M Ir. FERRIS. That is not a standing committee. Mr. DANIELLS. I have the honor July 12, 1867. 71 72-: C V T: -, to be a member of that committee. If it was in the Legislature, then under the amendment now proposed the gentleman from Kent would receive six dollars per day, and I would be put on common doings, at four dollars a day. It seems to me that it would be an invidious distinction between members of the Legislature, and I hope the amendment will not prevail. Mr. BLACKIAN. Perhaps this amendment is necessary to perfect this section, if it is to stand as a part of the Constitution. Now, it strikes me that there is no difficulty in getting a member of the Legislature to accept the position of Speaker without any extra compensation. And from what little experience I have had, I think there is no more difficulty in getting individual members to accept the position of chairmen of standing committees at the same compensation that other members receive. But as I have said, if this section is to stand, it may be a very proper distinction between the members of the Legislature. It will also furnish an opportunity for a very nice system of log-rolling among mem bers, in order to secure the several po sitions of Speaker and chairmen of the standing committees. I think the amendment should prevail if this sec tion is to be retained. Mr. CONGER. I am opposed to the amendment, but not for the reason suggested by the gentleman from Van Buren (Mr. BLACKMAX.) Mly own opin ion would be that the log-rolling would be in an eutirely different direction from what he indicates. I think it might turn out that with this amend ment, we should: have a rather cumber some number of standing committees. Under the old arrangement there has always been a considerable majority of the Legislature who were not at the head of committees. If this amend ment should be adopted, they might be induced to increase the number of standing committees, so that every member would have a chance to be chairman of Some committee. That is the way I believe it is now in the Sen ate.; M]r.r MORlTON. I move to strike out this section. I will say that there has never been any difficulty in inducing men.of either political: party to accept the office of Lieutenant Governor, and preside over thle Senate, or to take the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives. I have my doubts whether either of those officers have as much laborious duty to perform as some of the chairmen of important committees. I think there would be more propriety in giving to the chair man of the judiciary committee, and perhaps the chairmen of one or two. other committees, a compensation of six dollars per day, than it would be to give it to the Speaker. There are but two or three committees which require any more labor from their chairmen than ordinary members perform. Under all the circumstances, considering that we never have had any difficulty in getting men to fill these positions at' the ordinary rate of compensation, I think it is better to strike out the section entirely. The CHAIRMAN. The question will be first taken upon the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIs. ) The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. FEURRIs, and it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the motion of Mr. MoRToN, to strike out the section. Mr. STOCKWELL. Before the question is put upon striking out the section, I move to amend it by striking out the words " ix dollars," and inserting the words "-the same," so that it will read, "shall each be entitled to the same per diem compensation," etc. I may perhaps misapprehend the duties required to be performed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, but I have not been apprized that there are any extraordinary duties or responsi bilities resting upon those officers which would justify their receiving a compensation of two dollars per diem more than the other members of the Legislature. I do not believe that it is necessary-to offer that increased com pensation to induce individuals to accept those positions. I think there will always be found enough men wil ling to accept those positions without that extra compensation. That is one reason why I have offered this amend ment. Another reason is that I believe this provision would-be doing injustice to other members of the Legislature, who have;a larger amount of service to perform than either of these officers. Mir. BURTCH. I am opposed to the amendment offered by the gentle man. It was said here by some gentle man, that if this section was allowed to remain as it was, it would create a great-deal: of log-rolling. Now,- log rolling is always a necessity in a- new country, and members who come here from the newer portions of the State are generally-better acquainted- with: that kind of business than they are with legitimate legislation. Mr. MUSSEY.' My first impression was that I should favor the motion of the gentlemen from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) to strike out this section. I think I should agree with him in the object of his motion. The gentleman from Monroe indicated that what he desired to accomplish by that motion was to prevent the President of the Senate, and the Spea-lker of the House of Representatives, from receiving this extra compensation. But I would submit to him whether the adoption of his motion would accomplish that object. Ithink the Constitutions of several of the other States leave the compensation of these officers to the Legislature. In many instances, I believe, they receive extra compensation, and in some 'States they receive double pay. That was formerly the case in this State. The first Legislature which assembled under the present Constitution did so under a provision that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House should be entitled to the same per tdiem compensation as members of the Legislature. Yet I think the Speaker of that first Legislature claimed and received double pay; one pay as member of the Legislature, and the other as Speaker, notwithstandingthis provision. Now, if -th- provision was so limber and had such elasticity that such a construction could be placed upon it, I am very much inclined to think that the motion to strike out the section would hardly accomplish the purpose. I think it would be safer to have this section remain in the Constitution. But I apprehend that itwill be stricken out unless the amendment offered by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCWELIL,) shall prevail. Mr. MlORTON. I would ask the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. Mus SEY,) if the Speaker who took that ex tra compensation was not obliged to pay it back to the State? Mr. aIUSSEY. He m ay have been under a moral obligation to do it. SMr. MORTON. If I remember, the attorney general demanded the extra pay, and it was paid. Mr. MUSSEY. VWe had faithful officers: in those days in.some of our offices. The only question, however, is, shall this section, be framed so as to suit the views of the Convention, and carry out the object they intended to-secure by this provision of the Constitution? I judge, from what I can .learn of the temper and feeling of the members of this Convention, that they do not wish to provide for extra conpensation for the presiding officers of Xthe two houses of the Legislature. I think we should fail to secure the object in view if we struck out this section. Mr. MORTON. I am willing to withdraw my motion to strike out, if the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. SToKxwL) can be adopted. 72 CONSTITUTIONAT, CONVENTION. " Friday, DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. The question was on the amendment of Mr. STOCKWELL. Mr. CONGER. I had supposed that the committee on the legislative department were unanimously in favor of allowing the Lieutenant' Governor at least six dollars per day; but I see I was mistaken, by the position taken by the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON.) This compensation is all that he will receive for his services; there is no salary provided for him in the Constitution. I had supposed that the committee were also in favor of allowing the Speaker of the House of Representatives that extra compensation. It seems to me very proper that the presiding officers of the two Houses of the Legislature should receive this additional compensation. They ought to perform more duties than other members; they ought to be here at all times, and they generally are here at all times, presiding in their places, and performing also the usual duties of other members. It seems to me that the dignity of the position, and the requirements made of those officers in the discharge of their duties, would make it proper that they should receive this'additional compensation. I thought possibly the time was past when this Convention would consider the question whether somebodiy else could not be obtained to discharge the duties of certain officers cheaper than they are now discharged. I know there is a very learned man in our vicinity who would be willing to be Governor for half the salary now paid the Governor. I have heard men offer to be judges of the supreme court at a great deal less than we were giving those officers. And when anything was said about judges resigning because in these hard times their salary of fifteen hundred dollars a year was not sufficient, I have heard many of my brother sprigs of the law offer to take their places at even a less salary. There is no question but what there are men in this State, willing to take office, and even underbid the salary paid by the Constitution. But that is not the rule by which we should be governed. The simple question with the committee was, whether it was desirable to increase the compensation of the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I thought it was the unanimous opinion of the committee that they should receive anadditional compensation.'They are required, at least, to pay the closest attention to their duties, if not to perform more arduous duties; they have some duties connected with their stations, which perhaps require extra ex Vol 2-No. 10.. pense. They are the gentlemen who receive guestS; who act as the representatives of their bodies here at the capital. Whether it creates additional expense or not I am unable to say. The gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) and the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) could answer that question better than I can. It looks a little more dignified I think for them to receive a higher rate of compensation. But if the committee are of the opinion that they should not, then I am not strenuous about it, either as a member of the committee who reported this article, or as a member of this Convention. The additional expense to the State would be but very little. I think the additionial compensation here recommended is no more than is right, and would be no more than is worthy of the dignity of the State. I hope, therefore, that the section may remain as it is. Mr. MUSSEY. I wish to ask the gentlemen a question. Does he not understand this provision applies to the President of the Senate, and not merely to the Lieutenant Governor? Mr. CONGER. It is provided in the article on the executive department that the Lieutenant Governor shall perform the duties of President of the Senate. The Presidentpro tempore of the Senate is not President of the Senate in the presence of the Lieutenant Governor. If the Lieutenant Governor is absent, and the President pro temnpore becomes actually President of the Senate, then he would receive this compensation. This section applies to the Lieutenant Governor while President of the Senate, or to the President pro temnpore of the Senate, in the absence of the Lieutenant Governor. The object of this section was to limit the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in regard to the compensation they should receive and to avoid the very question raised in former Legislatures, where it was claimed that the Speaker might receive pay as a member of the House, and also receive the same compensation as Speaker. With the construction which might perhaps legally have been placed upon the provision, t]~e Lieutenant Governor, while presiding in the Senate, would receive but three dollars per day, while the Speaker of the House in his two capacities would receive six dollars per day. This clause was intended to provide a fixed compensation for these two officers. I think the people of the State would desire that this should be done. I hope this committee may view it in that light, and give to these officers this compensation. Mr. FARM.ER. I hope the amend ment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOOKWELL,) will not prevail. If we assume to fix in this Constitution the compensation of members of the Legislature, the policy of which I very much doubt, we fix it upon some principle, intending to give them a proper compensation for the service which we expeqt they will render the State. Now, no gentleman having any experience in the matter, setting aside the presumed dignity of the office of presiding officer, would be willing to accept the position of the presiding officer of either of the Houses of the Legislature at the same compensation provided for members, without feeling that he was giving more labor to te State for the compensation, than if he was upon the floor. The duties of presiding officers are more arduous, not only during the session, but outside of the sessions of the body. He has very arduous duties to perform to prepare himself for the position. He must attend to all conmmnunications addressed to that- body, and in other modes and ways- he has more duties to perform than any one member of that body. If we fix the compensation in proportion to the labor performed, then we should give the presiding officer an increased compensation. There is also weight in t he suggestion made by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) that we should add something in the way of compensation for the presumed dignity of the office. With that view I should be in favor of increased compensation to these officers. And I would make more differece between them and the members of the Legislature, than is proposed in this report. I hold that the same rule should apply to the President of the Senate and Lieutenant Governor, that is applied to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I think they should receive an increased compensation, over and above any other member of the Legislature. I think this should be given them out of respect to the dignity of the office, and also because they have more legislative duties to perform. With this view, I hope the report of the committee will stand, and that the amendment will not prevail. Mr. P. D. WARNER. In any remarks I may make upon this question, I do not wish to be understood as being moved or influenced in any manaer by the position I occupy. Therefore I do not propose to say anything in regard to the compensation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. But I desire to say a word in behalf of the Lieutenant Governor. He is the second officer in the State. He is put in nomination by his party, and J-Lily', 12, 1867. 73 I 0 CO.STlTUTIONATL CON VENTION. is expected to go before the people, and is subjected to a large expenditure which candidates aspiring to less honors are not subjectedto. If successful in the election, he is brought to the presidency of the Senate by the Constitution. He comes here to Lansing; he may endeavor to practice economy in his expenditures. I know our present Lieutenant Governor is not an extravagant man, and I know the compensation he received did not pay his expenses-in the city of Lansing. He took pains to secure cheap lodgings, and was charged eighteen dollars a week- at a private house, because he was Lieutenant Governor of the State of Michigan, white ordinary members were charged but ten dollars. I only refer to this to-show the disposition of men to take advantage of a man'S position in life. I believe that with the responsibilities attached to the second officer in the State, the compensation granted for the services to be rendered ought in some measure to be commensurate with the dignity and responsibilities of the office. Therefore I hope that what ever action nay be had by this committee of the whole in regard to the compensation of the speaker of the House of Representatives, about which I care nothing, this committee by its action will provide some suitable compensation to be rendered to the Lieu tenant Governor of the State. Mr. BLACKMAN. I may remark in regard to the Speaker of the House of Representatives that we have here tofore found no difficulty in getting a person to accept that office at the present price. I would not wish to be understood as endorsing the view alluded to by the gentlemen from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) that we should always look to this question in fixing compensation. That is a view which I have as strongly and uniformly opposed as perhaps any other gentleman. But I think the cases are not exactly paral lel; I think there is a little difference when we come to select a member out of a hundred who have been selected from all the State, for their peculiar qualifications. It strikes me that the question presents itself in a little dif ferent manner; that we are not to act in the same manner that we would in fixing the salary of the Governor at five hundred dollars, because there are men in the State who might be con ceited enough to think that they could fill that office, and would accept that compensation. One thing more in re gard to the increased compensation; in order to give dignity to the office. I agree that when we impose additional responsibilities upon a man, he should have compensation corresponding to the responsibilities, as well as the actual labor he is to perform. But I cannot very well appreciate the idea of adding compensation, in order to give dignity to the office. If it really does have that effect, then I would not only give an increase of pay to the presiding officers, but to the members. And, on that ground, I should regret that the members of this Convention had not been provided with a compensation of six dollars, or eight dollars, per day. Mr. HOLT. I have an amendment which I desire to offer, if it is in'order. I desire to move to strike out the words "and the Speaker of the House of Representatives," and aiso the word "each," so that it will read, "the President of the Senate shall be entitled to six dollars per diem compensation," etc. My only object in offering that amendment is to change the section so that I can vote for it. Were the pay of the Lieutenant Governor fixed in any other part of the Constitution, I should be in favor of striking out this entire section. As it is, I think that by striking (out the words Speaker of the House of Representatives," this might be a sufficient conpensation for him, Mr. GIDDINGS. I am unable to see why that distinction should. be made. I understand that the duties of the-Speaker of the House of Repre sentatives are as arduous as the duties of the President of the Senate. I am told that they are more so. Besides in many States they have no Lieuten ant Governor; the President of the Senate, is- the acting Lieutenant Gov ernor; when the Governor is not act ing he acts in his stead. If you fix the compensation upon the basis of the onerousness of the duties to be performed, it seems to me that the Speaker of the House of Representa tives occupies as conspicuous a position in that respect as the President of the Senate. Mr. WILLARD. I hope the motion of the gentleman from Muskegon, will not prevail, for the simple reason, that it seems to make a distinction between the two houses. And I believe such a distinction should not be made. MIem bers'f the lower house wish to feel that their presiding officer holds a position of as much dignity and responsibility as the presiding officer of the Senate. The more attention I give to the sec tion now before us, the more I am in clined to support it as it is, and to op pose all amendments to it. I think that the compensation of the presiding officer of the Senate should be suffi cient to clothe the office with some dignity, and to incline men of charac ter not to reject it on acQunt of the small compensation given. And I think there should be some-weight attached to the argument I have just used, that there should be no distinction made between the two houses; and therefore I would include the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the same category. Mr. MORTON. If I thought it was necessary for the dignity Qf the Speaker and the Lieutenant Governor, to make their salaries higher than the members of the Legislature receive, I should certainly support it. I know those positions are dignified, but whether the office confers - dignity upon the man who holds it, depends upon the manner in which he discharges his duties. I d6 not believe it will render either of those offices more dignified by attaching a little more compensation to them. I cannot see the propriety of giving men who occupy the easiest position in the legislative body, more pay than is given to th6se who labor from early in the morning until late-at;night, as do chairmen of committees, in perfecting the business placed in their charge. It requires more labor to discharge properly the duties of chair man of some of our important com mittees, than it does to merely sit in the Chair and decide parliamentary questions, which, after a couple of weeks, is the easiest labor that a man could be called upon to perform. The glory acquired in such a station does not last longer than the session lasts. All the dignity and reputation that a man receives from such a position is obtained from the ability to discharge its duties properly. If he discharges them as some Speakers have done, it is rather an odium upon him, than a cause of congratulation by his friends. Mr. BLACKIAN. I would inquire if there is not an amendment pending offered by the gentleman from Lena wee, (Mr. STOCKWELL)? 'The CHAIRMAN. There is, but as his amendment related to the compen sation of both of these officers, and the motion of the gentleman from Mus kegon, (Mr. HoLT,) was to strike out one of these officers, though it does not touch the words embraced in the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, the Chair entertained it,.and will submit it to the committee before the other amendment. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. HOLT, and it was not agreed to. The, question- recurred' upon the amendment of Mr. STOCKWELL to strike out the words "six dollars," and-to in sert the words "the same." The amendment was agreed to, upon a division-ayes 32, noes 29. Mr. MORTON. I move; that the I 174 Friday, io July 12, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 75 committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the Chair, Mr. PRINGLE reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled Legislative Department;" had made some progress therein, and had directed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. HENDERSON, I move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly, (at five minutes past 12 o'clock, p. m.,) -the Convention took a recess until 3 o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention reassembled at 3 o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. LOTHROP. I am obliged to ask leave of absence' for myself after to-day, until Tuesday next. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. LOVELL. I ask leave of absence for myself after to-day, until Tuesday next. Leave was accordingly granted. LENGTH OF SESSIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE. Mr. W. A. SMITH, by unanimous consent, offered the following resolution, which was adopted: Resolved, That the State Librarian be requested to. communicate to this Convention, information in regard to the length of each session of the Legislature, from and including the year 1835 to and including the year 1867. CIRCUIT COURT SESSIONS. Mr. MILES. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following resolution for consideration at this time: Resolved, That the several county clerks in this State be required to furnish to this Convention, without delay, a statement showing the aggregate number of days session of the circuit court in their respective counties, during the year 1866. No objection being made, the'question was upon the adoption of the resolution. Mr. GIDDINGS. I think the resolution should read "requested," instead of "required." We cannot require the clerks to do this or that. Mr. NINDE. I think we can require them. Under the law calling this Convention- together, we are authorized to send for persons and papers. The resolution was agreed to. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. MUSSEY. I more that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole upon the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. PRINGLE in the Chair,) and resumed the consideration-of the article entitled "Legislative Department." COMPENSATION OF PRESIDENT OF SENATE AND SPEAKER OF HOUSE. The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose this morning it had under consideration section twelve of this article which had been amnended to read as follows: SECTIoN 12. The President of the Senate and the Speaker-of the House of Representatives shall each be entitled to the same per diem compensation and the same mileage as members of the Legislature, and io more. Mr. TURNER. I move to amend this section by inserting after the words the President of the Senate," the words "shall receive an annual salary of five hundred dollars, which shall be in full for his services as Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senate." I do not propose to take up much of the time of this committee in discussing this amendment. The subject of this section has already been quite fully discussed. It does seem to me, however, that in a State like this, if we are going to retain the office of Lieutenant Governor he should receive a little more compensation than a member of the House of Representatives, or a mnember of the Senate. If it is not due to the dignity of the office, it seems to me it is due to the dignity of the State, to pay something at least for the office. I know it has been said here by gentlemen that there are men enough who would -accept that office with the present compensation. I have no doubt of that whatever; I have no doubt there are men enough who would accept the office of Governor or Chief Justice of the State for one half of the compensation paid to those officers. But they are not the kind of men we want to fill those offices. Certain gentleman here have talked a great deal about the rights of the poorer classes. Certainly no mancould afford to accept the office of Lieutenant Governor now, unless he was a man of some means. He could not afford to come here and spend three months of the year, or the session of the Legislature, and act as President of the Senate for four dollars per day, unless he has more means than most of those have had who have held that office. I certainly hope the amendment will be adopted. I would move to make the Salary one thousand dollars if I had any hope that it would be carried. The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. TuRNER, and on a division, ayes 38, noes 13, it was agreed to. Mr. MORTON. I mov to further amend this section by striking out the word "each." That word is unnecessary since the amendment of the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. TURNER,) has been adopted. Mr. LUCE. I suppose it would be proper to.strike out all of this section after the amendment which has just been adopted, because the Speaker of the House of Representatives; receiving the same compensation as a member of the Legislature, there can be no occasion for retaining the rest of this section. Mr. TURNER. I intended to include in my motion to strike out the word "each." The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. MORTON to strike out word "each," and it was agreed to. Mr. LUCE. I now move - to strike out all of this section after the amendment which was adopted on motion of the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. TURNER,) SO that the section will read: ' The President of the Senate shall receive an annual salary of five hundred dollars, which shall be in full for his services as Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senate." - There certainly can be no use in retaining the balance of this section. The Speaker of the House, even as a member of the House, will be entitled to the same compensation provided for other members of the House, and nothing more. It is certainly mere surplusage to retain that portion of the section which now relates to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The'amendment of Mr. LUCE was agreed to. No ftrther amendment was offered to the section. PAY OF CONTESTANTS. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 13. In case of a contested election, each House shall determine the amount of per diem compensation and mileage to be received by each contestant; but the per diem compensation allowed to both parties, shall not exceed the sum of four dollars per day. Mr. SAWYER. I move to amend this section by striking out the word c each," before the word "contestant," and inserting in lieu thereof, the words "the rejected;" and also striking out the words "and both parties;" also striking out "four," and inserting the word "two." The section would then read: "In case of a contested election, each House shall determine the amount of per diem compensation and mileage to be received by the rejected contestant; but the per diem compen I CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. sation allowed shall not exceed the sum of two dollars per day." I desire simply to obtain an expres sion of the sentiments of this commit tee upon this subject. It struck me when I read the section, that when a person had been elected by a constituency, and came here to the House,,or to the Senate, to represent them, it was not exactly in accordance with justice, that, because some person chose to contest his seat, he should be deprived of half of his compensation. It seems to me that a member who has succeeded in an election, which has been declared legal by the House to which he is elected, has a certain right and franchise; and that franchise is, that he as a member of that House or Senate, shall be entitled to the same compensation and per diem allowed to other members whose seats may not be contested. So far as regards the rejected contestant, I am not certain that it would not be well to leave each House the right to determine what compensation, if any, he shall receive. I have fixed it in my amendment at two dollars. I propose that, however, merely to obtain an expression of the opinion of this committee of the" whole. There might be cases where it would be justice to allow him a certain amount of compensation. There might, however, be cases where it would be great injustice to the people to allow him anything. Mr. DANIELLS. I have an amendment here which I think will meet the views of the gentleman precisely. It is to strike out all after the word " contestant," and also strike out the word "each," and insert the word "a." The section would then read: "In case of a contested election each House shall determine the amount of per diem, compensation and mileage to be re ceived by a contestant." It seems to. me that is all we should put in the Constitution. Mr. SAWYER; That is satisfactory to me. Mr. WITHEY. I do not think that covers the ground proposed to be covered by the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. SAWYER.) I understand, however, that he accepts the amendment of the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DAIELLs.) If that amendment shall be adopted by the committee the result will be, that the member who holds his seat may not get his four dollars per diem. If it may be divided by the Legislature between the two contestants, the party who is rejected may get the half, and the party whose right to the seat is sustained will have only the remaining half. Under a preceding section of this article each member is entitled to a compensation of four dollars per day. I think this provision should be left so that dach House could determine how much the defeated contestant should receive, without affecting the per diem compensation to be paid to the member whose right to the seat is sustained. Mr. SAWYER. I rather think, as the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) has suggested, that I have been taken in a little by the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS.) I think I would rather have the question taken on my original proposition; therefore I will not accept the amendment of the gentleman from Clinton. Mr. DANIELLS. It looks to me as though my amendment would do exactly what I intend it should do; thiat is, leave it to the House to determine the amount of compensation to be received by each contestant. I do not think there is any danger that the House will not give just compensation to each of the parties. I would risk it, at any rate, if I were the contestant or the member holding the seat. The law gives the member four dollars per day. Then there comes in the contestant; if the Legislature deem the contestant entitled to the seat, he will get the compensation. At all events, I have no doubt they will treat him fairly. The CHAIRMAN. The question will be first taken upon the amendment- of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. SAWYER.) Mr. BILLS. I wish to make a suggestion in regard to the amendment now pending. My view, however, would be that the successful candidate is really entitled to all the pay for the member of the district in question; that, I think, is a mere matter of justice. I think this Convention, in making a provision upon the subject, should do nothing whereby the Legislature might feel themselves authorized to reduce his pay. In regard to the compensation which should be awarded to the unsuccessful candidate, I would leave that matter wholly to the discretion of the Legislature, without any limitation. Mr. LUCE. I hardly know what the particular question, or motion, or amendment now pending is. However, as I am opposed to all amendments to this section, I can safely speak in favor of retaining the section as it is. This section met my approbation when it was considered by the committee who reported it. I am still in favor of retaining the section as it now is. In the present Constitution it is provided: "In case of a contested election, the person only shall receive from the Stateper diem compensation and mileage, who is declared to be entitled to a seat by the House in which the contest takes place." I understand that that section was adopted to correct an abuse which had grown up under the Constitution of 1835. That abuse consisted in this: gentlemen from the northern part of the State would contest seats in the Legislature, and both the contestant and sitting member would come here and draw pay for the entire session. I have seen something of the workings of the section in the Constitution of 1850, and I have seen that it might workinjustice. In the Legislature of 1865 there were some ten or twelve members in the House who were elected by what was called the soldiers' vote. Towards the close of the session the supreme court decided that the law, under which the votes of the soldiers were received, was not a legal law. The members holding their seats, and who had held them during the session, came near losing them under this decision, lacking but o ne- vote in the Senate and but a few votes in the House, to accomplish that purpose. Now, would it be right, in such a case as that, to deprive the one who had been holding the seat during the session of any compensation? It seemed to me and to the committee, that it would obviate any injustice of that kind to leave to the Legislature the right to provide what compensation should be allowed. We thought it would be better to provide that there should be but one compensation paid. I think the section should be left without amendment, so that the Legislature may distribute the compensation in case of a contest,-and still the State be obliged to pay for only one hundred members in the House. Mr. P. D. WARNER. There is one consideration to which the member from Branch, (Mr. LuOE,) did not refer, but which might have an influence upon the minds of thiscommittee. It will be noticed that this section provides that the compensation to be received by both contestants shall be four dollars per day. But mileage may be received by each of the contestants. I think it was the understanding of the committee, that the allowance of mileage to each contestant would make up what the per diem allowed would fail to cover. Mr. FARMER. I do not think I can rote consistently upon either of the amendments now pending, because they do not correspond with my views of what this section should be. I think that the person declared to be entitled to the seat should be awarded full pay and mileage. The person contesting the seat, although unsuccessful, should be paid something. He comes here 76 Friday, DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. with the honest opinion that he is entitled- to the seat. I think that the Legislature would be the better judges of what the person not succeeding in getting the seat should receive, because they would know the circumstances in each particular case. I do not think that the amendment proposed would place this section in such a different light that it would meet my approbation. If in order, I would propose an amendment to this section. Mr. DANIELLS. I think the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. FARMER,) if he will examine the amendment I propose, will find that it meets his views exactly. I propose to strike out -all after the word "contestant," and to insert the word "a" in place of "each," before the word "contestant." Mr. FARMER. If the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. SAWYER) should fail, then the amendment of the gentleman from Clinton (Mr. DANIELLS) would come nearer to meeting my views. Mr. DANIELLS. I do not suppose that we can provide in the Constitution a clause that would meet every case that may arise hereafter, between contestants and the Legislature. I propose to submit the whole matter to the Legislature, they are the best judges in the premises. Perhaps if we could have before us every case, we might be superior to them; but as they will have all the facts before them, I think they will have wisdom enough to decide the matter correctly. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr..SAWYER, and it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. DANIELLS. Mr. BLACKMAN. I desire to offer a substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) to insert the word "unsuccessful," in place of "each," before the word "contestant," so that it will read "compensation and mileage to be received by the unsuccessful contest ant." Mr. DANIELLS. I think there can be but one contestant; the one is the sitting member, the other is the con testant. I think the article "a" is the proper word to be used. Mr. BLACKMAN. I will move as a substitute to the amendment to strike out all after the word "contestant;" also to strike out "each," and insert the words "the unsuccessful," so that it will read, "in case of a contested election, each house shall determine the amount of per diem compensation and mileage to be received by the un successful contestant." Mr. MUSSEY. I am opposed to both of these amendments, as I under stand them. The gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) says there can be but one contestant. A contestant is one who claims the seat; not, as I understand it, in opposition to the one who holds the seat. I admit that the gentleman is a member of the committee on phraseology, but that is the way I understand it. Mr. DANIELLS. It is evident that the gentleman does not understand Latin. -[Laughter.] Mr. MUSSEY. I admit that the gentleman outranks me in that. I do not want to be compelled to drag him along with me, whenever I undertake to read the Constitution, to find out what it means. What I desire is this: if a person comes here and contests a seat and obtains it, then I want to put him on a par with the rest of the members. I do not know what facilities the gentleman may have for construing language so as to require the one retaining the seat, or obtaining it, to submit his claim for compensation to the Legislature. Mr. COOLIDGE. I desire to help my brother on the-committee on phraseology, (Mr. DANIELLS.) I think he is correct beyond all question. In each election some one is elected. When the matter comes up in the House or in the Senate, there is no election by either of those bodies; they merely declare who is elected. Therefore, I suppose that, strictly, there can be but one contestant. One of the parties is a member, and the decision by the House of the Legislature, is simply as to which one is the member. The one who brings his credentials to the House is presumed-to be the member elected; the person contesting that is the contestant. Mr. MU-SSEY. I wish merely to say a word, because between the gentlemnan from Clinton, (Mir. DANIELLS,) and the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. CooLInGE,) I think I may be set right; I agree with the gentleman from Bernien, that one is elected, and the other is not. But take the cases that occurred in the county of Macomb; unfortunately in a certain election there we got rather mixed up. One of each political party obtained a large majority of votes; but the one of each party who got the least number of votes obtained the certificate and took his seat in the Legislature. The people did not feel disposed to be cheated in that way, and therefore, they advised those who received the large majority of votes to contest the seats of those who were holding them under the credentials. They did so, and obtained the seats. Now, I want to know if these two members who received a majority of the votes of the people-xcept a little blunder made by some town clerks in spelling some of the names-I want to know if those members should be deprived of their pay, or placed in a position where they would be obliged to ask the Leggislature to allow them compensation, while those holding the seats by means of bogus certificates, should receive pay and mileage for the time they held those seats? For my part, I think not. Mr. COOLIDGE. I would ask the gentleman if, in the case to which he refers, the persons who came here afterwards and claimed that those holding the seats had no right to them were not contestants? Mr. MUSSEY. That is so; they were contestants. But I claim that when they obtained those seats they were entitled to all the rights and privileges of any other members of the House. I hold that those who occupied the seats up to the time the contest was decided, were the parties who should be placed in limbo, and not those who were rightfully entitled to the seats. Mr. DANIELLS. The member who came here with his certificate and took his seat would of course draw pay under the former section of this article; he would draw his four dollars per day. The member contesting his seat after the contest was decided in his favor, would get such pay as Legislature would grant. Mr. MUSSEY. The present Consti,ution provides that only the person succeeding in the contest shall receive any pay as member. Mr. DANIELLS. I mean under the new Constitution which we are making. I do not refer to the old Constitution. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. It seems to me that all that is desired by gentlemen who have spoken on this subject will be obtained by striking out all after the word "contestant" and inserting the word "the," in place of the word "each," so that it will read: "each house shall determine the amount of per diem compensation, and mileage to be received by the contestent." Now, I am of the opinion expressed by the gentleman from Clin' ton, (Mr. DANiELLS,) and the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIGnE,) that the member who retains his seat receives his per diem allowance of four dollars per day, and his mileage. We desire, therefore, merely to prepare a provision in relation to the unsuccessful contestent. I think it is safe to leave it with the Legislature to say what the contestant shall receive. It seems to Be that we shall accomplish all that is necessary by making the change I have suggested. Mfr. BURTCH. In looking over this article, I cannot see that there is any 77 July 12,-1867. 40 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIOlN. necessity for this section at all. In sec tion nine of this article it is provided that each house shall be the judge of the qualifications, election, and returns of its own members. Section eleven of this article provides that the com pensation of members shall be four dollars per day. I think that- these two sections comprise all thatis needed on the subject. Mr. GIDDINGS. It seems to me that we can understand this, without spending a great deal of time in discussing any question of principle. Ali that we desire is to ascertain the meaning of the words. I think the amendment of the gentleman from Clinton (Mr. DANIELLS) covers all that we want. I think the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. COOLIDGE) went a step too far. When a person presents his certificate here, and takes his seat as a member, it may turn out upon examination that he is not entitled to that seat. The certificate is prima facie evidence that he is a member, but it does not settle that fact. I understand the point with the gentleman from Clinton to be, that the Legislature should be left to determine this question of compensation. Should the Legislature decide that Mr. A, who is holding a seat upon a certificate of election, is not the person rightfully entitled to the seat, then he is holding the place he'should not have; and the moment the question is settled the person entitled to the seat takes the seat, and the other person should be left to apply to the Legislature for such compensation as they may deem proper to give him. Mr. BLACKMAN. I do not know by what rule the gentleman would convert the sitting member into a contestant, because his claim to the seat is rejected. This section, as proposed to be amended by, the gentleman from Clinton, gives the Legislature the power to determine the compensation to be received by the contestant. I understand a contestant to be equivalent to an appellant; and to carry out the verbal parallel, the sitting member would be contestee. I do not understand that the appellee becomes the appellant, because he is defeated. When we confine ourselves to this nicety of distinction in words, I say that it is improper to use the word "contestant," except as applicable to only one of the parties. I see that the committee have applied it to both, as both are contesting the right to the seat. I conceive there is no very great impropriety in using it in that sense, and consequently I propose to insert the word "unsuccessful," before "contestant." That would, be of course, treating both as contestants; but, as I said before, I do not see any great impropriety in using the word in that way. We want to determine what we want to do; and then we can determine what words will accomplish that object. Do we desire that the person who has been duly and honestly elected, but who has been deprived of his seat by a certificate wrongly given to the other party, shall be at the mercy of the Legislature, to receive such compensa tion and mileage as they slall see fit to give him? Or do-we desire that he shall receive what he would have had, if the certificate had been properly granted to him in the first place? It seems to me that the person honestly entitled to the seat,whether sitting member or contestant, is the one entitled to per diem and mileage without any grace of the House; while the person who does not retain the seat, whether sitting member or not, is the one who should depend upon the grace of the House for such compensation as under the circumstances they may conceive it proper for him to receive. I think my amendment meets that case. There is against it the technical objection of speaking of both parties as contestants; an objection which I consider entirely unimportant. Mr. MORTON. I am inclined to believe that we cannot make this section any better than it is as reported by the committee. The-object of the committee was to allow the Legislature, if they saw fit and the circumstances justified it, to give the person who had been holding the seat, but was compelled to give it to the contestant, liis allowance of four dollars per day for the time he was in the seat, or to divide it between him and the one who had been contesting the seat. In 1865 three or four persons came here with certificates, who were thrown out of their seats and others placed in them, who were elected by the soldiers' vote. I think that there was one from Oakland county, who was elected by the votes of soldiers, who never had been in the county of Oakland. I think that will be found to be the case by applying to the ofilce of the Secretary of State. The provision gives the Legislature the right to pay a man just so long as he retains his seat and acts as a member. Then if it is determined that the contestant is entitled to the seat, he takes the pay from that time. Such cases as these sometimes occur; men are sometimes elected by the people,: while others are elected by the Legislature. After the decision that the soldiers' voting law was unconstitutional, it made no difference to the Legislature. The majority of the Legislature would have kept th.ose in who were holding the seats, no matter what the decision of the court might have been. One member from Ottawa county resigned his seat after the decis ion of the Supreme Court, because he said he was ashamed to be here after that decision was made. No great in justice can be done to any one by retain ing this section as it now stands. I think each member can perceive the propriety of allowing the four dollars per day to be divided between the two parties. It will prevent useless contests. Mr. LEACH.. I cannot see the propriety of allowing but four dollars a day for the two parties. The man who receives the certificate from the board of canvassers has good reason to suppose he is entitled to the seat. Usually such men come in good faith, believing they have a right to the seat. If another person comes and contests the seat and succeeds, the man who receives the certificate certainly ought to receive his per diem from the day of the meeting of the Legislature to the time when the House, or the Senate, as the case may be, declares he is not a member. I hold it would be unjust and unfair to refuse such a man his per diem. When the House or the Senate declare that another man is entitled to the seat, that other man should certainly receive compensation from the time the seat is awarded to him; and I think he should receive compensation from the beginning of the term. I do not see how we can say to a man bringing the proper documents here, that he shall receive but two dollars a day, or shall not receive anything if he is ousted from his seat. Mr. COOLIDGE. Suppose he obtained the certificate by fraud. MIr. LEACH. I apprehend such cases are rare; they can hardly ever occur. I believe that, in nine eases out of ten, men who come with certificates, honestly believe that they have' been elected, and consequently they should be paid. And I believe that a man coming here with a good claim to the seat, and who has not received the certificate, should also be paid. I would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Legislature. I believe the amendment offered by the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANImLS,) would leave this section in such a shape that the Legislature can do justice to the parties. There may be cases when it would not be just that both parties should be paid. The contestant may fail in consequence of having no right, or ground of right, to the seat; and he should not receive compensation and mileage. But the amendment leaves that matter entirely in the hands of the Legislature. Mr. LIUCE. I would not have said a word if it had not been for the re 78 FridaI y J11l 12 X87 DEAE AN xRCEDNS 7 marks of the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEAcH.) I venture to predict that if we amend this section as proposed, we shall have-in every session of the Legislature ten or a dozen or more men to pay as contestants. I believe it is the rule in Congress, and in legislatures, where there is no restriction of this kind, to pay the contestants. The contestants come and spend their money; they leave their homes with some sort of show of a right to the seat. The Legislature, in their generosity, will almost invariably allow a compensation to the, contestant whether he has a right to it or not. I believe the section as reported by the committee will work more justice than either of the amendments proposed. I believe if a person contests a seat he should receive pay after he gets the seat, if he gets it. Probably, too, it is right that the one who holds the seat should be paid until he is ousted. But I am somewhat surprised that the gentleman from Grand Traverse should advocate the paying both parties from the beginning of the Legislature to the time the contest is de cided. WVe would have some twenty or thirty persons to pay in, that way in each Legislature. I have never been in the Legislature any ses sion when there were not a dozen *or more contested seats; and I think this amendment would result in our having more contested seats than we now have, taking up the time of the Legislature and taking money from the treasury. Every time I have been here, there has been a contested seat from the county of Wayne, and from other parts of the State. I am opposed Fo opening the door for persons to come here to contest seats. I think the committee have fixed this sec tion as well as it will be if any amendment is adopted, and I believe better, and not have that stringent rule provided by the present Constitu tion, under which but one party to the contest, under any circumstances, could draw any pay. But it leaves the Leg islature to distribute the compensation as they may think proper, being con fined, however, to allowing one com pensation to the two parties engaged in the contest. That is; I believe, as it should be. Mr. FERRIS. I am rather in doubt as to what all these.gentlemen are driving at. I think I can see, how ever, what we ought to provide. I will move a substitute for the amendment, which I think will accomhplish what we want better tha~ anything before us -ow. I move to strike out all after the words "contested election," and insert, "the unsuccessful contestant shall receive the same per diem compensation as a defeated candidate at an election, and no more." Mr. WITHEY. I regard the true principle in this matter as having been covered by the amendment offered by the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS.) As I understand his amendment, it puts the section in tliis shape: "In case of a contested election, each House shall determine the amount of per diem compensation and mileage to be received by a contestant." I think that is the true principle to be incorporated in this section. I believe it to be just, and'that it will secure the parties their just rights. A person comes to the Legislature, presents his credentials and takes his;seat. He is entitled to vote and participate in the -deliberations of the body. A person from the same district comes forward and contests the seat of that member. It is finally decided that the contestent is entitled to the seat, and that the person who brought the credentials is not entitled to the seat. In such a case the person who has taken his seat under the cre dentials will receive his per diem and mileage while acting as a member of the Legislature. The person who con tested the seat, and who was declared entitled to it, should also receive his per diem and mileage. That seems to me to be entirely just. These parties both come to the Legislature under a claim of right; the right to a seat in the Legislature. We are bound to presume that they come honestly claiming the right to that seat. They should receive the compensation and mileage of any other member during the time that they are here. But sup pose the person who comes to contest the right of the seat of that member is defeated. Then the case is in the hands of the Legislature to give to him such compensation as under the circumstances of the case he should receive. WVe, sitting here as a Con vention, cannot look forward and de termine what compensation should be meted out to every person in such a case. It may appear to the Legislature that the unsuccessful contestant had good reason for coming forward and claim ing the seat; it may appear that he was justified in thus pressing his claim. Under those circumstances, I insist that the perso'n thus making the con test should receive a compensation from the Legislature equal to that of a member. That would be my judgment were I Sitting in the Legislature as a member of it. But, on the other hand, if it should appear that the contestant had not good reason for pressin'g his claim to the seat of the sitting mem ber, thenR it - the hands of the- Legis lature to give him just what compensation he should deserve. If he should deserve nothing, then give him nothing; if he should deserve half the amount of a member, then give it to him; if he should have mileage, then give it to him; if none, then give him none. It seems to me that the proposition of the gentleman from Clinton places it min the power of the Legislature to do exactly right. I believe the position taken oun this floor by some members is correct; that the sitting member who comes with his credentials is entitled to his per diem until he is unseated. The present Constitution, however, provicies otherwise; but I think the provision is unjust. I think as it is now proposed to amend the section, everything that should be-incorporated in the Constitution wil be then provided for. We are to make a section to take the place of the one in the old Constitution. I think the proposition of my friend from Clinton expresses the correct principle. -:. Mr. FERRIS. I am opposed/to pay ing the unsuccessful contestant one cent. I hawre not yet heall from the eminent and distinguished gentlemien who have spoken in favor of paying something to him, one satisfactory rea son for so doing. The person who comes with the credentials, who takes his seat as the sitting member, will draw his pay and mileage, until it is determined he has no right to the seat. He is in no sense a contestant; that party is the contestant who comes with out'a certificate. If he satisfies the House or the Senate, in whichever body he claims to hold the seat, that the certificate should have been given to him, then he obtains the seat, with the per diem allowance, etc. But- if he fails, what right has he to any wm pensation? He presents a claim that is unfounded in fact, and is determined to be unfounded by the body that has power to pass upon it. What reason have we to authorize, or direct, or per mit the Legislature to put their hands into the pockets of the people and to pay a man as a member who is not a member, whether four dollars a day, or two dollars a day? I do not under stand the-logic of any such argument. Let the man who contests stand upon' the same footing of any other man who urges a claim. If he wins let him have the plunder; if he loses, let him go about his business, where he should have staid in the first place. * Mr. CONGER. I think a careful consideration of this subject will satisfy every member that there are difficulties to be provided for in either view either with the amendment or without: the amendment. There are questions of right and justice and perhaps of ex DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. July 12, 1867. 79 0 I 80 CO-SriiITUTIONAL CONVE~TIO~. Friday. 0 pediency to be settled. If we are to have any constitutional provision at all, we should adopt that which will provide the nearest to what is right. The committee thought that the sec tion in the present Constitution upon this subject did not exactly suit such cases as have arisen, and might again arise. It did not give either HIouse the right to do what was just and proper. We desired to change the rule of that section, so as to give to the contestant, and to the person holding the seat, the same per diem compensa tion; to change it in regard to the manner in which the compensation should be distributed. The section in the present Constitution provides that — "In case of a contested election, the per son only shall receive from the State per die compensation and mileage, who is declared to be entitled to the seat by the House in which the contest takes place." In practice, and as we can well see in theory, a man may come here and perform the duties of a member of the Legislature for all legitimate purposes for fifty, sixty, or more days; he may during almost the entire session perform all the-duties of a member. Yet under the present Constitution, at the end of that time he would be entitled to no pay and no mileage, if his seat was awarded to another person. That must be the practice under the present Constitution, if the section I have read is strictly construed. Now, every member of this committee must see that such a rule in such a case would work'great hardship. The State would not pay for services rendered to it. The fact that another person receives the seat does not invalidate the laws which the one who has been holding it has helped to make; it does not in any way depreciate the value of the services he has rendered the State. Yet in consequence of some technicality, some irregularity of action on the part of some officer of the election, he may be declared not to be entitled to the seat, and under the present Constitution would receive no compensation whatever for the services he had performed Yet the State has received his services; the laws which have been passed by the aid of his votes, are declared to be r.ood and valid laws. The other party may not have come near to contest the seat until the very last week of the session. The committee thought that in such a case it would be very proper to leave the Legislature to distribute and divide the compensation between: the two parties according to,the services rendered. - On the other hand, the committee did not wish to encourage contests; they did not wish to hold out beforehand a premium to persons to endeav or to hold seats improperly, or to per sons to contest seats because they knew beforehand, that the Legislature would, in all probability, pay them both. That was the reason why the committee reported this section in the form now before us. I am not skilled enough in language to understand why each per son, the sitting member and the one contesting his right to that seat, is not a contestant when the contest is once commenced. The person who comes here after the other has taken his seat, gives notice to the sitting member that he shall contest the seat, and the sit ting member contests with tfliat per son the right to have the seat. It makes him no less a contestant because he is also a sitting member. Like the gantlenian from Clinton, (Mr. DAN IELLS,) I was once somewhat familiar with Latin in my earlier days. I had supposed that "contestant" meant a person who brought proof or testimo ny to sustain his side of the question; I had supposed that was the original meaning of the word "contestant," a person coming with testimony. But in that I may be mistaken. ,I do not think either of the amend ments offered meet the case; I do not think that either of them will accom plish the design of the mover. If it be the desire of this Convention to say that both parties, the member holding the seat, and the one contesting it, shall be paid a per diem compensation, it is very easy to provide for that by changing the four dollars to eight dollars, and leaving the section in other respects to stand as it is. But if it be not their intention to do so, then in my opinion, this section cannot be bettered by any amendment. I for one would ben favor of paying both parties per diem compensation, or of allowing the Legislature to do it. I think the house in which the contest takes place may very properly be left to determine the amount to be paid to each person. I think this section provides, beyond all question, for leaving the matter in regard to the compensation of the contestants to the Legislature. In regard to the mileage, as has been remarked, that is left an open question. Those who enter into the contest may receive mileage for their journey here and return. But I apprehend the people of this State do not wish to pay two men for the services of one. If, seats are contested, those who contest them, and those who hold] them, too, must take some little risk in the matter. I think the gentleman from Branch (Mr. LucE) has said, and correctly, too, that if either of these amendments be adopted we offer a premium for contests in each house of the Legislature, which will be accepted in eyery coming session; aind the contests will be in creased in number, and the expenses to the State will be increased beyond what we have any conception of now. Mr. COOLIDGE. I hope I shall not be understood as being opposed to the section as reported; I am not. As to the word " each," in the section, I find no fault with' it, because it may have the force of "either." I am satisfied with the section as reported. When I was on the floor before, I was talking of another matter. Mr. WRIGHT. It sebms to me that the section, as reported by the committee, is defective, and I do not think that any of the amendments proposed will remedy that defect, except the one proposed by the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS.) I do not think it is necessary to take any great amount of time to discover where the defect is in this section as reported. If the position taken by the gentleman from St. Clair,'Mr. CoNGER,) be the correct one, that one party only is- to receive pay, or that the pay ofa member is to be divided between the two contestants, then the one who is actually entitled to the seat must be required to take from his pocket money he received while holding the seat, to pay the contestant. Just look at this proposition; it is a provision to pay two persons four dollars a day. A party comes here and takes his seat under his certificate, and retains it, we will say, one-half of a session. A contestant comes up, who is legally entitled to that seat, and because he did not happen to get the certificate, he must pay to the one who holds the seat for a time, unlawfully, out of his own money, that is, the money to which he was entitled as the legally elected member. In others words, the Legislature must provide for the payment of the person ilegally holding the seat out of the money which belongs to the member legally entitled to the seat. That is the great objection I have to the section as reported by the committee. The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. FERRIS, and it was not agreed to. The aquestion recurred upon the amendment of Mr. BLACKMAN. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I wish to say simply one word upon this question. If it is the desire of the committee of the whole that there should be any action taken by this Convention regarding this question, then of course this amendment will not receive the support of the committee. If the amendment isadopted, by all means it will be policy to strike out what is left of the section; because the adoption ofthe amendment would leave to each house of the Legislature to determine 80 .CONSTLTUTIONAL -CONVENTION. - Friday, I I J11ly 12, 1867. i[)EBATES AD PROGEEDIGS. * 81 the compensation that shall be awarded to each contestant. The house would have that power if this section did not appear in the'Constitution.' Therefore if we adopt the amendment, and then leave standing here what will be left of the section, we will be actually legislating without a purpose. We should really be conferring power upon the Legislature which they would possess without any such provision. I think, therefore, that if the amendment be adopted what would be left of the section would be unnecessary, and might as well be striken out. Mr. CONGER. I cannot agree in this respect with my colleague on the legislative committee, (Mr. P. D. WARNER.) I think if the amendment is adopted, each House would have the right to determine any. amount of compensation and any amount 9mileage. Mr. P. D. WARNER. Might they not do that as well if this section did not go into the'Constitution at all? Mr. CONGER. They might then consider themselves bound by another section which limnits the compensation to four dollars a day.' But'if this section is amended as proposed, they might give the contestants ten dollars a day and thirty cents a mile, or any other amount, according to their judgment. ,Mr. FERRIS. I move to amend this section by striking out the word "each," before the word "contestant," and inserting in lieu thereof thevwords "the sitting member and the," so that it will read "compensation and mileage to be received by the sitting member and the contestant." The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. FERRIS, and it was not agreed'to..' The question recurred upon the amendment of, Mr. BLACKMAN; and bding taken, it was agreed to.-' The question then recurred upon the amendment of Mr. DANELLS;' and being taken, upon a division, ayes 19, noes not counted, it was not agreed to. Mr. FARMER.; I move to strike out this entire section, so that the whole matter may be left to the Legis lature. The motion to strike out was not agreed to. JOURNALS OF THE LEGISLATURE-YEAS AND NAYS, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 14. Each House shall keep a jour nal of its proceedings, and publish the same, except such parts as may require secrecy. The yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question, shall be entered on the journal, at the request of one-fifth of the members elected. Any member of either House may dissent from and protest against any act, proceeding or resolution, which he may deem injurious to any person or the pub lic, and have the reason of his dissent en tered on the journal. - Vol. 2 —No. 11. Mr. BURTCH. I move to amend this section by striking out the words "'may require secrecy," and insert in lieu thereof the words, "the public good may require to be-kept secret;" so that it will read, L"Each house'shall keep a journal of its proceedings and publish the same, except such parts as thepublic good may require to be kept secret." The amendment of Mr. BURTCH was not agreed to. Mr. MTILES. I move to amend the second sentence by striking out the words " entered on the journal," and inserting in lieu thereof the word " taken," so that it will read: "The yeas and nays of the members of either house, on any question, shall be taken at the request of one-fifth of the'members elected." It will be observed by the first part of- this section that it is necessary to keep a journal of the proceedings of each house; therefore, if the yeas and nays are taken, of course they will be entered upon the journal. The object of the committee in reporting this section, as I understand it, was to enable one-fifth of the members elected to take the yeas and nays. If the yeas and nays are taken, it was expected, as a - matter' of course, that they would be entered on the journal. Mr. CONGER. I cannot see, why they should be entered upon the journal, because they are taken, any more than that they should be taken, because it is directed that they shall be entered on the journal;'I think that would be the result in either case. The object of the, committee in, requiring the yeas and nays to be entered upon the journal, was to have a constitutional provision, making it necessary that the yeas and nays should be a part of the journal; of course they would have to be taken to be entered upon the journal. The House might not publish that portion of the journal; they might think that it was necessary to keep that part of the proceeding secret. But the design of this section is to compel the entering of the yeas and nays on the journal, whether published or not, at the request of one-fifth of the members elected...... Mr. MILES. How are the yeas and nays to be taken if: the House refuses to order them? I suppose the object of this provision is to enable one-fifth of the' members elected to require the yeas and nays to be taken. Mr. CONGER. That does not seem to me to have been the only object of this part of the section; that is one of the objects of it...This provision in cludes that and something more. The yeas and nays cannot be entered upon the journal without be'mg taken; but one object of the section is to require that the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the journal as well as be taken. Mr. MILES. Is there any provision that they shall be taken? Mr. CONGER. They could not be entered upon the journal without being taken., The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. MILEs, and it was not agreed to. Mr. FERRIS. I move to amend this section by striking out the words, " shall be entered on the journal," and inserting the words, " may be ordered." Mr. MUSSEY. The gentleman certainly cannot mean that; he'is'quite a linguist, and understands the English language pretty well. Each house can order the yeas and nays without such a provision.'' May be ordered," leaves it perfectly'optional with them. The amendment of Mr. FERRIS was not agreed to. No further amendment was offered to this section. ELECTIONS BY THE LEGISLATURE. The next section was read -as-follows: SECTION 15. In all elections by either — House, or in joint convention, the votes shall be given viva voce. All votes on nominations to the Senate shall be taken by yeas and nays, and published with the journal of its proceedings.. No amendment was offered to the section. SESSIONS-ADJOURNMENTS, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SEcTIoN 16. The doors of each House shall be open, unless the public welfare require secrecy. Neither House shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than where the Legislature may then be in session No amendment was offered to this section. -' BILLS IN THE LEGISLATURE. The next section was read as follows: SECTIoN 17. Bills may originate in either House of the Legislature; but no new bill shall be introduced after the first filty days of a session shall have expired Mr. FERRIS. I move to strike out the last clause, which is in these words: "but no bill shall be introduced after the first fifty days of a session shall have expired." The section will then read, "Bills may originate in either House of the Legislature." I wish to say just one word in regard to this amendment., I hope those gentlemen who have expressed such unbounded confidence im the Legislature will show it by their votes on this amendment. For my part I am willing to trust the Legislature in this matter. Mr.- CONGER. I desire to move an amendment to this section before the question is put upon' the motion to strike out. In pursuance of instructions by the committee on the legislative department, I move to amend the last clause of this section by striking 3 DEBATES. AND PROCEEDINGS. July -12, 1867. 0 81 I. I I O- I L -II.I out the word "fifty," and inserting"t:le word " forty;" so that no new bill cam be introduced after the first forty days of a session. The committee of the whole have adopted a provision for annual sessions of- the Legislature, and the time for the introduction'of new bills should be shortened. When the committee on the legislative department first agreed upon their report in favor of biennial sessions, - they also agreed upon the length of the session which I have lindicated in my amendment. But after they agreed to report in favor'of biennial sessions, they changed the time for the introduction of new bills. I understand,- therefore, that the action of the committee in that respect is an instruction to me as their organ, to move this amendment. Mr McCLELLAND. The first part of this section reads, "cBills may originate in either house of' the Legislature." I would inquire if there is any necessity'for that portion of the section? If that is-' stricken out, would not the Legislature have that power? There is a provision in the'Constitution of the United' States, and in the Constitution of some of' the States, requiring that appropriation bills should be originated in'the House of -Representatives. But unless there is some distinction of that kind in our Constitution, I cannot see any- necessity for this first clause. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) has had' some experience in our: Legislature since 1850; I have had none.' Iwould inquire of him whether a restriction in regard to the time for the introduction of new bills, whether forty, or fifty,. or. sixty days, does not really retard, rather than expedite legislation? I have understood that- when the Legislature of this State want' to get around this restriction,: a practice has been, adopted' of introducning a' great many bills in the early pat of the session; then when the time expired for the introduction of ner bills, the members introducing these bills, have them taken up and amended:so as to suit the circumstances that may arise, thus avoiding this restriction entirely." I do not know that that is so, but I have been"so. informed. -I have been told that this is often considered absOlUtely necessary, because a set of'circunmstances will sometimes arise after thie limitation has expired, rendering it important to introduce:a netW bill into t,he House or the Senate, and in order to comply nominally with this'provision of the Constitution, to engraft upon: the. enacting clause of some bill introduced previous to the expiration of this timne a substantially new bill. NOW, I submit to the gentleman whether it would not be better to strike out this whole section?' Mr. CONGER.,'In answer to a portion of the gentleman's inquiry, I will state that I suppose' the first clause of this section is put in because it is the practice in parliamentary bodies to require that aUl bills for raising money, and in relation to taxation, shall origin: ate in the lower house. That I understand to be-'the practice in the British Parliament. Carrying out in this country somewhat, although not entirely, the plan of two Houses of the :legislature, it has been claimed that, under the common parliamentary practice, bills of that class could'only be introduced in that House which, in this country, is composed of the more immediate representatives of the peoplei equivalento the' House of Cornmons in' the British Parliament. Whether that is necessary or not, I do not:lknow. Probably there might be no question about' it.unless soomething' ihight be claimed because of leaving such a provision out'of the Constitution.: This provision has been in the Constitution of this State, and, I. think, is in the Constitution of most of the States.: Mr. GIDDINGS.- If the language -of this section is in the Constitution of '1850,' of course it should beretained.' [Laughter.]:'' Mr.; MOCLELLAND. I think the gentleman, from Kalamazoo ought to 'go back to the Constitution of:1835. M.^r. CONGER. The first clause is in the Constitution of 1850, and the latter part of the clause is contained in section twenty-eight of the article on the legislative department in the Oonstitution of 1850; being an amendme nt,.adopteda by the: Legislature' of 1859,'and approved by the' people in 1860. The committee thought, as the matter'had been' passed upon by the Legislature and the people so recently, it should be retained: in the Constitution we are now fr'aming.:''-' Mr. MCTLELLAND.L Was not the amendment adopted to the' Constitution'of 1850, merely an'extensiQn' of the time fixed by that' Cdnstitution?-: Mr. CONGER.,: There was no provision in the Constitution before that Eamendment, limiting the time'for the itroduction of' bills. The members of the Legislature were paid, if I mistake not, for forty days session. When the restriction upon the length of the session was removed, the Legislature first, and Dthe people afterwards sanc tioned the principle, that the time for 'thee introduction of bills should be limited. The reason for the amendment which I have offered, to change the limitation to forty days, was because it was- believed, that if we had' annual sessions, the duration of -the session would be' more brief:than with biennial sessions. That answers, I think, as far as I am able, all the questions which are asked me. -' The question was taken upon the '-amendment" of Mr'. Comasn to strike out "fifty," and insert "forty;," and upon a division, ayes 38 and; noes 13, it was agreed to.'' : The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. FERRIS, to strike out the last clause of the section, wtich had been amended to read- as- follows8 i "But no new bill shall be introduced after the first forty days-ol:the session shall- ha've expired." The amendment was not agreed to; upon a'division, ayes 16, noes not counted.' Mr. MUSSEY. I move to amend this seq'on by inserting after the word s " Legistuire," the words: "except appropriations of the public moneys, which shall originate in the House of Representatives only." I.' will: briefly state my reasons for movvig that amendment.'Any'y"'onel who "has - been -' at all conversant withi he-p'roc-eedings of the Legislature knows that -so far as ' appropriations of the pubii monleys are conceTed, they are usually made under considerable pressure. O often whien required for- our own State institutions, there will be representatives here who will -'claim for the institutions in'which they are specially interested that there are special reasons for appropriains .to those institutions. For this pupose a number' of bills wi'l be introduced into each- House, and perhaps at the same time.''There' is in the'one body a set of men intereste6d in the welfare and advantage' of this'and thattinstitution, while another- set of' men i:-the other body are also endeavorlng to obtain appropriaions for t.he same institutions.: Thus, in soie cases, larger appropriations are secured thban.in my opinion is' proper.'" I think','the only judicious man er in which anyv'Legslature: can dispose of'this' matter, is first to ascertain the sumni totl'of the appropriations which' can'be Safely made the gross amount-and then'divide it among the various institutions of the State according to the merits of their claims. That, however, cannot be done very well, when bills are being intro. duced in-both Houses at the same time for the same'purpose. I think if such a rule as i:: have indicated: had been adopted:in the pres;'ent. Constl,ttion, -we should not have haaAd-que so Iarge appropriations as have been made- by some'of'ou former Leg'sgisatures. i Mr. F'ARME. I hope tlisi''a,mend,ment will prevail;;I-thinik it is the true principle:that one bra~nbch bf t:heislature should have the immediate.control of this'matter.::The re'ason tated 4 CONS UTIONAL COIS"VENTION. -Vi,ida-V. 82 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. ' ~ m..M'oib.'. by the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUssEY,) shows the necessity of such an amendment, because from his experience in legislative matters he is entitled to speak upon the subject. I hope, therefore, that his amendment will prevail, HMr. BLACKMAN. I would like to inquire of the gentleman fro Macomb whether he would have it so that the Senate may propose amendments to these bills? I see'in a s'imilar provision in the Constitution of the United States, in regard to raising revenue, that the Senate is given..power to.propose amendments. The clause to which I refer is as follows: "All bills for ra'ising revenue shall originate in the House- of Representatives; but the Senate may: propose or concur, with amendments, as on other bills." Now, if it was deemed necessary to make this provision in the Constitution of the United States, in connection with the other provision, lest it might be doubted whether the Senate could offer an amendment to such bills, do we not need the same precaution here? Mr.. MUSSEY.. I will answer the gentleman. I would, of course.leave the Senate to propose such amendments as they might deem best; otherwise, it would be a mere formal matter to submit such.bills to the consideration of.the.Seniate. I do not'offer this amendment so much- because I object to. the origination of' such such bills in the..Senate; but I object to their originating inll both Houses at the same time. I do not' like very well to talk about. my own exp.eriences, but I have seen how this. matter works. I know this much: that when a. committee who have ch. arge of such:a.ill come to the- conclusion.-that they will appropriate a certain amount of: money in the one House, a similar commi'tteeis considering the same bill in the other House, and they also rec o.mmend the appropriation of:a er tain amount of..money. It seems to me that some mode should be devised — to,provide for these matters being con sidered in some other way, so that but one appropriation for -one object will. be recommended, and that we shall be able to get along much more satisfac torily to all concerned than we now do. At present, appliances are used to secure appropriations for one object; after our sympathies have been wrought up in that direction, appliances are brought to bear to secure appropria tions for another object, and our sym pathies. are turned in another direc tion, and thus we may find at last, that we:have appropriated four hundred thousand dollars,when we should have appropriated only three hundred thou. sand dollars.. I would have the bills for this purpose originate in the House Of Representatives,'and then I would leave the Senate at liberty to propose.: amendments to those bills. Mr. BLACKT AN. Would it not be necessary to insert a provision to that effect so that there may be no doubt in. 1 regard to the power. of the Senate to j make those amendments? Mr. MUSSEY. In my judgmen.tsuch a provisionwouldcl not be necessary. I propose to have.the section provide that bills -,for the appr0priation of pub- 1 lie moneys shall originatein the House'i of Represen'tatives.. That is a that the section 1will proivide upon the sub- ect. ,-Mr. BLA CRMA'N.. The idea suggested itse:to my/mind from the fact: that the framers of the Constitutiono of the United States seemed to think: it[t necessary to::add. such a provision in regard to the power of amendments. by the Senate to a similar provision? i in relation to..the origination of bills t in the House of Re'presentatives.: I do not know that: the: Senate would not. have the powter w'ithout such"::apro-, vision. But the question might very naturally arise, whethier. the amending. ] a bill, so as to increase the amount. appropriated, would not in effect be equivalent to originating a new bill for that increased amount. I suppose that is the reason why this; provision was, inserted mi the Constitution of the United States. - .Mr. HEINDERSON. In the old: Constitution we had a provision which has been read here, that bills -might!. originate in either House. The ques- tion has never been raised that the Housein which the bills did not.origin — ate had not a. perfect right to make amendments to those bills; nor would the question arise here. Mr. BLACKMAN. -The gentleman does not evidently understand the point I. makel The- point was that under a Constitution which did not provide that a particular class of bills should originate only in one House, either Ho)use had the right to make amendments. But it is proposed here to: make a provision restricting the origination of certain bills to one House.:. -..... Mr. M. C.~ WATKINS. I cannot see any appropriateness in the amend ment offered by the gentleman flom Macomb, (Mr. MUSSERY.) His idea seems to be that, in the first place, the sums should be fixed upon which the Legislature may deem it necessary or proper to appropriate, and then-that sum should be divided up among the several different objects for which ap propriations should be made. I do not understand that this has been. the course, of. former Legislatures, and: I doubt very much whether it would be practicable for future Legislatures. From the manner in which we elect members of the Legislature, I cannot see why one House should have the preference over the other-in originating bills of this description. I think it is just as proper for bills appropriating money to be originated in the Senate as in the House. Senators are just about ashnear the people as members of the House of Representatives. I believe that ever since we hade a Legisature the practice has been in regard to appropriations to allow bills to originate in either, House. I see no objection to it. I know of no difficulty that has occurred that would be obviated by a change in this regard. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. MUSSEY, and it was not agreed to... .Mr. P. D. WARNER. I. move to amend this section by inserting after the words "new bill," the words,, except appropriation bills;" so that it will read: "but nio new bill'exeept appropriation bills shall be introduced after the first forty days of a-: session. shall have expired." I offer this amendment without consultation with other members of the committee. My object is this: there have occasionally been inconveniences experiencedcl under the operation of the fifty day limitation in our present Constitution. It has been. necessary at times to resort to expedi ents in order to secure the passage of such, appropriation bills as the necessitiesof the case seemed to require. I can see no.. objection to allowing the committee of ways and meansof the HOuse, and the committee of finance in the Senate, to confer together when the Legislature has nearly completed its session, and to report such appropriation bills as: may be necessary after the limitation has expired. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. P. D. WARNER, and it was agreed 0to.:. Mr., BLACKMAN. I move that:the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.. The motion was agreed to, upon a division; ayes 32, noes 27. The committee accordingly rose; and the- PRESIDENT having resumed the chairs M.r PRINGLE reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Legislative - Department," had made some progress therein, and had direc ted him to0ask leave for the committee to sit. again.-..; - Leave wai accordingly granted. Mr. MORTON.'I move:that,. the Convention now adjourn. July, 12. 1867. 83i 841 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Saturday, The motiox was agreed to; and accordingly (at five minutes past 5 o'clock p. m.,) the Convention adjourned. FORTIETH DAY. SATURDAY, July 13, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mr. SPENCER. The roll was called and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. PRINGLE. I ask leave of absence for myself, on important business, from 4:45 this afternoon, until 10 o'clock Monday morning. Leave was granted. Mr. LONGYEAR. I ask leave of absence for myself this afternoon, on account of important business. Leave was granted. Mr. W. F. GOODWIN. I ask leave of absence for myself after to-day, until Wednesday next. Leave was granted. PETITIONS. Mr. INGALLS presented:the petition of Mathew H. -Maynard, H. D. Smith and Jas. M. Wilkinson, for appointment of judges of supreme and circuit courts by the Governor and Senate; which was referred to the committee on the judicial department. Mr. PRATT presented. the petition of Wm. R. Montgomery and others, supervisors of Hillsdale county, praying that fines incurred may be credited to the poor fund; which was referred to the committee on finance and taxation and education, jointly. Also, the petition of Mrs. H. S. Mitchell, Mrs. E. N. Whittee, Mrs. M. L. Armstrong, Mrs. S. Maria Batsford, Mrs. David Thompson, Henry Blackman, David L. Pratt, jr., and 122 -other citizens, men and women of Hillsdale county, in favor of prohibiting the granting of license for the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage. Also, the petition of D. H. Lord, H. L. Hull, C. E. Mott and 132 others, legal voters of Hillsdale county, on the same subject; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. LENGTH OF SESSIONS OF LEGISLATURE. The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the following communic.ation:. MICHIGAN -TATE LIBRARY,? Lansinlg, July 13tk, 1867. Hon. CHARLES M. CROSWELL, President of the Constitutional Convention: SIR-In response to a resolution adopted by the Constitutional Convention on yesterday, asking information in regard to the length of the various Sessions ofthe Michigan Legislature, from and including the year 1835, to and including the year 1867, I have the honor to submit the following statement. Very respectfully. J. EUGENE TENNEY, State Librarian. The communication with the accompanying statement, was laid on the table and ordered to be printed in the journal. The statement-was as follows: Year. Commencem't End'g No. days. 1835, Regular session,......Nov, 2. Nov. 14, 12 1836, Adjourned ".....Feb. 1 March28, 57 1836, Extra ". Jy i, July 26, 15 1837, Adjourned".... Nov. 9, Dec. 30, 52 1838, Annual "......Jan. 1, April 6, 96 1839, " ".. Jan. 7, April20, 103 1840, " ".''Jn. 6, April 1, 86 1841,......Jan. 4, April13, 99 1842 " "......Jan. 3, Feb.17, 45 1843, " ". Jan. 2 March9, 66 1844,"".... Jan. 1, March 12, 72 1845, "......Jan. 6, March 19, 70 184, " ".....Jan. 5, May 16, 100 1847 " ".....Jan. 4. March 17, 72 1848, " "...... Jan. 3, April 3, 91 1849, " "......Jan. 1, April 2, 92 1850, " "......Jan. 7, April 2, 85 1851, Regular "......Feb. 1, April 5, 65 1853, Biennial "......Jan. 5, Feb. 14, 40 1855, Biennial......Jan. 3,- Feb. 12,.40 1857 Biennial "......Jan. 7, Feb. 16, 40 1858, Extra "......Jan. 20, Feb. 4. 15 1859, Biennial....... Jan. 5, Feb. 1. 40 1861, Regular "......Jan. 2, March 26, 73 1861, Extra ".... May 7, May 11, 4 1862, Extra ".....,Jan. 2, Jan. 20, 18 1863, Regular "... Jan. 7, March 23, 75 1864 Extra "......Jan. 19, Feb. 6, 18 1865 Regular ".....Jan. 4, March 22, 77 1867, Regular "......Jan. 22, March 28,. 85 PRINTING ARTICLES ORDERED TO A THIRD READING. Mr. FARMER. I offer the following resolution: - Resolved, That all articles which have been ordered to a third reading be printed in bill form, and placed on file for the members' use. This is a matter of some importance for the information of members. The articles which have been ordered to a third reading have been printed in the journal, but not in such a form. that they can be readily examined by members. If they are printed in bill form and placed on our files, we can refer to them readily at any time. I hope the resolution will prevail. Mr. LAWRENCE. I hope the resolution will pass, as has been stated by the mover, (Mr. FARMER,) for the information of meofbers. As they are printed now, I confess that I have been unable to keep the run of the multifarious amendments which have been made to them. I should be very glad to see our work put in such a shape that I can understand it. The resolution was adopted. USE OF THE HALL FOR A LECTURE. . r. VAN VAT,KENBURGH. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the use of this Hall be granted to Professor Perrine, of Albion, on Monday evening next,. for the purpose of a, lecture on intoxicating drinks. Professor Perlrne is known throughout our State as a man of large experience, of sound intellect, and as an able lecturer. I hope that the members of this Convention, and the citizens of Lansing, may have an opportunity of hearing him lecture on this interesting subject in this Hall on Monday evening next. The resolution was adopted. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. MUSSEY. I move that the Convention resolve itself into committee-of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. PRINGLE in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article.entitled "Legislative Department.". The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose yesterday, it had proceeded in the consideration of this article as far as section seventeen, which had been amended to read as follows: " Bills may originate in either House of the Legislature; but no new bill, except appropriation bills, shall be introduced after the first forty days of a session shall have expired.' No further amendment was offered to this section. VETO POWER OF -T-HE -GOVERNOR. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 18. Every bill and joint resolution passed by the Legislature, shall be presented to the Governor before it becomes a law. It he approve he shall sign it; but if not he shall return it with his objections, to the House in which it originated, which shall enter the objections at large upon the journal, and reconsider it. On such reconsideration, if two-thirds of the members elected agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent with the objections to the other House, by which it shall be reconsidered. If approved by twothirds.of the members.elected to that House, it shall become a law. In such case the vote of both Houses shall be determined by -yeas and nays; and the names of the members voting for and against the bill shall be'entered on the journals of each House respectively. If any bill be not returned by the Governor within ten days, Sundays excepted, after it has been presented to him, the same shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature, by their adjournment, prevent its return; in which case it shall not become a law.. The' Governor may approve, sign, and file in the office of the Secretary of State,: within-five days after the adjournment-of the Legislature, any act passed during the last five days of the session, and the same shall become a law. Mr. BURTCHI. I move to amend this section by stri] ing out the word , two-thirds," in the third sentence of the section, and inserting in its place the words, "a majority," so that that sentence will read, " on such reconsideration, if a majority of the members elected agree to pass the bill," etc. I have no enemies to punish, or friends to reward, and no axes to grind in this matter. If I should have no apprehension for the present generation, in allowing this section to pass as reported by the committee, I should have fearful apprehensions for future generations. In this country the political horizon seems to be troubled. There are clouds here and there, and a hurricane sometimes arises from a very small cloud. Now, sir, this rule of two-thirds contravenes J0l 3 87 EAE ~ RCEIG.8 every principle of republicanism, and every principle of demooracy. I claim to be more of a Republican than are Republicans, and more of a Democrat than are Democrats. The Republicans have pretty generally responded to this idea, that two-thirds should be required under peculiar circumstances to pass a law;. so it has been with the Democrats. Now, just. so far as we go beyond the majority, just so far do we go for the one man rule, and the one man idea of government. The public good is of the first importance. After you have secured the rights of persons and of property, so far as they should be secured in the fundamental law, the public welfare should be paramount. We have seen in the storm that has just passed over us, these clouds growing darker, until alarm and consternation overshadowed the whole land. And these fearful apprehensions have not been without effect in the Congress of the IUnited States. Under the pressure of the tim.es, men have been driven out of the Congress of the nation, for the purpose of securing for one side a two-thirds majority, perhaps, when: there would have been no cause of alarm provided there had been no veto power in connection with the national government. In that case a majority could have controlled without any difficulty. Now, a political faction may take possession of the executive of the nation, and through its influence, that political faction may control the power of the government, to the disparagement of the best interests of the people. The veto power has crippled the energies of the State of Michigan, -hen it was exercised in Congress, against the appropriations to be made and expended in Michigan; and by means of a faction, those appropriations were used in the South, for the benefit of the South, and for the disparagement of the North. The same thing may apply to State government as well. But not only that; I see all around me, that there is a strong tendency to class. When I use the term " class," I speak of those men who have never labored or toiled, except by the brain in working out means to rob th6 masses; we have seen a little of it in this government, when under the pretence, that it was necessary for certain purposes, the riches of the classes of this country have been exempted from taxes upon their capital, both il the State and in the nation. If this was the only instance that would occur, perhaps we might survive. But if these things are to.be constantly on the increase, and a distinction is to be drawn between the moneyed institutions of the country and the masses, I see before us a revolution more direful in its consequences than that which has just passed. There being considerable conversation in different parts of the Hall, The CHAIMAN said: The committee will preserve order. Mr. BURTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; order is Heaven's first law. Mr. GIDDINGS. It is evident that we have not adopted that rule here. Mr. BURTCH. I was going on to say that there would then be war; not a war between races, but a war between the masses and the classes. Sir, if this thing is-allowed to go on without remonstrance, I tell you - that it is as sure in the future, as the future is sure to come. While the classes are now educated through cunning and craft to weave their web so that they may live without labor, the masses are also educated to some extent. They will see what is for their interest, but not perhaps until the iron bonds have been riveted upon them to such an extent that no merely political action of theirs will unloosen the bonds. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I would inquire of the Chair what is the question before the committee? The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BuRTcH,) to strike out the word "two-thirds," and insert the words a majority." Mr. BURTCH. "Then would come what? If political action should fail to produce the results desired, then what would come 9 Sir, it would be a war; a war between the masses and .the classes. And whether it be republican or whether it be democratic, it miatters not. We find this to be true all the world over, that governments are universally in the hands of the classes, and out of the possession of the masses. Now, sir, what will we find under the circumstances? We will find that one of these parties being in power, being in possession of the government, being in possession of all the fbriifications, of the army, of the navy, being in possession of the sword, and the treasury of the government, there will be a terrible war. It will be just like all other wars, except the last one, a war against tyranny and oppression. The last war we had was-a war for: the purpose of oppression, unlike anything heard of before in the history of the world. ~ Now, sir, I hope that when we go away from this hall we shall have adopted a system tha~t will be adapted to the true interests of the people; one that will secure them against faction, bribery, and corruption; one that will be an honor to the virtue and intelligence of the great State of Michigan. It is the right, and not only the right Mr. BURTCH.' Perhaps the Chair is-not able. to see it, or the Committee either. Some have ears to hear and. eyes to see, and yet do not do.. either.. But, I may say, as dark as my remarksmay appear to gentlemen here, there is force in them, and when a more enlightened humanity lives, they will see,it. Because I do not speak with the same cool indifference that others- do, it may be considered that — - am-:de. ranged; and, gentlemen, I may be: sadly deranged..: The CH AITRMAN, The remark of the Chair was directed, not to the character of the remarks of the gentleman, but to their applicability to the question before the committee. The question before the committee is upon a certain amendment.:.... Mr. BURTCH. Exactly! and what is that amendment? It is: that one man shall not have the power to -con'trol the majority of the Legislature. I understand the thing, I think.: I think that gentlemen, if theywill look to this matter, will see that the drift of my argument is, that one man shall not 4ake control of many men.: I say that when a majority have secured the personal -rights- of men and their rights of property, as they should. be secured in the fundamental law of any State, then it should be left to majorities to control so far as the interests of the State are concerned., What would you think of a school district where one-third would get control. of twothirds? What would you think..of such powers in a school district? How far advanced would the educational interests of the State of Michigan be, if that rule was in operation in o-ur school districts,? I apprehend they would be as far'min the back-ground as many of those eastern cities which,have been quoted here as good authority min constitutional law. R..hode Islanda has been quoted here as good authority, yet that State neglected to adopt republican principles in her institutions, but kept the charter it received from King James until a revolution broke out in the State. That may be good but the duty, of every man to laborto save life. So, if we organize a gov'ernment upon the principle'that peace shall predominate and:prevail, we shall exercise our functions to the:saving of life, to the saving of blood,- and to the saving of the nation. Let us be wise, let us be prudent in this day, while the people have power in their hands to: save the country. The CHAIRMAN.. Will the gentleman from Eaton so direct his remarks that the committee may see their application to the question-? The Chairi is not able to see it. J'Iily 13)- 1867. DEBATES: AND, P P,'DI-NGSO. ROCE I I 85-'-,,,; CONSTITUTIONATT,L CONVENTION. autliority for some gentlemen, but such authority asthat is no authority'for me. I say -that'"al that is ~-necessary here in' regard to this veto,power is, that' after.:a veto message- has been spread upon the journal, and presented'to'the' understanding of the members of the Legislature, then the majority of that Legislature should control. Sir, is the knowledge of one man s'uperior to the knowledge of fifty men? Because a man has been elected Governor, is there any more concentrated wisdom in him than there was before he was elected Governor? Not a bit of it. He -might'improve.a little if he looked around him, and he might not; he might go the other way; he might fa llhao'bac.. Suffice it' to say, that I appree nd you will find in Congress, men w.ho,'it willbe ac:oWledged, at least by my:epublican friends, to be equal im capac'poity to thie' President; yet.the President can thwart the will of a majority oft the' members in either House. I apprehend that after you have elected a Gove'rnor in the State of MiChigan, you then have not secured all the concentrated wisdom of Michigan. Now, after the Governor has: spread out at large hisgobjections to:any bill,, the people of the great State of Michigan, coinvened in the legislative hall, certaiely have wisdom enough to understand whether the best interests of the peoole'and of -the State of Michigan, would be - carried out by passing thle bill.'. -..ow, Iwill refer you to one State in the Union whose Constitution was like what:' this.. would be, pronvided m :mendment,is adopted.-. That State does niot now- stand i very good favor though you know that persons are liable to, fall from grace, and S it i with States. I refer you to the State of::Kentucky. That had a like Consti tUti,nto what this w'ould be, provided that':this a'mendmennt was made. ] thi:~'it was a good. one. Ithink it would be surer in many respects t( promote. the general welfare.:, Now with these few remarks,. I submit.the matter to the consideration of:the com nit,..e. :Tie question.was. take'n upon the ame'ndment of Mr. BU GoH, and it was not agreed'to.. Mr. DA;NIEJLS.'. I move to amend the. thid'sentence' of this section' by strking: out, after the word "mem bers," the. word "elected,"- and in sert.ing.the:' word "present." If that amendment is'- ad'opted, the' sentenc wtill re', ad "on' such reconsideration, i two-thirds of - the.:members presen agree't:. pass the bill,;it shall be sent with the objections, to the other House b.'fw'hich it' shall' b'e.:considered.": m-o'e "bo t' amend the:next sentenc in the same mann.er. Under.-the rule as laid down in this section, there wilU be required sixty-seven members of the ( House of Representatives to pass..the t bill over the Governor's.veto..; If my amendment is adopted, a-bill can beso passed by two-thirds of the members 1 present, which is the rule, I think, in the State of New York,.and also in the t Congress of the United States. Mr. MUSSEY. I cannot very well t sit quiet, if there is. any probability t that that amendment will pass?..It will take but a moment's -reflection to j see that it wiml require a less number of votes to pass a bill over a veto than t it would require to pass the bill in the first place.'Suppose the House..of. t Representatives was as full as the Con vention is to-day. It would take fifty- one votes to pass a bill before it could go to the Governor at all. Then when it came.back with his veto, if there were but a quorum of members prs- i .ent, or if there were sixty-one mem- bers, as we have here to-day, lforty-two 'votes could pass the bill over his veto according to this amendment. Now, if the Convention wish to place the matter in that position, then I thinl. they should go back and strie. out the ;.words, "a majority of members. elect ed," which is the number required to' pass the bill in.:the first place....... .Mr. DAN ILJJS... A majority ofthe States of the Union do not require' r two-thirds of the members elected to pass a bill over the Govemrnor's veto. I do not thiink that. more than. one' "third of the States now in the Union, require a two-thirds vote to pass a bill o3ver the- Governor's veto.,. In-many States the Governor has no,.veto at all. In Delaware the Governor is requiredc to sign a bill, no matter whether he approves- it or not. KMr. TURNER. And in Maryland. Mr.. DANIE.LLS. I.. do not know !'but what it is. so in Maryland. The veto j.s generally c,onsidered, in the o practice of various States. in the Union,i ,.an anat,idemocraftic.power. ~If you ree qir.e: two-thirds of the members elected .- [o..pass a-bill.over the —veto-of the,-Gov e ernor, I.questionif..you- can ever pass e any.Ja:w over a:Gevernor's veto.- O.ur, s Goye.rnor would then have a one man power. If the committee want- tO d inesert that, then they ca do so. But y Ithink they will see the time, or our con. stituents' will, when such a question as this will not pass by unheeded.,t. Mr. BLACKMAN.' We just voted e down a proposition of the gentleman if from Eaton, (Mr. BURToi,) which did It not receive a single. vote in its favor, t, I think: we would have done better:to 3, adopt that than the motion now made, I because it: proposed to require a ma,e jority of the members elected to pass a bil over the Governor's veto. The amendment og the gentleman from ClintOn, ( r. DANIELLS, ).. as stated by the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) would not require that number; it would leave it.-so that,a much less number than a majority of the -members elected could pass a bill over the Governor's veto. Mr. GIDDINGS. I do not propose to make any argument on this question. But there arises a difficulty in my mind about passing this section ust as it stands. I suppose the House of Representatives is; generally like this body, without a full number -of memlbers being present; seldom will there be more than eighty members present. In order to pass a bill over the Governor's veto, according to this section as it now stands, it would take almost that number of votes. It strikes me that members hare must see that it is. worthy of consideration. at least, whether the number required to pass a bill over the Governor's -veto, according to.this section, that is, two-thirds of alll the members elected, is not too large a number. I am not certain but that is best. But I just make the suggestion that the matter is worthy of our consideration, especially when we find. that in some States there is no 'such power granted to the Governor. I think we shonld, not pass over this matter hastily or without considerable consideration... M:r. MUSSEY. Are there many States which require only a majority.of the number present,.to pass bills? If so, then there,might.be some consisten cy in requiring o nly that number to pas& them over the Governor's veto. Mr. GIDDINGS. I do not see how that affects this'question one; way or the other. I -suppose the general rule ,is to require a law to bepassed by the majority; I have never been quite cer tain about that. Some one suggested to-me yesterday, that while the origin al law might be passed. by. a mjority of the members elected, that,it would , be better not, to, ~alilow that- law to be amended or changed except,. by a two thirds vote.. I am no,t certain that he was not correct..But the question a,.rises -whether this section does anot re quire too great a number to pass the bill over.the Governor's veto. .. r. MUSSEY. That is as much as to say that the position I took was in' consistent, I merely asked'the Con vention to-'be consisteng. If we were to strike out:the clause requiring a majority:of the members elected to pass a bill in- the first place, lthen it might be.consistent to hav.e but two thirds:of,those voting to pass:a ibill o.ver the.Governor's veto.:.:we. should de -eide that, in a Hosuse, of fifty-one mem .- 41;.. I.. -. -1 I ,Saturdy, 8.6-' July 1~, 1867..~D PROOEED~~GS... bers, twenty-six should be. enougu h to pass a law, that might:be, anot, her thing. But when we say it shall. require fifty-one, that is, the entire, number necessary to constitute a quorum; to pass a law in the first place, then I think it would be inconsistent to allow thirty-six rf that number to pass- the law over the Governor's veto. According to the amendment now proposed it,would require fifty-one votes to get a bill to the Governor, and then if. it comes back with his objecetions, thirtysix could pass it over his veto. Mr. MORTON. Thirty-four could do it; for thirty-four would be twothirds of, fifty-one.'''' ',-Mr. MUSSEY. Yes, sir, thirty-foUr. could pass it over the tGovern',n.s veto, but i't would requiree fifty-one to send the bill to the Governor min the' first place.,: 'Mr.' TURNER. Is not that according to the' Constitution of New York?' Mr. MUSSEY. Yes, sir;' but' as I said a short time ago, precedents are good precedents if they are good in themselves. Now, if you will- allow a' majority to pass a bill, then it might be well'enough to require only two-thirds of' those voting to pass'it over the Governor's veto; that would be' consistent. But whatever the Convention will decide I will submit to. I cannot, however, very well' vote to have thirtyfour members pass a' bill'over the Governor's veto, and require fifty-one' to send a bill to the Governor: in the first place. Mr. GIDDINGS., I had supposed that; we'had: got rid of all questions of consistency, we have been inconsistent so many times. What. does our present Constit,ution require?' 'Mr.- MUSSEY." It. requires a, ma rity of all the members elected:to ass a bil, and two-thirds of all the members elected to pass it over the Governor's veto. I do not advocate that rule; all I ask is, that we sh'ail be consistent!,'....-. ':Mr. DANIELLS. I. would ask if, during the laSC's'eventeen:year,s, there has ever been a law passed over the Governor's veto?'. -' - - -'."' Mr. MUSSEY. Yes, sir; within the last seventeen months; I am sorry the gentileman's memory is so much at fault. ,Mr. IDANIELLS. I'mighti'have known it- at the time, but if so, I: have forgotten it.'But, I might not have known it at all, and so-might not have forgotten it. 'Mr. MUSSEY. I think if it had not been for the exeitement produced by the numerous vetoes "of the; "Governor last' winte'r,' this question' would not have been"agitated he're at' all.'' :M:r.,I'D.: WARNER.::I i it is rproposed to adopt'the amendment of the gentleman from Cinton, (Mr. DANILs,) I,think it would be much more :acceptable and appropriate to strike out all that relates to the' veto power; because the amendment would be reducing-:the influence of the Governor below"'what it would be if he poss essed. no veto power at all. As has been remarked, by.the ConstittLtion the votes of'fifty-one members-of the House are required. to pass a bill in the first place. Shou-ld this amendment be. adopted, :thirty-four members could- pass'that same bill when returned by theo Gover'nor with his objections.' I. submit.that it would be preferable to my mind,' and .more,'i aecord ance with my views of pr,pre,ty,,to strike out everything in relation tQo the veto power, than to adopt an amendment of this character.' Ir. DANIELLS. Mr. Chairman, you will see that the comparison'genftlemen make, is an extreme one in every instance. A bill. may be passed. by thirt4four:votes if there is barely a quorum. But it is not a common thing that there is barely a quorum present. My amendment provides that the bill may be passed over'the Governor's veto by two4-thirds of the members present. Under the other rule,' if the House of Representatives should have present at any time the same number of members that are now in this Convention,'if every one -of' :them should' vote in' favor of :.a bill over. the Governor's veto, it could,.not be passed. Now, I: suppose that the most of us profess to believe in:a democratic form of government. That was my supposition when 'I first came to, this Convention; but my faith in that has been wonderfully shaken. I do not believe a more conservative body has ever been assembled in-'this State; that' is they conserve backwards. It seems to me that there' has been no power vested in any thing' ,which comes near to the people, except' in the board of supervisors. We have the utmost confidence in the board-, of supervisors, but iwe'have no confidence in anything else. It is proposed to vest the Governor with a power which woul-, give hirmn; practically a negativ,e upon, every bil that: could be passed by,the,, Legislatur,e...Now, you -might have executives "in this State.' who would h'ave,notions that, would not comport wit,h:the wishes of the People, as expressed through their rep.resenta:tives.,: Yet it would be in his power to prevent the passage of. any bill that should be presented to hinm by any Legislatuure hehreafte,r convened in this city. Sir, this is. a most extraordin~ary power. Gentlemen talk about my proposition being an absurdity., Is the practie ~inm the Congress of the United States, or.. in the Le'gilature of' the State of New'Yo.rk,:' absurdity?I do:not know bu,there eot. other Sas that requre two4ir.ds of. theb..,,ers elected to pass a bill over, r the,overnor's veto; but ther'eare v'e:r fe,w', if ,any., M'r. MUSS.E,Y,. Does its.i reqquire, a majorit':of M"t!.e,....g.' ec':' to Congress to paa' as, l!a.w'?:'-''.'...-.., Mr. DAaEtL LS.a N:o,,s:i;.,tak shows me the more necessity,,fora o'ipt ing the amendmen:t wiic.h I have:pxrbp,osed. I a majorty o, t membe 'elected approve' a' bill't,haft.to': "me.,'is pretty good evidence that; it' is.' bill ':whichl the'public, good requir,e.. Then . after the'Gover no:r has veted it,'aid sent. his' reasons:''for thbt va'eto t the House in' which' the bill oib at,P ed, if bwo-thirds of' the members. pre'ent shall'sti,ll'th,nk it is''proper. l.w, I think Rit is right they should have p.oWer to make.it' a aw,.. and be responalib: to the people: for the,ir actio.. M r.''CONGER. I'Wish to make a remna'rk or two upon this Ubjec.' The provisi on-i n this sectin-is te a:,R': as the provision, in the, presient-:' Constitu tion.'Under' the Constitu'tion of 18,3, there was a provision like th'one pro. posed in' this am,e'ndmen,t:"'"' '"If, after such reconsideration, tworthirds of all the members present agree to pass' the bill, it shall be sent, with the objectioni's, to the other House,: by whom. it: shall. likewise be reconsidered; and if approved also..by two-thirds of all the. members present i'n that House, it shall'becmei a'."'''' ' The,pending amendment would make our Constituti..o.n confor'with pthe Constituiion':ofn 183j':5. I:do not remmber, if I ever kne, wha, reasons induced the Convention' of 1'850 to'f change that rule; but un'doubtedly'some;reason existed which made it seem, better'that that rule' should be changed, and that the votes of two-thirds-of all the members' elected, instead'of those present, should be required to' pass'a bill over the, Governor's''v'eto.'..'' Mr, McCLELLAND.. Will thegentleman allow me to state the' reason for that-?'''''''''' Mr. CONGER. Yes, s'r-. Mr. McCLELLAND. That!chkange was, made- because, in m,/ cases, a miority of'each House piassed,: bills oveer the head of.the Governor;' actually ,a -minority of the members': 0f each House, accordingto the,n,umber~elected. Mr. CONGER. Thatofco':'Of:ourse would be the effect.of the amendment, if adopted. We, can vervwellsee that such might be the case. o:Bu:t' what I referred-, to,more particula'iy was, wfhether there: wereJ' any spe]cial [cases which made such a ruile-improper. I have no-doubt but that:there axre many gentlemen in this C,nventioh0n: who think that after.,a b'l has' bee'' vetoed by the- Governor., and'his,'iec'ins .J-Uly.- 1,31 1867.. -I)EB S; AWD!CBD,.NQ $*, 8t7, _ _.S T' _IsT -.O l *O. - S rI, entered upon the record, and the attention of the members has been called again to the subject'in a strong and forcible manner,' then if the bill is repassed by the same number required to pass it originally, that would be a sufficient safeguard against hastylegislation, and perhaps limit the power of the Governor more -as it should be limnited than the present rule does. I 'knw that, in consequence of the vetoes which we have had upon particular subjects, it is the feeling of a great ,many'people of this' State that the veto power should be taken away from the' Governor, or limited, or restricted in some manner. While I perhaps may agree with them that a veto power may be exercised improperly and against the interests of the people of the State, still I think the safeguard here is a very good one. I would be " enitirely unwilling to assist in removing from the Constitution what is called ' the veto power. I should have no objection to the amendment. of the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BURTCr.) I ''think that, perhaps, would be a sufficient safeguard. But the amendment of the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DAmiELLS,) is certainly leaving it in the power of )a minority of either House to 'pass.'a bill over the: Governor's veto, when, according to the Constitution, it - cannot be passed in the first place, and sent to the Governor, without the votes of a majority of all the members elected to each House. I should be opposed to that amendment; but I should have no objection to the amend ment proposed by the gentleman from Eaton. I am, however, satisfied with the section as it now stands. 'Mr. FERRIS., I am'very much in the same position that the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) occupies. I am entirely opposed to this amend ment, but quite in favor of the proposi tion of the gentleman from'Eaton, '(Mr. BURTCH.) For that purpose, at the proper time, I wil'l renew the amendment'offered by the gentleman from Eaton.....,':":.'-''The questi:onwas taken upon the ~ amendment of Mr. DANIRLLS, to permit two-hirdS of the members present in each House to pass a bill over the Governor's veto, and it-was not agreed to. Mr.'FERRIS. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment of fered by the gentleman from Eaton, -'(Mr. BU-RTCe,) was lost. —.. - M' Hr.:HOLT. I would inquire if the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. ERRIS,) v:'roted: with the majority at that time? 'Mr. -FERRIIS. I' can hardly tell whether I voted or, not. At all events I can say that-if I voted at all I voted ''in-favor of the amendment. '' ~ The CHAIRMAN. The motion to, reconsider, if it can be entertained in the committee of the whole atall, must be made by some one who voted with the prevailing side. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I think it is not proper to inquire into that question unless where the vote is taken by yeas and nays. Mr. HOLT. I will not insist upon my point of order. Mr.- FERRIS. I think there are very good reasons for making the change proposed by the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BURTC.) The'only object I can conceive of in preserving the veto power is, that it may be a check upon hasty and inconsiderate legislation, upon legislation under excifement, without that due and proper deliberation which the public interests require. It does not seem to me to be possible that any gentleman can desire to preserve the veto power for the purpose of overruling the deliberate and considerate action of the Legislature. If we preserve it for that -purposes then we make the executive the master of the Legislature; and the master of the Legislature within its province," while acting with the utmost propriety and care. But if we confine this veto power to those cases where the Legislature have acted hastily, under'excitement, influenced by passion, and without due deliberation, then what ought to follow? Why, this; that if after the veto the Legislature do act deliberately and carefully, and with that propriety and consideration which should characterize such a body, and by the usual and regular.' vote of a majority of the members elected), still express approval of what they have done, then there ought to be no power short of Almighty God, or a new election by the people, which should interfere with their action. I am in favor then of making this amendment. Tn addition to that I would suggest this further consideration to members of -this committee: that the veto mes sage of the Governor, containing- -all his reasons for disapproving - the bill, will'have its influence, and a great influence, on the minds of members of the- Legislature.-' But his message ,should have no further effect than that which is due to it by the reasons which the Executive.assigns against the bill. I know that,. in the opinion of many, in the opinion of most of the people, in some cases the veto power in its present shape-is working well, -" I think it worked well last winter. But I am not going to sacrifice a principle for an exceptional case. I believe we should accomplish all the ends we desire in the preservation of the veto power, by making the change proposed in the amendment of the gentleman from Eaton. I -think that whenever the Legislature have a second time examined any bill, with the objections of the executive before, them, and then deliberately repassed it by a majority of all the members elect, it should stand as the law. The question was taken upon the motion to reconsider, and it was not agreed to. No further amendment was offered to this'section. PASSAGE Or BILLS BY THE LEGISLATURE. The next section was read as follows: SECzTION 19. Every bill and joint resolution shall be read'three times in each House betore the final passage thereof. No bill or joint resolution shall become a law without the concurrence of a majority of all the members elected to each House. On the final passage of all bills the vote shall be by yeas and nays, and entered on the journal. - Mr. CROSWELL. I move to amend this section by striking out the last clause as follows: " on the final passage of all bills, the vote shall be by yeas and nays, and entered on the'journal;" and inserting in — lieu thereof the following: "on the final passage of each bill, the voteshall be taken separately by yeas and nays, and entered on the journal." Mr. CONGER. I have no objection to that amendment. The amendment was agreed to. No further amendment was offered to this section. TIME FOR LAWS TO TAKE EFFECT, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 20. No, law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. No public act. shall take effect or be in force until the expiration of ninety days from the end of the session at which the same is passed, unless the Legislature shall otherwise direct, by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each House. No amendment was offered to this section. PASSAGE OF APPROPRIATION BILLS. The neit section was read as follows: SECTIoN 21. The assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each House of the Legislature, shall be requisite to every bill appropriating-the public money, or money for local or private purposes. No amendment was offered to Ehis section. AMENDMENT OF LAWS. The next section was read as follows: SSECTIoN 22. No law shall be revised,'altered or amended by reference to its title only-.but.the section or sections of the act altered or amended, shall be reenacted and published at length... No amendment was offered to, this section. .~~~~~~~.... CONTRACTS FOR PRINTING, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 23. The Legislature shall provide by law that the furnishing of fuel and stationery for the use of the State, the printing and binding the -laws and journals, all blanks, 88 CONSTITUTIONAT,, CONVENTION. Saturday, DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. papers and printing for the executive departments, and all other printing ordered by the Legislature, shall be let by contract to the lowest bidder or bidders, who shall give adequate and satisfactory security for the performance thereof. The Legislature shall prescribe by law the manner in which the State printing shall be executed, and the accounts rendered therefor; and shall prohibit all charges foir constructive labor. It shall not rescind nor alter such contract, nor release the person or persons taking the same, or his or their sureties, from the performance of any of the conditions of the contract. No member of the Legislature, or officer of the State, shall be interested directly or indirectly in any such contract. Mr. MUSSEY. I wish to call the attention of gentlemen to one thing in connection with this section. The last clause of it reads: " No member of the Legislature, or officer of the State, shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in any such contract;" referring to the contracts named in the former part of the section. I submit whether it would not be better to strike out the word "such," in that clause;before the word "contract," and to insert the words " with the State," after the word "contract;" so that it will read, " no member of the Legislature, or officer of the State, shall be interested directly or indirectly in any contract with the State." There are a large number of contracts aside from those with the State. Mr. I)DANIELLS. Would it not be better to strike out the words "directly or indirectly?" Is not that tautological-? The courts have decided that we cannot do anything indirectly, that we cannot do directly. Mr. LONGYEAR. I desire to call the attention of the chairman of the committee who reported this article, (Mr. CONGER,) to a phrase used in this section: "printing for the executive departments." There is really no such thing under our present system as an executive department. We have an executive and State officers. When the State officers constituted the Gover; nor's cabinet, then there was an executive department. I-would suggest an alteration in this section to strike out the word "departments," and insert in lieu thereof "or State officers;" so that it will read: " printing for the executive or State officers." I move that amendment be made. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. MUSSEY. I move to amend the last clause of this section by striking out the word "such," before the word "contract," and inserting after the word "contract," the words "wits the State;" so that it shall read, "any contract with the State." Mr. CONGER. I would-like to hear some reasons from the gentleman for his amendment. It seemed to the committee to be very proper to say that "no member of the Legislature, Vol 2 —No. 12, or officer of the State, shall be inter- ested, directly or indirectly, in any i such contract;" - that is, any contract specified in this section. This section enumerates a class of contracts in which members of the Legislature, and especially the officers of the State, might be supposed from their approximation to the place of doing business, or their connection with the business through their offices, to have great influence. It has heretofore been thought proper to place this restriction upon these persons in this connection. I -do not know any reason why it shoul& be en- t larged as proposed by the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MussEY.) The i clause is direct and positive, that they shall not be engaged in any such contract, directly or indirectly. There is very good reason why the temptation should be taken from them in this respect. In section five of this article will be found this provision: No Senator or Representative shall, during the time tor which he may have been elected, be eligible to any office which shall have been created, or the emoluments ot which shall have been increased, during such 1 term; nor shall he be interested, directly or ] indirectly, in any contract with the State or any county thereof, authorized by any law passed during said term." That seems to be a sufficient restriction upon Senators and Representatives. A particular provision in regard to the other officers of the State, except what is contained inthis section twenty-three, would be very proper, I think, in another article, but not here. -It seems to me that this covers all that is necessary for us to provide for in this article. Mr. MUSSEY. The point is this: Section five of this article provides that no member of either House of the Leg- islature shall be a party to, or interes ted in, any contract under any law passed during the term for which he was a member of the Legislature. But that does not affect any:State officer;. it is a sufficient guard againstmembers of the Legislature. This section twenty- i three provides that "no member of the Legislature, or officer of the State, shall be interested, directly or indi rectly, in any such contract.": Accord ing to my understanding, the word "such" refers to the contracts which are specified or namedin the preceding part of the section. So far as Ihave been able to-understand it, that section is entirely silent in regard to all other contracts. The gentleman says that any other provision would properly come in some other article or section. Then why are the members of the Leg islature and the State officersmixed up at all in this section? The members of , the Legislature are sufficiently guarded against in section five of this article. , Inasmuch as State officers have been introduced in this section and prohibited from being interestad in a certain class of contracts, I thought we might as well put in one sweeping clause and say that they should not be interested in any contract with the State, and thus put an end to the matter. I think there are contracts in which a State officer might become interested much more to his advantage than in any contracts named in the preceding part of this section. I think there are a very large number of contracts of considerable importance, both to the State agd to those who engage in them, which would be more advantageous than any named in this section. For instance, they may become parties to contracts connected with supplying the State prison, or with building asylpms, or for the building of our new capitol, which will probably be built during the time which this new Constitution will stand, if we ever get one; and in a thousand other ways. I think there are many contracts which would prove very lucrative to State officers, if they are-allowed to enter into them.- Therefore, I think it is safe and wise to guard against any such thing. If this is not the proper place for it, I am entirely willing to withdraw my amendment and offer it in some other place. Mr. CONGER. If this provision was carried out, there could not be a contractor for building a shop in the State prison, or putting up a door or a window frame in an asylum, or a surety of such a contractor, who could be a member of the Legislature or a State officer. Now I do not see the necessity for any such provision. If a man has a contract with the State of any kind whatever, we have a provision in the Constitution prohibiting the Legislature from altering or rescinding the contract, or releasing a person from such a contract. Yet the people might desire to elect to the Legislature a person who had some such contract. The Legislature could not rescind the contract with such a person. There is no power in the world to rescind that contract; it may last for years, and during that time, accordirng to the amendment of the gentleman from Macomb, t(Mr. MusSEY,) the man holding the contract could not be a member of the Legislature, no matter how much the people might desire to have him serve them as such. Every man who does business in the State prison, or hires the labor of convicts, is a contractor with the State directly. And yet I presume it is not the intention of this committee to prevent such persons or their sureties, from being members of the Legislature. All that is desired is to prevent persons from being engaged in such con July, 13, 1867. 89 90 ~... s~I~T0A C0V0I ~ ~ tia tracts, who, -from their connection with the Legislature, or with:the State, would have facilities for securing that kind of business, and obtaining privileges not possessed by others, by virtue of their offices. That, it seems to me, is the evil to be guarded against. fMr. MUSSEY. I desire to ask the gentlemen a question, so that we may' vote understandingly. I would inquire if the gentleman designs to have this provision left so that all State officers may become parties interested in contracts which they, as such State officers, are to let? Mr. CONGER. Not at all. Mr. MUSSEY. Is that prohibited under this provision, or under any other provision in tis Constitution? Mr. CONGER. I do not know what provisions there are in the article ontitled "State officers;" I was absent at the time that article was considered. But that would be the proper place for any restriction of that kind. Therefore it was, I thought that this section was not the proper place for restrictions except for the particular contracts named in the section. Members of the Legislature are restricted by the provisions of section five of this article; and it seemed to the committee on the legislative department proper that in regard to the contracts mentioned in this section twenty-three, members of the Legislature and State officers both should be limited.. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. MUSSEY, and it was not agreed to. Mr. TURNER. I move to amend this section by striking out the following:, The Legislature shall provide by law that the furnishing of fuel and stationery -for the use of the State, the-printing and binding the laws and journals,:all blanks, papers and printing for the executive departments, and all other printing ordered by the Legislature, shall be let by contract to the lowest bidder or bidders, who shall give adequate and sat istactory security for the performance thereof. The Leigislature shall prescribe by law the manner in which the State printing shall be executed, and the accounts rendered there for; and shall prohibit all charges- for con structive labor. It shall not rescind nor alter such contract, nor release the person or per sons taking the same, or his or their sureties, from the performance of any of the condi tions of the contract." I offer this amendment simply be cause I consider all that is covered by the provisions which- I propose to strike out is entirely within the prov ince of the Legislature to regulate; it should not be kept in the Constitu tion at all. Of course, in order to carry on the government s Uccess~fully, they must make provision for such things as are referred to in this section. As I have already remarked several times, I am opposed to this kind of legisla tion by this Convention. I hope that my amendment will prevail. Mr. BILLS. It seems to me that we rnmight, without damage- to the Constitution, so amend this section as to improve it very much. It seems to me that the State. Legislature should be left to- its discretion as to the- mode in which this kind of work shall be done for the State. It is a necessary part of their duty to provide for it in some shape. I would not provide in the Constitution for the manner in which this work shall-be done; I would leave that for the Legislature to decide. I am therefore in favor of the amendment. Mr. SAW YER. To my mind there is one portion of the section which it is proposed to strike out, which is of the utmost. importance. It corresponds with nearly all the contracts for public works by providing that it shall be let to the lowest bidder. Now, it seems to me it will open a wide door for favoritism, if the Legislature shall be allowed to make contracts for this purpose,. without having it restricted to the lowest bidder. To my mind such a restriction is one of the greatest safeguards which we can have in theConstitution, for the preservation of the purity of the Legislature, and for securing the work for the public in an economical manner. I cannot, therefore; vote for this amendment. Mr. TURNER.- I would ask the ~gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. SAWYER) if he has no confidence that the Legislature would pass a law requiring these contracts to be let to the lowest bidder? Does he think that the Legislature is so corrupt that they will not endeavor to discharge their:duties for the best interests of the State? Mr. HARRIS. I would suggest to members that when they make motions or remarks,:they should endeavor to speak loud enough to be-aheiard by all in the Hall. I have not been able to hear one-half of?what has been said this morning. I Fried to hear what was said by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BiLLS,) and I was unable to do so. It would seem as~ if the members thought it was only necessary for them to be-heard-by the Chairman.,. -Mr. rBILLS. After the suggestion of the gentleman from Oakland,. (Mr. HARRIs,) it has occurred to me that probably this motion is. not fully understood; I will, therefore, state what the object of the amendment is. The gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. TURNER,) moves to strike out all of this section but the last sentence. The idea is that it is the duty of the Legislature: to provide for all that is proposed in this section. The only effect of this section, if adopted, would be, to prescribe the manner in which the Legislature shall perform that duty. The object of the amendment is to leave to the discretion of the Legislature to determine the method by which this object will be accomplished;whether this work shall be done under contract, or whether it shall be done under the direction and supervision of some one, or in some other way. The object is to leave it wholly to thle Legislature to accomplish the purpose in such a manner as they shall deem to be the most expedient. The portion of the section which it is proposed to strike out is as follows: " The Legislature shall provide by law that the furnishing of fuel and stationery for the use of the State, the printing and binding the laws and journals, all blanks, papers and printing for the executive! departments, and other printing ordered by the Legislature, shall be let by contract to the lowest bidder or bidders, who shall give adequate and satisfactory security for the performance thereof. The Legislature shall prescribe by law the manner ii which the State printing shall be executed, and the accounts rendered therefor; and shall prohibit all charges for constructive labor. It shall not rescind nor alter such contract, nor release — the-person or persons taking the same, or-his or their sureties, from the performance of any of the condi:tions of the contract." . Now, if the letting this work out by contract to the lowest bidder is the best way in which it can be done, it is not to be doubted that the Legislature will adopt that method of doing it. If, on the other hand, the Legislature shall discover that it can be better done in some other way than by letting it to the lowest bidder, then they should be allowed that better way of -doing it. My own idea is that we should not provide in the Constitution the special manner in which the Legislature shall perform such a duty as this, but leave it to their discretion. That is the object of this amendment. M r. MUSSEY. I took it for granted that this section was to remain when I offered my amendment to it,:Instead of the provisions of this section being a safeguard, I look upon them as in every way calculated to result injuriously to the State. If any one seeks to corruptly obtain money from the State, this section will be a perfect shield to him. It provides imperatively that the Legislature shall let these contracts to the lowest bidder. Now take the' subject of printing, for instance; two or three persons propose to bid for the contract. Now, I am on the ground, and I have only to buy off the others at the lowest rate I can, and thenig can put in my bid at any rate I please; and it is not optional with the board-of auditors to accept it.- or not, but they are compelled- by the Constitution to accept any bid, no matter what it is, provided -it is lower than any other bid presented. I think the Legislature should be left to pro vide that all bids should be rejected I i- ;.. il.. "., -. -, - . -. - ,CONS UT —I,,.,ONAL- CONVET'IOIN., ..Sat-urd-ay, 90. Jul 13, 187 DEAE X~ RC~EIG. if it is not for the interest of the State to accept them. I think this constitutional provision is not -altogether safe. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. It strikes me that the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) has not fairly represented; this question. This section does not require bids to be accepted except from those who give good security. Now, if an offer is made to take a contract, and the person who makes the lowest bid'gives satisfactory secutity, I can see no better way than to let him have the contract. This section was very carefully considered by the committee, and I cannot see how it, opens the way for fraud.'It provides that all printing ordered by the Legislature, shall be let by contract to the lowest bidder, or bidders, who shall give adequate and satisfactory security for the performance thereof. Now, -if that security is offered, why not let the lowest bidder have the contract? What arrangements can we make that will be better than that? " The Legislature shall prescribe by law the manner in which the State printing shall be executed, and the accounts rendered therefor; and shall prohibit all charges for constructive labor." Now, what can be better than that? This section has been very carefully considered; and in looking over it now I can not see what improvement can be made in it. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I hope the amendment now pending will not be adopted, but that the section will be passed intact as reported by the committee. It appears to me that it cannot be improved. - I cannot imagine how my friend from Macomb, (Mr. MussEY,) can construe this section as a shield for peculation and fraud, when it is so well guarded. I believe the same section is contained in the present Constitution. ", The Legislature shall provide by law that the purchasing of fuel and stationery for the use of -the State, the printing and binding the laws and journals, all blanks, papers, and printing for the executive departments, and all other printing ordered by the Legislature, shall be let by contract to the lowest bidder, or -bidders, who shall give adequate security for the performance thereof." Now I cannot see how these matters could be better secured than that.'ow the gentleman can construe that as a shelter for peculation and fraud, I cannot understand. The persons who do this work for the State must give adequate and satisfactory security for the performance of the contract. It is certainly for the interest of the State that the contract should be let to the lowest responsible bidder. And this section provides that it shall not be let to any others than those-who eau give satisfactory security for the performance of the contract. "The Legislature shall prescribe by law the manner in which the State printing shall be executed, and the accounts rendered therefor, and shall prohibit all charges for constructive labor." Now, it is well known to members of this Convention, that formerly, before the adoption of the Constitution of 1850, charges were frequently made and allowed for constructive labor. This section guards against that. The Legislature "shall; not rescind nor alter any such contract, nor release the person or persons taking -the same, or their sureties, from the performance of any of the conditions ofthe contract." Sir, this matter is well guarded against the frauds for which my friend from Macomb says it is a shelter. It is singular that we should view this section in so different a light. It appears to me to be all that is required upon that subject. I hope the section will remain as reported by the committee. Mr. MUSSEY. Is it optional with the board of auditorsto reject the lowest bid? Mr. VAN VATL,KENBURGH. It is not; but the bidder is obliged to give good securities. Mr. MUSSEY. Yes, sir; but the contract will be a permanent one. Let me illustrate again; suppose the gentleman and myself.are ready to take a contract to supply wood to the State; we are either of us willing to take it for three and a half dollars per cord, and are perfectly able to give security for the proper performance of our contract. We talk it over between ourselves; I say, "HMr. VAN VALKENBURGH how much will you take to withhold your bid?" He says to me "I will take fifty dollars." I give the gentleman that sum, and then: put in my bid at ten dollars a cord. Now, is it optional with the board to accept or reject the bid? No, they must take my bid at ten dollars a cord. Now I say, that very thing has been done' wder this section. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. It is to be, presumed that neither the gentleman nor myself will ever be caught in a scrape of that kind. We are both too honest to enter into any such arrangement. Mr. LEACH. While it is altogether probable that the -gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUssEY,) and the genfieman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN Vie XKENBUGHa,) would not be caught in any such arrangement as-that, yet it is very well known that that very thing has been done here in the city of Lansing, over and over again, for the last ten years. I believe that so long as the Legislature are compelled to let these jobs to the lowest bidder, this very practice will continue. I do not say :that it has been done in regard to wood contracts, or printing contracts, or any other particular contracts; but I do say that the practice has been followed over and over again in contracts with the State. The board of auditors were not at fault. This is done' by a combination among the contractors. I do not see anyhelp for it, so long as this section is retained in its present form. Mr. YAN VALKENBURGH. I am very sorry to have my good opinion of Lansing so much injured, by the statemeant of a former resident of this city. I had supposed that the people here were good honest people, as much so as the people where I reside. Mr. LONGYEAR. I wish the gen tleman to understand: that these contractors were from different paits of the State; some of them from Oak land for aught I know. Mr. LEACH. This practice has not been confined to Lansing. I- might name persons from various portions of the State, persons well known to gen tlemen here, who have been parties to just such transactions. Very little of it has been done by the citizens of Lansing. -Mr. SHEARER. I would inquire of the Chair if any provision is made or moved so as to leave it optional with the Legislature to receive these bids? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not undertake to construe the effect of the amendment of the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. TURNER.) His amend ment is to strike out all of this section but the last sentence. Mr. SH1FARER. If that motion should not prevail, I believe provision should be made so as to leave it op tional with the Legislature to xeceive or reject any bids. But if the Legis lature is confined to receiving the low est bids without any option, it would be binding them to take the bids at all hazards, as the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) says. I will refer back to a little history, some nearly thirty years ago, in the Legisla ture at Detroit. I happened to be upon the committee on printing. It was understood that although the work should be given to the lowest bidder, all the parties there were to be inter ested in it. -But the Legislature was obliged to accept the lowest bid. Not only have these things transpired in the Legislature, but they have also transpired in the business transactions of the country generally. The Legis lature may be imposed upon by mfen, from the fact that they are bound to take the lowest bid. They are bound DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. J'uly 13, 1867. 91 0 92 co-IU~~LC~Y~I~ aud to receive the lowest bid, whether it is too high or not. The security may be good and satisfactory security, as it is proposed here; still the lowest bidder has a claim upon the Legislature, and they cannot reject his bid. If the motion to strike out does not prevail, there should be a provision adopted leaking it optional with the Legislature to receive a bid or not, as they please, although it may be the lowest, and to call for other bids. I think the gentleman from Macomb is right on that subject. It is necessary to have such a provision, in order to guard against peculation. These are my views, because I have seen these transactions in business, and also in legislative matters. I do not think the lowest bidders should have the right to compel the Legislature to accept their bids, under the Constitution, without giving the Legislature the option of taking some better bid which they might get. These are my views. Mr. -FERRIS. I desire to move an amendment to the portion of this section which it is proposed to strike out. I move to strike out the words "shall prescribe by law the manner in which the State printing shall be executed, and the accounts rendered therefor; and." The sentence will then read, "the Legislature shall prohibit all charges for constructive labor." I submit that this dictating to the Legislature that they shall prescribe the manner in which the printing shall be executed, and the accounts rendered, is telling them to do that which of necessity they must do. That is the Only part of the section which, in my opinion, is legislation, and I think it is not necessary. Mr. CONGER. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIs,) whether that portion of the sentence has reference to the labor to be performed or to something else? It has no reference to constructive labor for printing, unless there is something in the sentence to connect it with the printing. -' The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. F~ERIS, and it was not agreed to. The question recurred on the motion of Mr. TURNER, to strike out the following: ",The Legislature shall provide by law that the furnishing of fuel and stationery for the use of the State, the printing and binding the laws and journals, all blanks, papers and printing for the executive departments, and all other printing ordered by the Legislature, shall be let by contract to the lowest bidder or bidders, who shall give adequate and satisfactory security for the performance thereof. The Legislature'shal! prescribe by law the manner in which the State printing shall be executed, and the accounts rendered therefor; and shall prohibit all charges for constructive labor. It shall not rescind nor alter such contract, nor release the person or persons taking the same, or his or their sureties, from the performance of any of the conditions of the contract." The motion to strike out was agreed to, upon a division; ayes 29, noes 24. Mr. TURNER. I now move to further amend this section by striking out the word "such," before the word contract," and inserting after the word "contract," the words, "-with the State." The section will then read: "No member of the Legislature, or officer of the State shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the State." The CHAIRMAN. That amendment was offered by the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) and was voted down. Mr. CONGER. I suppose it can be entertained again by unanimous consent. Mr. FERRIS. I object. Mr. TURNER. I do not wonder that the gentleman objects, after the speech he has made. Mr. BLACKMAN. I suppose the object can be reached by moving to reconsider the vote by which the amendment of the gentleman from Macomb was lost. Mr. GIDDINGS. I move to reconsider that vote. The motion to reconsider was agreed to. 0~~~~~~~ to. The question then recurred upon the amendment of Mr. MUSSEY to strike out the word "such," before the word contract," and to insert after the word "contract," the words "with the State." Mr. WITHEY. I thought the objections stated by the chairman of the committee who reported this article, (Mr. CONGER,) had considerable force in them. I would suggest to the mover of this amendment, whether it would not be better - to limit this matter, so that the section will read: "No memof the Legislature or officer of the State shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the State, for fuel, stationery, or printing." These were the subject matters that were contained in this section before the motion to strike out was agreed to. I will move to amend the amendment in that way.. Mr. MUSSEY. I suppose the gentleman has some argument to make in favor of his amendment. If so, I wish him t6 answer one or two questions. I -will say frankly, that my object in moving this amendment is to prevent the State officers from taking the contract to build the State house, or anything of that kind, or controlling contracts in such a way that exorbitant prices must be paid by the State. If my object is secured by what the gentleman proposes, then I shall have no objection to his amendment. Mr. MORTON. I suppose all these contracts are made with the board of State auditors. Suppose that a book merchant, or a paper dealer, should be sent here from Detroit as a member of the Legislature. He might be able to supply stationery to the State cheaper than any other person could do it, yet it is proposed to deny the State auditors the right to make a contract with him. Suppose a mechanic is here as a member of the Legislature, and is able and willing to put up a building for the State cheaper than any other man can do it. Why should the board of State auditors be deprived of the opportunity to accept his offer? Mr. CONGER. There is no provision in what is left of this section for any contract; therefore I do not see the necessity for retaining any portion of this section now. The old custom used to be for the State to do its own printing, hiring men-to do the work without making any fixed contract at all. That was the practice for years. There was one family in this State that was said to have got immensely rich by doing State printing directly for the State. I suppose there are many who are anxious that that practice shall be adopted again. I have no doubt that, should it be adopted, it would work very well for a few, but it would work very badly for the people at large. There was no such provision as the committee proposed here in the Constitution of 1835. The old idea prevailed then, that the State should carry on its own printing, although it could do no other work for the State. It carried on the printing, buying stationery and paper and material, and hiring men, and all that sort of thing, until the people complained of it so much that the Convention of 1850 thought it was best to take away that work from the State officers, and give it out to the lowest bidder. But the provision on that subjact is not now embraced in this section. What is left might as well be stricken out at once, and let the State go on and hire their work done as they did before; and let the pets of the government get their fill of the money of the State. That will not, however, satisfy the people at large, though it may satisfy a few. But as the section now stands, I cannot see any good to be gained by it. Therefore I move to strike it out. The CHAIRMAN. The question will be first taken upon the amendments to the section. The question now is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) to the amendment of the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY.) CONS TUTIONAL CONVENTION" Saturday, 92 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. Mr. THOMPSON. I cannot believe it possible that this section will be stricken out, and that we will leave this matter to be run hap-hazard by the State, as it was some years ago. It seems to me that to adopt the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) is to tithe the mint and anise, while we neglect the weightier matters of the law. It seems to me that the section as —originally reported was correct. If we strike it out, it will be a matter of regret with us hereafter. If one part or the other of the section must be omitted, I would prefer to strike out the last part of it and retain the first. I am opposed to all amendments to it, and shall vote to retain the original section if I can have the opportunity. ir. MORTON. I hope the remaining portion of this section will be stricken out, so long as the first part of it has been stricken out. I do not imagine that the section as originally adopted, has ever had any effect in controlling the subject of contracts, or ever will, so long as it contains the words" who shall give adequate and satisfactory security for the performance thereof." The board of State auditors can reject any bid that is made, under the pretence that the security is not adequate. I do not believe any person who would do his work well, would succeed in such a transaction as gentlemen here have mentioned, unless the board of State auditors consent to it. I do not know that you can make provision in which the devil cannot be whipped around the stump some way. I do not know that it is important that we should have anything on the subject. If it is, then I think the old section might be amended so as to accomplish all that is necessary. If you want the printing done really and honestly by the lowest bidder, no man could get it without the requisite se curity. I apprehend that this matter is managed under the pretence of good security. I hope this last clause will be stricken out also. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. WITHEY, to add to the amendment of Mr. MUSSEY, the words, "for fuel, stationery or print ing," and it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. MuSSEY to strike out the word "such," before the word "contract," and to insert after the word "contract," the words "with the State." Mr. M. C. WATKINS. I cannot see any propriety in this amendment. I believe the better way would be to strike out the balance of this section. Then, possibly, when we get into Con vention, we might undo our work here and save the section. The idea of prohibiting any members of the Legislature, or any State officers, from being interested in any contract with the State, is perfectly impossible. If the people of Lan-sing here could evade the law by entering into such combinations as have been mentioned here, they will also evade the law and enter into combinations to obtain contracts with the State. The person not interested in the contract may not be known to those who make the contract. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. MUSSEY; and upon a division, there were ayes 21, noes 18; no quorum voting. The question was again taken; and upon a division, ayes 38, noes 18, the amendment was agreed to. The question recurred upon the motion of MIr. CONGER to strike out the section as amended. Mr. BLACKMAN. Before that motion is put, I move to amend this section by striking out the words "officer of the State," and inserting the words "State officer." I make this amendment merely to correct what might be regarded as an ambiguity. " Officer of the State," is rather an ambiguous expression; it might apply to any officer in the State-that is, the sense in which it is sometimes used. I make this motion in order to remove any question of that kind. The amendment of Mr. BLACxMAN was agreed to. The question again recurred on the motion of Mr. CONGER to strike out the section as amended. Mr. HENDERSON. Being fully satisfied with the section as reported by the committee, I have not participated in moving amendinents to it. But now, after the amendments which have been made to the section, I am anxious that it should be stricken out. Were the members of the Legislature and State officers.not associated togetherin it, I should think differently. I would be willing, indeed I would be anxious, to put this restriction upon State officers. But when you go on to say that a member of the Legislature shall not, directly or indirectly, be interested in any contract which may be construed as a contract with the State, I think you are going too far. I think if we take this action we will have occasion to regret it. A moment's thought will lead us to see how many contracts there are of this nature; contracts in connection with our asylums and State prison, etc. Hence, I hope this section will be stricken out, and that we may have something incorporated in its place which will reach State officers, and not put them in the same category with members of the Legislature. Mr. MUSSEY. Would it not suit the views of the gentleman to strike out the words "member of the Legislature," so as to make this apply to State officers only? Mr. HENDERSON. But those words are not stricken out. Mr. MUSSEY. The gentleman could try that. Mr. HENDERSON. I am not prepared to make any motion of that kind. Mr. GIDDINGS. I will move to amend this section by striking out the words suggested by the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MussEv,) so that it will read: "No State officer shall be interested, directly. or indirectly, in any contract with the State." Mr. P. D. WARNER. It has been urged as a reason for striking out the principal portion of this section, that, in letting contracts to the lowest bidder, frauds were practiced — upon the State, and that the interests of the State were made to suffer because contracts were thus let. To remedy that evil, this section has been amended, so as to leave the field open to competition from every source, so that any person who desired to contract with the State, would be at liberty to make as advantageous a contract. as it was possible to secure from the officers of the State, who by law might be authorized to make the contract. I certainly cannot see any force in the reasoning which would exclude from the participation in these contracts, all members of the Legislature and all State officers. If these contracts are to be let for the benefit of contractors, for the advantage of individuals, without regard to the public interest, then strike out what remains of this section, so that all persons will have the full right and benefit to be derived from such contracts. I hope that this motion to strike out will prevail; that if it is the intention of this committee to leave this as it was before the adoption of the Constitution of 1850, entirely an open question, there will be no restriction placed upon the rights and privileges of.any citizen of the State of Michigan, that the field may be left open in every direction for competition. It may be that the interests of the State may be subserved by having the opportunity of letting some of these' contracts to individuals, who are prohibited from taking them by the unnecessary part of this section. If a system, should be inaugurated different from that under the present Constitution, it may be to the advantage of the State that some of its State officers,- or mem ,Tuly.13, 1867. .93 94 COSIUTOA COY*I~ aud bers of the Legislature, should be permitted to take contracts, for they might be in a condition to better subserve ,the. interests of the State, than any other individuals. I am in favor of g~iving them an opportunity-'to compete for these contracts, the same as other individuals, and not proscibe them because they h'appen,to be clothed with the honors and- responsibilities of members of the Legislature and State officers. -The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. GIDDINGS, and it was agreed to. The question recurred upon the motion to strike out the section. Mr. COOLIDGE.- I am in favor of the motion of the gentleman - from St. Clair, (Mkr. CONGER,) to strike out the remainder of this section.'' I suppose that he has solme feeling about this matter.'Observe what is left of this section twenty-three of the article on'the' legislative department:'No State officer shall be interested, directly or' indirectly, in any contract with the State." I can hardly suppose that it would be creditable to the committee on the legislative department, and particularly to the chairman of that committee, to have such a section as this in the article they reported. Certainly, the committee on' phraseology -would not feel "itself authorized to take this section'- as it now stands, if passed by the committee,'and put it in any other article. Of course, -then, I must vote to strike out the section. Mr. WILLARD. I would say that the committee on arrang, Iement and phraseology would not be authorized to place this section in any other article whatever. Mr. COOLIDGE. Certainly not. Mr. BLIACKMAN. It strikes me that that committee is a committee on arrangement as well as on phr'aseology, and it certainly seemns to me they would halve sample power to make such an arranlgement. 'Mr. M. C. WATRINS. To strike out this section from this'article? Mr.' BLACKMAN. To put it in a different place; not to strike-it out of the Constiutution., Mr. WuILLARD.:Let me read what our rules say upon that' subject. Rule thirty-seven fs as follows: "Whenever an article shall have reached the order ot third readinig, it shall be referred torthe committee on arrangement and phraseology, for arrangement, correction- and engrossm~nt, beforexit shall be placed upon its -Anal passage." That rule -relates to a single article. Rlule thirty-eight is asfollows: "4The several articles, alter their final passage, shall be referred to the committee on 'arrangement and phraseology for numerical arrangement, ln their appropriate order, and shall be reported back to the Convention for its final action upon the Constitution as an. entirety." That has reference to the arrangement of all the articles in the Constitution, by the committee on arrangement and phraseology. But there is no provision made' by which they can take a section from one article and put in any other article. Mr. BILLS. In determining the merits of this section, it is certainly no argument against it, that it is not now in its proper place; it is'certainly no argument against it that the chairman of the committee of the legislative department, (Mr. COxGER,) has any feeling one way or the other upon the subject. I do not know that we are bound to presume any such thing;'but even if we did, it would be no argument for or against this section. I take it, that whatever may be the duty of the committee on arrangement and phraseology, the committee are able to place this section in whatever article they may see fit, if the section shall be adopted.' I have nothing to say at the present time, except in regard to the merits of this section. I conceive that it' has merits. I think it is well that -in the Constitution we should provide that those who are the contracting parties in behalf of the State to procure labor, work and materials for the State, in carrying on the government should not be parties to those contracts. I believe that is conceded to be sound doctrine. Mfr. P. D. WARNER. In the law authorizing the letting of these contracts, could it not be provided. that these State officers should not be included if the Legislature should think proper to do so? Mr. BILILS. I would suppose' that if there was no prohibition in the Constitution the Ljegislature might be-at liberty so to direct. But the question we are now discussing here is, whether there should'be eplaced such a restricYtion in the Constitution. f*My' own judgment of the matter is that it is prudent to do so;' that those, who in' behalf of the State make contracts for supplies for the State, should note be Sparties to the contr~act to furnish those' supplies, because they are quasi- con-tractors on behalf of the State. For that reason I would deem it wise and prudent that, while they are thus act'ing as the agents of the -Government to procure those supplies, they shiouldhot take these contracts. If the committee shall deem that proper, we can'adopt this- section -and then it willq be comnpetqpit for the' Convention to order it to bedplaed wherever in the Constitution they may see fit. Mr. CONGER.- It seemsi to me that the place to adopt a section is the place where it should stand. It is admitted by all -that' this section, in its'present form, should be placed in another article, and not -placed in this article. Those other articles are still within the codntrol of the Convention. My own opinion is, that we should, in regard to this section, as we have in regard to other matters of a similar kind, strike out the section here and insert it where it belongs. The gentleman from Lenawee,.(Mr. BILS,) says the chairman of the committee on the legislative department has no control over this matter any more than anybody else. Now, it was not necessary for that gentleman to remind the chairman of the committee of his position in that respect, for he has not assumed any such power as that. I hope the same motives will govern the'& chairmen of other committees of this Convention. MrL. BLACKMAN. It will bbe recollected, that when a certain subject was under discussionsome time ago, it- was admitted by all, that the section under consideration, properly belonged to another article than the one in' which it was reported. But it was held that it could be- adopted in connection with 'that article, and then, if we saw fit, we could take it from that article, or we could instruct the'committee on arrangement and phraseology to take it from that article, and place it-where they should see fit. I think that rule would apply here as well as it did there. The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. CONGER, to strike out the section; and upon a division, ayes 31,noes 23, the motion was agreed to. PUBLICATION OF LAWS, ETC. The next section was read, as follows: SEcTION 24. The Legislature shall not establish a State paper, but shall provide for the speedy publication of all statute laws of a public'nature, and of such judicial decisions as it may deem expedient. All laws and judicial decisions shall be free for publication by any person. Mr. T. G. SMITH. I move to amend this section by striking out' the words shall not establish a State paper, but;" so that it will read, " the Legislature shall'provide for the speedy publi-cation of all'statute laws," etc. I make this motion, because I consider this an unnecessary restriction on the Legislature. I tliink this-is a matter which might be safely left to their discretion. I think it' would be a matter of convenience to the people of this State, if we could have a State paper,'som'e paper in which the laws of the State could be published, and-to which every person could look for the laws as they were passed. I. thinlk it would be a great convenience to the people of the CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 94 Saturday, July 13, 1867. DEiOAtES AND PROCEEDINGS. 95 State. The small pittance now given for publishing the laws does not lead to this general publication. Some papers publish some of the laws. But we do not know any paper that will always publish them. Inl the -State of New York they have a State paper in which tthe laws are published. And I believe it is considered a matter of great convenience to the people. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. T. G. SMITH, and upon. a division, ayes 10, noes not co'nted, it was not agreed to. No- further amendment was offered to the section. LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE FOR FILTING VA CANCIES IN OFFICE, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SEcTION 25. The Legislature may declare the cases in which any office may be deemed vacant, and also the manner of milog the vacancy, where no provision is made for that purpose in this Constitution. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I desire to offer a new section to come in as section twenty-six of this article. The CHAIRMAN. The usual course adopted, in the opinion of the Chair, is to pass through the article first, and then consider such amendments as may be offered to the article in the form of additional sections or otherwise. The amendment of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) can be received at this time if- there is no objection. Mr. FERRIS. I object. No amendment was offered to this section. POWERS OF MUNICIPALITIES. The next section was read as follgws: SECTION 26. The Legislature may confer upon organized townships, incorporated cities and villages, and upon the board of supervisors of the several counties, such powers of a local, legislative, and administrative character as they may deem proper. * CITIES,. TOWNSHIPS AND VILLAGES TO BE't r, ORGANIZED UNDER GENERAL LAWS. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I Move to amend section twenty-six of this article by adding to it the following. The Legislature shall provide by general law for organizing townships, cities aind villages, on such conditions and subject to such regulations, as may be prescribed. No special acts to create any such organization or dehinidg their powers, except cities containing over ten thousand inhabitants, shall here after be passed by the Legislature.!' I offer this amendment for the purpose of requiring all such legislation to be of a general character, and to save to the State that very considerable expense which occurs at every session in framing such legislation for those purposes. I doubt not it will be within the recollection of all - the -members present that at each successive: session of the Legislature a large portionf o their time is consumed -i legislating for particular. organizations. The wants of particular cities, townships, and- villages are not so very important ,and special as to require this kind of legislation. General laws could be passed so framed as to meet the wants of all localities, and in this manner save~ a very large amount of expense to the State. - For this reason I offer this amendment. Mr. STOUGHTON. Myunderstand ing of the intention and scope of sec tion twenty-si'x is tery different from that of the gentleman who has moved this amendment. I do not understand that it has anything whatever to do with the organization of townships, villages and cities. That is provided for in another- article. This section provides simply that the Legislature may confer upon townships, cities and villages certain legislative powers. I take the object of that to be simply this; in the first place, the legislative power is vested in the State Leg islature.- Towns and cities have no such powers whatever; they can exercise no such power, without the authority of the Legislature. The Legislature itself without some authority from the Constitution could not vest this power in these organi zations. If the Constitution were entirely silent upon — this subject, I apprehend the Legislature would be wholly without warrant or authority to assume to give to towns and villages any legislative power whatever. The rule would undoubtedly hold good that the agents of the State could not dele gate the power conferred upon them by the State without special authority. The representatives of the State are the agents of the people for the piur poses of legislation; and without some constitutional power they could not delegate any legislative power to towns or cities. Hence, it is proposed -to have in the Constitution a provision a~uthorizing the Lxegislature to dele-e gate-a certain -part of the legislative power rto cities, towns and vislages, and their boards of supervisors. Without this neither of those -organizations could exercise anyr such Epower. If this power be taken away from them, it would: fimpose upon the Legialature — of the; State an amount of business that could not possibly be performed. Be sides, it is much more convenient for; townships and villages, and cities, to legislate in regard to their local mat ters, than it is for t~he Legislature to do all the legislation for themr. :Mr. SUTHERLjAND. L think the: gentleman from St.- Joseph, (Mr. STOUJGHTON,) Chas entirely mis~appre henlded the character of my amenr:d mient, as well as the substanace of what I have proposed to add to this section. I do not design to have my amendment take the place of anything in this article; it is simply an addition to the section.: I propose by my amendment to give to the Legislature power to organize townships, cities and villages; but in all cases to require that they shall be organized under gener- al except in the case of cities containingover ten thousand inhabitants. The Legislature can authorize the board of supervisors of the several counties to take initiatory steps for organizing a township, city or village, in order that the general law might apply to the particular organization which the board of supervisors might assist in bringing into being. The Legislature could establish. some uniform system for the organization of the governments: of these municipalities, and in that way a vast amount of time and expense would be saved. Mr. FERRIS. I desire to say one word upon this amendment. I deem it one of the most important and valuable propositions that ha been- introduced into this body. I am satisfied that, if we adopt it, there will be saved to the State thousands upon thousands of dollars in the simple item of expense of legislation. This presents a plan similar to that in operation in. the State of Ohio. I do not know pre cisely the wording of their Constitution by which it is effected. E But they have there a system by which these political corporations. are created, and they work from one stage into the other without any special enactment by the Legislature. -The consequence is, their statute books are comparatively free from these local laws by which ours are so heavily encumbered. I am satisfied that if we adopt this amendment it will be of great advantage to the State. Mr. HOLT. I believe there is a -committee on cities and villages who have not yet reported. When they submit their report, there mctay be something in it to- govern this case.d It seems to me unnecessary here, Mr. ILUCE. Like the gentleman from Keent, (Mr. FERRIS,) I deem this provision a very important one.; -I presume that of the volum containing the [ocal laws of last session-yet to be pub[ished, said to consist -of thirteen hun-: Ired pages, at least nine -hundred are taken uop f-or acts: of incorporation of various kinds, that would be cut off tot a great extent by this -amendmenEt. I'here are some practical objections, I think, to the proper working of this amendmen~t.- It is-well perhaps, for the committee to pause Va moment, and reflect upon some objections to it. If it could be so framed that it would: not work injuriously, and be impracticable, CONSTITUTIONALT CONVENTION. I should certainly be in favor of it. But suppose a new county is organized with only one organized township in the county, as sometimes occurs. How is the board of supervisors to go on and organize new towns, when there being but one township in the county there can be no board of supervisors? Mr. SUTHERLAND. A case like the one the gentleman has suggested has actually existed in my neighborhood, where one supervisor constituted and acted as a board of supervisors for years. Mr. LUCE. If I understand correctly the decision of the Supreme Court, lately rendered in the case of Washington county, they have decided that one supervisor is not, and cannot possibly be, a board of supervisors. I think that decision would hold good in case of other counties. This amendment provides that in no case shall a Legislature organize a township, or city, or village. That, it seems to me would preclude the organization of some townships where it would be ab-l solutely necessary to have them organized. - Mr. BLACKMAN. Does this amendment confine the organization of townships and villages to boards of supervisors? Could not the Legislature under a general law make provision for just such cases as the gentleman has supposed? Mr. LUCE. I do not know but they could; I was only suggesting some objections which presented themselves to the mind of the committee, as this subject was considered by the committee that reported this article. Some cities require provisions altogether different from other cities. If the practical objections to this amendment could be got over, I should certainly be in favor of the proposition. I merely desired to suggest that this is an important matter, and one which should not be passed over hastily. Mr. DANIELLS. I would ask if the case decided by the Supreme Court was upon an appeal from a board of supervisors? Mr.- SUTHERLAND. I am not familiar with that decision, but I am informed that the point referred to by the gentleman from Branch (Mr. Lucy) was not decided by the Supreme Court. It has not been decided by them, and I imagine it would not be, that a county could not exist with only one township. Mr. BLACKMAN. There is one other consideration which, it strikes me, has not been particularly alluded to in favor of this amendment; that is the great variety of powers that are granted to these villages by the manner in which the Legislature is now acting upon the subject. Some have one set of powers, and some have another set of powers entirely different. As I understand, there is no uniformity in regard to the matter. I understand that many of these acts which have been passed, some of them granting very great powers to these villages, have been passed through here, in a large bundle, rolled up and never examined either by the Legislature or by the committee that had them in charge. I have been so informed by members of the Legislature. That certainly is an evil which it would be well to avoid. We have had some remarks made here in regard to the bulk of our session laws. If gentlenmen will examine the session laws for 1859, the largest volume I believe of the kind which we have, they will ascertain that a great portion of that volume is made up of acts of incorporation of villages, which would be covered by this amendment. Mr. CONGER. If I understand the force of this amendment, it would prevent the Legislature from interfering in any manner with municipal corporations after they had been - once formed; it would restrict the power of the Legislature entirely in that respect. There has been some legislation in regard to cities that has been quite offensive to some portions of the State. - I suppose the object of this amendment is to prevent the Legislature from interfering with Detroit, Port Huron, and the other large cities of this State. I desire that the Legislature should not interfere with Port Huron, but let us bear our own burdens, attend to our own water works, and such things. I think the Legislature should be restricted by the Constitution from intermeddling in the affairs of cities in a manner which is obnoxious to the people. Mr. MoCLELLAND. The amendment expressly excepts the city of Detroit, and gives it over to the tender mercies of the Legislature. It authorizes the Legislature to pass special acts in reference to cities containing over ten thousand inhabitants. I consider this a very important subject. I hope members will take time and reflect upon it, for if a provision of this kind can be adopted, it certainly will save the State an immense expense and will shorten the sessions of the Legislature at least from ten to twenty days each session, if my experience upon that subject entitles me to express an opinion. I presume that every member of this body, who has been a member in the Legislature will concur in that opinion. In order to give time forreflection, as it is now twelve o'clock, I will move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Mr. LONGYEAR. Will the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. M]CLELLAND,) withdraw that motion for a moment? Mr. McCLELLAND. Certainly. Mr. LONGYEAR. I suppose the next section will be reached very soon after we come into committee.of the whole this afternoon. It is a section in relation to municipal aid to railroads, and it is considered a matter of great importance and - general interest throughout the State. Quite a number of the members of this body are absent on leave, and I design to be absent myself this afternoon. When this subject of municipal aid to railroads shall come up for consideration, I desire to be present, and I suppose many other gentlemen, now absent, would like to be here then. I would, therefore, move that when section twentyseven in this article shall be reached, if it be reached this afternoon, that it be passed over for to-day. The motion of Mr. LoNdYEAR was agreed to. -- Mr. McCLELLAND. I now: renew my motion that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the Chair, Mr. PRINGLE reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of thg Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Legislative Department;" had made some progress therein, and had directed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. HOLMES. I move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly, (at five minutes past 12 o'clock, p. m.,) the Convention took a recess until 3 o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at 3 o'clock p. m., -and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. PRINGLE. I have been requested to ask leave of absence for Mr. MUSGRAVE, until next Monday afternoon. Leave was accordingly granted. PERSONAL'EXPLANATION. Mr. BURTCH. I rise to make a personal explanation, in regard to my 0 0 d r b v a e b c r I t a i 96 Saturday, July 13, 1867. DEBATES AND:,PRO.EEDGS. 97 motion to amend the article on the Legislative Departmen't, so as to have the Legislature -meet every twentieth year. I was laboring under a misapprehension when I made the motion. I supposed that there was one majority against the amendment for the yearly session of the Legislature, and I thought I would get off a little irony by the introditction of my amendment. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. $ Mr. T. G. SMITH. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order.'.. Tho motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolyed itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. PRINGLE in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Legislative Department." ORQANIMZATION OF CITIES, TOWNSHIPS AND VILLAGES. The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose this forenoon, it had under consideration section twenty-six of this article, as follows: "The.Legislature may confer upon organized townships, incorporated cities and villages, and upon the board of supervisors of the several counties, such powers of a local, legislative, and administrative character-as they may deem proper." The pending question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) to add to the section the following: The Legislature shall provide by general law for organizing townships, cities and villages, on such conditions and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed. No special acts to create any such organization or defining their powers, except cities containing over ten thousand inhabitants, shall hereafter be passed by the Legislature." Mir. STOUGHTON. In the few remarks which I submitted to this amendment when it was first offered, I had the impression that it was a substitute for this section. I understand now that it is intended as an addition to the section. By, referring to section twenty-six it will be seen that it authorizes the Legislature to confer upon boards of supervisors certain powers. The first'clause of this amendment I can see no possible necessity for. It authorizes the Legislature to provide by general law for organizing townships, cities and villages. The Legislature may do that now under the present Constitution, or under. the Constitution which we will probably frame.:There is a general law now for the incorporation of villages and townships. This amendment proposes to make it impIerative upon the Lpgislature to pass such a law. But, the material part of the amendment is contained in the second.clause,:which is as follows: Vol. 2-No. 13. '"No special acts to create any such organization, (townships, cities and villages,) or defining their powers, except cities containing over ten thousand inhabitants, shall hereafter be passed by the Legislature." Here is a very important limitation upon the power of the Legislature./ They are prohibited from passing any special act in relation to the incorpor-: ation of cities, townships or villages, except in cases of cities containing over ten thousand inhabitants. Upon examining this question, I am clearly of the opinion that this provision is wholly inexpedient; -that:it cannot be made to operate' harmoniously, and secure the interests of the -State. If it is adopted, we are bound by an:iron rule throughout every part of the State. We must have the same act of incorporation for villages or townships in the southern part of the State, that we have in the northern part; the same in the eastern that we have in the western part. I ask gentlemen of the Convention if this provision can be made to operate without great hardship and great inconvenience? What may be necessary and expedient for the northern peninsula, may be wholly inapplicable to the southern peninsula; what may be a benefit to villages and townships on the coasts of the lakes, may be wholly inexpedient for-townships and villages in the interior.:What may be proper for a large village may be improper for a small one. In some villages on the lake shores, certain restrictions or powers may be necessary that would be out of place in the interior of the State. Again, in many villages, where rents and property are high, they might require a high rate of taxation, perhaps two or three per cent. In the villages in the interior, where property is held at a much lower valuation, they might want to limit taxation to one per cent., or less than that. It seems to me that no general..aw can be made to meet- the wants and interests of. every section of the State. We have tried this; we have a general law now for the incorporation of villages. And what has been the. experience of the State under such a law? I venture to say that almost every village which'has been incorporated under:that general law, either desires to get out from under it, or else haso already done so. In my county a village obtained a special act of incorporation last winter, and others desire to do so. If gentlemen say-that it would be better for. the publle that there should be such legislation in this respect, that villages should not be allowed to have a special act of incorporation, then I should like to hear some good reason given for it. I venture 'to say that where a village has a popu lation of two or three thousand inhabitants, and a million of dollars' worth of property, if:it is not of sufficient importance -to engage the attention of the :Legislature long enough to pass an act of incorporation, and have a place upon the year-books of the State, then I think we have but very little use for the Legislature. My opinion is that the Legislature was intended and:designed to pass laws to.meet the wants of every section of the State. When a village comes to contain three thousand inhabitants, it is a mal ter of great importance to them, that itheyshould: have an act of incorpora:tion which will meet their wants and necessities. The Legislature can very :well afford to take the time to grant such a charter. If they have a charter which does not meet their wants, it may prevent their growth and do very gTeat injury to them. It seems to me that the whole history of this general legislation is noat all encouraging. For the last seventeen years none but municipal incorporations could be organized in this State, :except under general law. The practical effect of that in many instances hes been, to say the least, very bad. Take the case of insurance companies. While the State has been paying to eastern companies an amount for insurance greater than the taxes in the State, we have had no insurance companies in the State that possessed the confidence of the people. Why? Not because we did not have capital in the State; not because we had no good business men: here; not because your moneyed corporations were not equal to the corporations of other States; but ssimply for the reason that no'insurance company could be chartered by the Legislature, and the general laws upon that, subject were so defective, that no men possessing capital would organize under them. And that is the case of a vast amount of other -interests of the State. We have suffered from this very cause. It does seem to me that it would be for the interest of the State to leave this question right where it is; that .when villages and cities grow up, they should have such charters and privileges as they fare properly entitled to. They have a right to ask and expect this of the Legislature. It would be wrong in us to tie up the hands of the Legislature and of:the people so that they could not get their reasonable requests granted.: - MIr.:SUTHERLAND. It is true that the Legislature now have authrity to pass general laws on this subject; and it is true that they:have passed a general law for the organization of villages. And probably it is quite true - - --------' -,; ... , I...-,. , . -. -, I : -.. -, ---... 4 I 0 N - CONSTITUTIOlATL CONVENTION. that very few localities have availed themselves of the privilege of organizing under that law; or ff they have, they have:not found it adapted to form a perfect organization. Why? There are defects in that act. One defect is that it requires three hundred inhabitants to live within the compass of one square mile. That would exelude a great number of villages which are not so compactly peopled as to come within that provision. Another suggestion may be made in reference to that law. So many localities apply t6 the Legislature for special charters, that attention is not drawn to the general law upon the subject. For that reason, it is not deemed of sufficient importance to be made perfect in its provisions. If every locality was required to organize under that act, then, whenever a defect was made manifest, it would be removed by additional legislation to perfect its provisions. It would be done just the same as was 'done in the case of thegeneral railroad law. As all organizations for railroad purposes must be made under the general railroad law, attention is drawn to the provisions of that law. Whenever it is found defective in any particular, the Legislature is applied to, -and a remedy is provided. It is said that capital has been kept out of this State, because we have abandoned the policy of granting spe cial charters. If I understand the position of the learned attorney general, (Mr. STOJGHTON,) it is that this Con vention should not only refuse to pass this provision, which would require general laws for the organization of municipal corporations, but we should also abandon the policy of requiring other corporations to organize under general laws. If his argument is.worth anything for the purpose for which it was employed, it certainly goes to that :length. In that view of it, I have no reply to make, further than this; that it is the settled policy of this State to require corporations to organize under general law. The reasons for that pol icy are so obvious and convincing, that they have commanded the appro val of the people of this State. That has become the settled policy of this State; the settled policy of this State is decidedly opposed to the argument of the learned attorney general. Although the Legislature have the power to pass general laws, not only for the organization of townships and villages, but also of cities, they have not passed such a general law, and 'there will be no very general demand for it, so-long as each locality can ap ply to the Legislature, and find the Legislature entirely willing to accede to their request, and pass a special charter for their purpose. But why may not villages and cities organize under a general law as well as under a special charter? If they can, then one general law will suffice for the entire State; and the time which would be taken in passing that general law would be all the expense which the State would incur to furnish the means for the organization of every city, village, and township for all time hereafter, instead of losing eight or ten days each session in acting upon these particular and special applications. As I understand the learned gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGETON,) he regards a Legislature as properly employed in legislating to pass these special charters; and that if they are not so employed it would be well to abolish the Legislature. Sir, I think this is mere assumption, without due reflection. When the Legislature is employed in passing a special charter, they are legislating for only one small partof the State of Michigan; they are not legislating for the people at large, but only perhaps for a single township, or for a particular four-cdrners. Nobody is interested in the passage of that special act, except the people who live in that immediate neighborhood. Is it proper that the Legislature of this State should meet annually to pass acts which concern only these little lo calities? If so, then they might sit perpetually, and they would have legitimate work of the character recommended by the gentleman from St. Joseph, for every day in the year. Cer tainly the people of this State are not prepared to engagein such a system of legislation as that. The amendment I have offered is designed to relieve the Legislature of this burden of local legislation. I do not urge it upon the Convention be cause I have any special interest in the matter. I shall be quite willing to abndon it when any reasonable objec tion can be pointed out to it. In look ing at this section of the Constitution, and similar sections in the Constitu tions of 6ther States, I find that pros visions Iike the one I have offered, Are contained in the constitutions of Illi nois and Ohio; in neither of those States can special charters of this character be granted. In those States, all these municipal organizations have ~to be made under general laws. If that practice works well in those States, there is no reason to suppose it will not work well in this State. And until some other objection is suggested, I shall feel inclined to vote for the amendment. M Mr. FERRIS. I do not want to say but very little in regard to this amend ment. I can appreciate the difficulties which seem to weigh so heavily upon the mind of my friend from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON.) I understand very well the difficulties under which these municipal bodies labor, when they are formed under general laws alone. I concede that it is a sort of iron rule. But if my friend will look at the section as reported, to which it is proposed to add this amendment, he will see that that iron rule is relaxed, and that the Legislature is to be authorized to confer upon townships, incorporated cities and villages, and upon the boards of supervisors of the several counties, legislative powers to a certain extent. Now, if I understand the two propositions, the effect of adopting them will be this; that by a general'law, a mere skeleton will be provided for the organization of these municipal bodies, and then sufficient legislative powers will be conferred upon them to meet their own wants., -'or instance, if the general law provides that the people of any locality who — desire to organize themselves into a city or a village, shall get together and by a vote elect their mayor or president, or whatever he may be termed, their clerk and treas urer, and such other officers as in their judgment they may need, that frame work will be adapted to all parts of the State. And if a city organized in the south or the north, or the east or the west, wishes to operate in some particular direction different from some other city or municipal organization, by using the legislative powers which may be conferred upon them by the Legislature, they may provide for what ever they need; and the Legislature can confer upon them sufficient legisla tive powers for the purpose. It is not proposed to cut off this power of leg islation, but merely to take it from the Legislature' of the State, and confer it upon a legislative body nearer at home, where these organizations exist. That is all we desire to do, and I believedit will result in a very great blessing to the people. - Mr. CROSWELL. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the word " cities,"- where it first occurs, and also strike out the words "except cities containing only ten thousand in habitants;" also add to the section the words, "no city shall be in corporated with less than seven thousand inhabitants, nor unless the people thereof, by a direct vote upon the question, shall have decided in favor of such incorporation." The amendment, if so amended, will read: ~"The Legislature shall provide by general law for organizing townshlips and villages, on such conditions and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed. No special acts creating any such organization, or defining their powers, shall hereafter be passed by 98 Saturclay., - 0 I 0 J'l 13 187 \ EAE ~ RCEIG.9 the Legislature. No city shall be incorporated with less than seven thousand inhabitants, nor unless the people thereof, by a direct vote upon the question, shall have decided in favor of such incorporation." Mr. WITHEY. I call for a division of the question upon the amendment to the amendment. I ask that the vote be first taken uLpon the motion to strike out. The CHAIRMAN. A division of the question having been called, the vote will be first taken upon striking out the word " cities." Mr. GIDDINGS. Before the motion is put I desire to say to the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL,) that I think he has got his figures a little too high. I think we would hardly be warranted in saying that we would not allow any city organization with less than seven thousand inhabitants. In many parts of the State when they get up to five thousand they think they are worthy of a city organization. I think we should not have so large a figure as the gentleman has employed. The question was then taken upon striking out the word "crities," and it was not agreed to. The next question was upon striking out the words "except cities containing over ten thousand inhabitants," and being taken, it was not agreed to. The next question was upon adding to the amendment the following: "No city shall be incorporated with less than seven thousand inhabitants, nor unless the people thereof, by a direct vote upon.the question, shall have decided in favor of such incorporation." The question was taken, and it was not agreed. to. The question then recurred on the amendment of Mr. SUTHERLAND. Mr. GIDDINGS. I call for a division on that amendment, and ask that the vote be taken upon the clauses separately. The CHAIRMAN. The division of the question having been demanded, the first question will be upon adding to section twenty-six the following: "The Legislature shall provide by general law for organizing townships, cities and villages, on such conditions and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed." Mr. LUCE. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTuERLAND,) what would be the effect of this amendment, in relation to cities now organized, in regard to amending their charters, would it affect them in any way? Mr. SUTIHERLAND. I do not think it would have any effect at all upon them; it was not designed to affect them. Mr. LUCE. I stated before the recess the objections to this amendment, which then occurred to my mind. Further reflection has con vinced me that there are -several objections to the adoption of this amendment. If I did not think it would work injuriously, and operate badly in practice, I would favor it. But I am of the opinion that it would be better to leave this matter to the discretion of the Legislature. Mr., GIDDINGS. I would ask the gentleman if his objection would apply to the first clause of the amendment? It seems to me that his objection will not apply to that clause. Mr. LUCE. I have no objection to the first clause. But, it seems to me that the other clause of the amendment, which prohibits legislation in any way in reference to incorporated cities or villages, might work injuriously. I understand,that in the State of New York they have a provision for incorporating cities under general law; at all events, they do incorporate them under general law. But, I noticed in an article in the New York Post, that during the last session of the Legislature one hundred and seventy bills were introduced to amend the general law. If that is to be the case in this State, I cannot see that we will gain much by adopting this amendment. If we are to amend the general law every time pny city or village needs to be incorporated, it seems to me that it will take up as much time as it would to grant a special charter. These are objections which suggest themselves to my mind. If we can avoid in any way this large mass of legislation for incorporations of this kind, it would certainly be a great benefit to this State. But if we are to pass a general law, and then be obliged to amend it one or two hundred times each session, as in the State of New York, what will we gain by it? It seems to meathat it is a matter to be left to the sound discretion of the Legislature. The question has been very much agitated inthe Legislature in reference to passing some general law in regard to the incorporation of villages and cities. I still think this matter should be left to the Legislature. Mr. T. G. SMITH. tIwould inquire of the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LuOE,) how many of the bills introduced into the New York Legislature, to which he refers, were passed? Mr. LUCE. There were one hundred and seventy of them passed and signed by the Governor. Mr. GIDDINGS. It seems to me that none of us are opposed to the first clause of this amendment. I think we are willing to confer upon the Legislature power to provide by general law for organizing townships, cities and villages. But I think there are many of us who do have objections to the second clause, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any special acts for that purpose. -Mr. P. D. WARNER. I think I had the honor, or at least I took the responsibility, as a member of the committee on the Legislative Department, to suggest as a section of this article, the following: "The Legislature shall not pass special acts extending the time for the collection of taxes, nor for the incorporation of villages." The committee, after giving the subject that consideration which its merits seemeqd to demand, decided by a very decisive v6te against the second part of the proposition. The first part is contained in this article, in the thirtyfirst section, which provides that the Legislature shall not pass special acts extending the time for the collection of taxes. Now, so far as relates to the incorporation of villages, I, myself, am of the opinion that a general law might be passed which would provide for all the necessities of the State. - Therefore, if that was the proposition before the committee, I would give it a willing support. But there are two other propositions which I conceive are not practicable; -they cannot be made practicable as portions of the organic law. From the experience I have had, and from the necessities and requirements of different localities in the State, I believe that if we adopt the restrictions contained in the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTMERLAND,) every Legislature that will convene under the Constitution we are now forming, if it shall be approved by the people, will be embarrassed in its action with reference to these two measures, first, the organization of townships, and second the incorporation of cities. The question was raised this forenloon in relation to the county that was organized last winter. The reason assigned by the Supreme Court was that the act of organization did not conform to the requirements of the Constitution. With all due deference to the learned gentleman from Saginaw, I will take the responsibility of stating that I cannot be mistaken; that in support of that decision it was stated, among other things, that one supervisor could not constitute a board. That was urged by the Supreme Court, or rather stated by the Supreme Court, as one of the reasons why that law was in conflict with the Constitution of this State. There may be other counties having but one supervisor; if there should be, there would be a difficulty. in the organization of townships. But there may rhot be a county in the State in that condition. The'orgariiation of . ulv.13, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCE'PT)INGS. 99 a, 100~~~~~~' C~I UIOA OV~O.Str, 7~ townships occupies but a trifling por — tion of the time of the Legislature. Occasionally, a township is organized by the Legislature, but prineipally they are organized by the action of the board of supervisors of the several townships. In regard to the organization and incorporation of cities, every member of this Convention who has had experience in the Legislature, knows full well that from the diversity of circumstances and conditions, and from the ,diverse needs and wants of the different localities in the State, it would be quite difficult, if not- impossible, to enact a general law, that by its provisions would cover every case. So that if we should adopt a provision of this kind in the organic law, as I remarkedbefore, I conceive that future Legislatures, so long as this organic law sha!] be the law of the State, will find themselves embarrassed as regards this class of legislation. And the result will be as stated by-the gentleman from-Branch, (Mr. LUcE,) that instead of a special act forthe incorporation of a city, we will have almost every city in the State, applying for an amendment of its charter, for an amendatory act of the general law, as is the case in the State of New York. Therefore, I do not think this is a wise provisi6n to be embraced in the organic law of the State. I am opposed to it in all its parts, with the exception of that which relates to the incorporation of villages. That I will support as a separate proposition, to be added to section thirty-one of this article, where I think it more legitimately belongs. The question recurred upon adding to the section the first clause of the amendment of Mr. SUT'RERLANiD, as follows: "The Legislature shall provide by general law for organizing townships, cities and villages, on such conditions, and subject to such: regulations, as may be prescribed." That portion of the amendment was agreed to, upon a division; ayes 44, noes 9. The next question was upon adding to the section the last clause of the' amen-dment of M5r. SUTHERLAND, as follows: "No special acts to- create any such organizations, or defining their powers, except cities containing over ten thousand inhabitants, shall hereafter be passed by the Legislature." That portion of the amendment was not agreed to, upon a division-ayes 21, noes 31. Mr. STOUGHTON. I move to amend the last portion of this section as- now amended, by striking out the words "on such conditions and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed." Mr. McICL,TILAND. Ii would inquimre if the amendment of the gentleman fromr St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) is in order? The CHAIRMAN. In the- opinion of the Chair, the committee having voted to add to the section, the words which the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) moves to strike out, it is not in order -o strike out those words. Mr. MUSSEY. I suppose it would be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was adopted, so that the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) might imove his amendment to it. The CHATRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from St. Joseph, cannot —be received at this tim9, except by unanimrnous consent. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I object, as it will change the effect and force of the amendment- which was adopted. Mr. CONGER. I do not wish-to make any motion. I simply wish at this time to call the attention of the committee to the fact, that those gentlemen who have been most opposed to legislation in this article, have been the-most prominent advocates of putting; in a clause that is purely legislative. No further amendment was offered to this section. MUNIOIPAL AID TO RAILROADS. The next section was as follows: SECTION 27. The Legislature shall not au-, thorize any county, city or township to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construcelion of any railroad to an extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such county, city or township. The CHAIRMAN. The committee this morning, on the motion of the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) ordered that section twentyseven of this article should be passed over for to-day; therefore the next section will be now read. LEGISLATURE NOT TO AUTHORIZE SALE OR CONVEYANCE OF REAL ESTATE, NOR TO VACATE ANY ROAD. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 28. The Legislature shall not authorize, by private or special law, the sale or conveyance of any real estate belonging to any person, nor vacate nor alter any road laid out by commissioners of highways, or any street- in any city or village, or in any recorded town plat. MrH. VAN RIPER. I move to amend this section by striking out the words "authorize by private or special law the sale or conveyance of any real estate belonging to any person, nor;" so that: the section will read: "The Legislature shall not vacate nor alter any road laid out by the commissioners of highways, or any street in any city or village, or in any recorded town plat." I am unable to discover the object for the insertion in this section of the portion I have moved to strike out. I have moved this amendment, however, more for the purpose of ascertaining what that object was, than for'anything else. I do not understand that the Legislature have any right, or any authority even, if not restricted, to provide by law for the sale of private property, or the property of an individuaL The section of the bill of rights declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, is certainly a sufficient restriction. Property cannot be taken for any other use than for public use, and then only upon just compensation. In view of that section which we have already passed, I am unable to discover the necessity of this provision. It seems to me also that a restriction of this kind will work bay, as -the Legislature must provide for th-e sale of lands for the non-payment of taxes, also in other cases. I hope the chairman of the committee who reported this artide, (Mr. CONGER,) will enlighten us as to the necessity of such a provision as this, if there is any. Mr. CONGER. It seems to me that this section has a very important object, and one which upon very little reflection will be apparent to every personpresent. It provides that the Legislature shall not authorize, by a private or special law, the sale or conveyance of any real estate belonging to any person. I think there was no such provision in the old Constitution of 1835, and if I remember aright, in looking over the old session laws, there were many bills authorizing A. to convey certain real estate to B., and C. to convey other real estate to D. I think the occasions when such laws were passed were very frequent. Undoubtediy those who framed the Constitution of 1850, aware of the troubles and danger arising from the Legislature passing laws authorizing such conveyances, inserted this provision in the present Constitution. I see no reason why, by solemn act of the Legislature, any person shall be authorized to convey real estate to another without any adjudication of rights, and, as you may say, without any standing in court of other parties interested. I see no reason why-a special and private law of the State of Michigan should authorize the private conveyance of real estate by one individual to another. That course was resorted to in order to quiet titles without going through courts of law, and to give force and legality to titles without CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENRXION. 100 Saturday 0 ,. : -. 1:1,,!", 11 li July 13, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCE]DIGS. 101 going -into the courts, and that, too, by a Legislature which has no judicial power at all, and that did not have any judicial authority. In that way parties would have no standing in court, to defend their rights, and no opportunity to be heard, and could have no chance to enforce any remedy. I will not prolong my remarks further, than to say that the object of this section was to cut off that kind of special legislation, by which interested parties could come here and acquire a sort of sanction to a title, whether good or bad, simply by making representations to the Legislature. These were the views which the committee had in reference to' this section; in fact the object was so. apparent that I do not know there was any discussion upon it. I will inquire of the members present here of the Convention of 1850, whether that was not the subject of complaint prior to the formation of the present Constitution? Mr. McCLELLAND. That was the reason why this provision was inserted in the Constitution of 1850. Frequent applications had been made before that time to the Legislature, and acts had been passed upon an ex parse showing, and great injustice had been done, in many cases, throughout the State. In consequence of that, the Convention of 1850 thought it best to put this restriction in the present Constitution; and I think it is one of the most salutary restrictions in that Constitution. Mr. COOLIDGE. My impression is that there was another reason for this provision; I think it was true that, before this clause was put into our Constitution, persons came here for legislative aid who had, for various reasons, placed their property out of their hands. I recollect some of those cases where men, from interested motives, put their property into the hands of their children, and, after a while, desiring to obtain the management of it themselves, they would come to the Legislature, and, through some pretence or other, get an act restoring the property to themselves. I would in quire of the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. MCCLELLAND) if such was not also the case? Mr. McCLELLAND. I have myself known several instances where authority was given to guardians, adminis trators and others, to sell property without any investigation at all, and great injustice resulted from it. I think all such things should be investi gated by the courts; the court is the proper tribunal to decide upon ques tions of this kind. Mr. COOLIDGE. I have not a par ticle of doubt but what this is a wise provision, and I should be very sorry to see it stricken out. M:Mr. VAN: RIPEIR. My object in offering the amendment was simply to draw out the reason for inserting this provision in the Constitution. I am satisfied upon that point, and so withdraw my amendment. Mr. CROSWELL. I move to amend this section by inserting after the word "street," the words "or public grounds;" so that that portion of the section will read: "Nor vacate nor alter any road laid out by commissioners of highways, or any street or public grounds in any city or village, or in any recorded town plat." Mr. LEACH. This amendment might perhaps in most cases be bene ficial. But I am apprehensive that there may becases where it will pre vent the doing of that which may be very desirable. In the village where I reside there is among the public squares, set apart and dedicated to the use of the public, one upon which the citizens hope eventually to erect a union school building. If this amend ment is adopted it seems to me it would prohibit us from doing anything of that kind. That may also be the case with other villages. It seems to me that this amendment would pro hibit anything of that kind being done. Mr. CONGER. I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL.) In answer to the remarks of the gentle man from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEAcH,) I will say that the law already provides a proper and very expeditious mode of vacating any streets or public grounds, by petition to the circuit court, upon the notification of the parties interested. It is a system which I have had occa sion to employ, and so understand the workings of it in reference to vacating streets and also public grounds. It is a very direct, snirple and concise mode of reaching the object the gentleman has in view. It merely provides that the parties interested shall have proper notice of the proposed change, and an opportunity to be heard in court; I think that will meet all the objections to this amendment urged by the gen tleman from Grand Traverse. He is doubtless familiar with the law on this subject. The same rule would apply to vacating public grounds that would applyto vacating public streets. Mr. ALEXANDER. I would in quire of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) where the Legislature : get their authority, or where the cir cuit court would get authority, to va~ cate any village property, town plat, * street or public property of any kind, if the Constitution prohibited the Leg* islature from granting such authority? Mr. CONGER. It could be done under general law; this provision sim ply prohibits its being done by private or special law for each particular case. Mr. ALTEXANDER. This provision then, is intended merely to prohibit special acts for this purpose. Mr. CONGER. That is all. The amendment of Mr. CROSWELL was then agreed to. Mr. HOLT. I move to amend this section merely for the purpose of changing its phraseology somewhat. I move to strike out the words "nor vacate nor alter," and insert in lieu thereof "or authorize the vacation or alteration of." That will not change the sense of the section, but merely correct its phraseology, and I think make it read very much better. Mr. BLACKMAN. I think the amendment of the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT,) does something more than merely change or alter the phraseology; I think it changes the entire sense of the section. It now provides that the Legislature shall not authorize by — private or special law, the sale or - Conveyance of any real estate to any person;- and also that the Legislature shall not vacate nor alter any road, etc. It does not say they may not authorize by a general law, the vacating or alteration of any road by a court, but merely says the LegislatUire- themselves shall not do it. Mr. HOLT. I withdraw'my amend' ment. I read; this section very hastily. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I move to amend this section by striking out the words "private or," so that it will read, "the Legislature shall not authorize by special law the sale or conveyance of any real estate," etc.. If it is a private law of course it is a special law. Mr. GIDDINGS. I think the word private" has some technical signification; and I would, therefore, leave it in the section on that ground. Mr. CONGER. I desire to say that I do not oppose any particular criticism of the language of this section. "Acts," in the common acceptation and use of the word, are divided into public acts and private acts, into public acts and special acts. A special act refers to one passed for a special purpose. I think there is used in this section a term of very common legal acceptation ",private acts." With all deference to the opinions of my friend from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) I cannot see the advantage to be derived from striking out a word of well-known legal signification, and leaving a word to stand which might perhaps be much more properly stricken out. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Is not a private law a special law? Mr. CONGlER. The eommon- law .c July.13,'1867. DEBATES ANIJ- PROCEEDINGS. 101. 10 CO-IUTOA COV-TO. turd distinction is public acts and private acts. A special act may be a special general act, or it may be a special private act. Mr. ALEXANDER. Can "private" mean any more than special? and why is not "special" sufficient? Mr. CONGER. Let me say that if there be a bill introduced in the Legislature to change the name of an individual, that is called a private act; it is not special in any particular sense of the word; "private" means something different from "special." The question was then taken uponthe amendment of Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH, and it was not agreed to. No further amendment was offered to the section. THE LEGISLATURE NOT TO GRANT EXTRA COMPENSATION, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 29. The Legislature shall not grant nor authorize extra compensation to any public officer, agent or contractor, after the service has been rendered or the contract entered into. Mr. CONGER. There was a proposition before the committee, which was not reported by them; but I think it was proposed to have it presented in connection with this section, for the consideration of the Convention. Without advocating it particularly, I will move that there be added to this section the following, "except upon the special recommendation of the Governor, and by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all the memberselect of each House." In connection with this amendment, I *ill state simply that there was brought to the notice of the committee through certain individuals, and it was within the knowledge of some members of the last Legislature, that there were occasional cases of extreme hardship, which from a sense of equity and justice seemed to require some relief from the Legislature. But under this provision of the Constitution there was no remedy for cases of that class. Perhaps other gentleman, if they feel disposed, will allude to one of the cases to which the attention of the committee was called in connection with this subject. With a great deal of unwillingness on the part of the members of the committee, that the principle of this section should be disturbed at all, it was suggested whether there might not, with proper restrictions, be some manner devised in which these occasional extreme cases might be provided for, without endangeringtheprincipleof this section. Mr. BILLS. I think this section, without the amendment suggested by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) would be an iron rule that would sometimes compel the Legislature to do that which would be unjust, or rather prevent them from doing that which was just. I am glad that the proposition has been made to so amend this section that in certain cases which may transpire, the Legislature may be enabled to do that which would be eminently just. I would leave the Legislature and the Governor with power to do what an individual would feel himself bound to do, upon principles of honesty and integrity. If an individual has made a contract involving a large amount of money, and the party contracting has entered upon the execution of the contract, and performed it with fidelity, and it is perfectly apparent that in doing so he has sacrificed himself, it would be an iron rule prescribed for that individual, if we should not permit him to allow any additional compensation.,Such cases have arisen in this State,- in the execution of the laws by the officers of the State, where persons have sacrificed themselves, and there was no remedy; where the Legislature could afford no relief. I would leave it so that under certain restrictions properly guarded, justice might be done. I would leave the Legislature in a condition where they might do what an individual would feel himself bound to do, if he was one of'the contracting parties. Mr. VAN RIPER. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee on the legislative department, (Mr. CONGER,) if he can so amend this section, that where a contractor has made an agreement to do certain work for a certain price, and on account of a reduction in the price of materials and labor, he has made a much larger sum out of the contract than it was intended or expected he would make, he would be compelled by a recommendation of the Governor and by a vote of two-thirds of the Legislature to refund to the State a portion of his profits? Mr. CONGER. The ingenuity'of my learned friend from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIPER,) will suggest to him the means of robbing contractors, much more readily than I shall be able to ,assist him in doing. Never having turned my attention specially to that subject, and the committee not having had it specially under consideration, I can answer neither for the committee, nor for myself, the very delicate inquiry which the gentleman has made. In regard to the amendment which I have offered, I will say in addition to what I have already said, that I feel, as many members of the committee felt very much opposed to any alteratfon of the provisions of this section. Yet there was brought to our knowledge one case, among a few that might happen, of very extreme hardship; such a case as, if it had occurred in a contract made with any gentleman of this Convention, and such gentleman had not been willing to release the man from the contract, or make some amends, he would have brought upon himself the reproach of any intelligent community. I will state myself what the case is, because, although the particulars of it are more familiar to you, Mr. Chairman (Mr. PRINGLE,)'you are not now where you can state them to the committee. The State prison inspectors made a contract, some time before the commencement of the late war, with a gentleman to furnish the meat for the prisoners.in the State Prison at Jackson. It was a very proper and suitable contract, as prices were at the time. The war commenced, the demand for meat increased, as we all know, with the increased necessities of the war. Although this man had several thousand dollars, with which he had commenced his business, and although his friends urgedhim to give up- the- contract as he was using up his own money, and the money of his friends in carrying it out, he refused to do so. He said he had contracted with the State to perform a certain duty, and while he had the means he would live up to his contract faithfully. And I am informed by citizens of Jackson that this contractor spent some seven thousand dollars of his own money in carrying out his contract.' He expended all the capital which he had when he commenced, amounting to some seven thousand dollars, and when he closed the contract he was left without a cent in the world, and is now working at day's wages for a living. His daughters labor for their support, and his family are scattered. It was a case which, I am informed, appealed to the sympathies and the sense of justice of the Legislature of last winter, so that they were unanimous in their desire to afford relief; but under the strict rule of this section of course no relief could be granted. Such cases will undoubtedly be rare in this State. The probability that such contracts will be made, will not be such that cases of that kind will happen for a number of years to come. But without being carried away by any particular sympathy for any particular case, I for one am willing to provide, with all suitable guards and restrictions, that if a case of extreme hardship of that kind occurs, rather than have a man destroyed for his integrity, there shall be a way that he may be relieved somewhat by the- Legislature. These are my views upon the subject. I have no interest in this matter more than other gentlemeij of the committee have; CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Saturday, 102' I Ju 13, 1867......... -. - 103 and I have perhaps just as great an objection to opening the door in such cases as any other gentleman has. Mr. SHE-ARER. I think this section as it now stands is just about as perfect as we can make it; from the fact that if we should open the door for men to make their applications to the Governor and other' parties, to allow them a certain compensation for losses in consequence of not being able to fulfill their contracts, it might open the door for letting in a great many peopleto make those applications for redress of grievances. Change the case; suppose that the contractor had made a large amount of money out of -the State; would he be willing to give it up to the people? Suppose a man takes a contract at Jackson, and makes several hundred thousand dollars by the operation. Would he come to the Legislature and say: "Gentlemen, here, I have made this amount more than I expected to; I will give it back to the State." I think that such would rarely be the case that yold would find a man so magnanimous as to come to the Legislature and say: "I have made more money than I expected, and I will make over to the State what'I have made more than I contracted for." I hold a little to the old Roman doctrine that men should live up to their agreements, if they are. able to do so. In the first place, I think they should be very cautious in making their agreementS, so as to be able to live up to them. But if we allow this loose way of doing business, if we allow men to make bargains, and, because they did. not forsee the difficulties connected with them, pay them when they have lost, I think we shall ie going too far. There is no friendship in trade. My friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) says that the State should be allowed to ct as individuals do, and tQ hand out its thousands to favorites and to persons,who need them. Now that may all be verywell. Individuals may take the responsibility of this thing for themselves and grant'favors and blessings, when they find that they have taken advantage of their obligations. But when we come to enact laws, let those laws be just, and let every man live up to his obligation. So far as-the law-making power is, concerned, I think we should have no loose legislation which would allow men to take advantage of their own wrong. This seems to be the principle laid down, as my friend from Eaton, (Mr. BunTaH,) would say, in' early times among the Romans. Then some men.would allow their own sons to be destroyed, because they did not fulifil the obligations laid upon them. I would not be quite so hard as that. But so far as laws are concerned, so far as legislative enactments are concerned, I do not believe it is right to give any more advantage to contractors than is given to the people. I would let them work on an even scale; let the contractors an4 the people act on an even scale, doing business each one according to the contract. In that way a man would be more careful how he makes his contracts. But if he is allowed to make a contract one way and then to have the privilege of changing it whenever he thinks it is necessary, I think that would be a very loose way of doing business. Mr. ROOT.'I shall favor this amendment, and I am very thankful to the gentlemanfrom St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) for proposing it. I think it is sufficiently guarded to protect the interests of the State. The case must be a just one in order to obtain the recommendation of the Governor, and receive the approval of a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. The case which has been cited here is one of extreme hardship. I know of another case of the same kind. During the war when, as we all know, everything rose in price unexpectedly, a certain person who had made a contract, continued to perform it although he lost very much by so doing. I think we should relax this iron rule a little and allow such cases as these, so extreme in their nature, to be acted on by the Legislature. - I hope, therefore, this amendment will be adopted. IMr. MORTON. I propose also to sustain this amendment, the more particularly that I am conversant with the case in Jackson which has been alluded to. I do not think it is good policy for the State to take advantage of a mere contract, if they have any power under the Constitution to do a man justice. Here was a man who in good faith carried out his contract; when, if he had done as many other contractors did, and abandoned it, he never would have been prosecuted by the State. But the man, in the face and eyes of dishonesty in this State, when everybody considers it a public duty to fleece the State, went on and fulfilled his contract because he was a man of integrity. He carried out the contract at the expense of his financial ruin. Now, I say that there should be some way provided by which the State cant honor honesty such as this. If he had been a dishonest man, and he had done as others have done, he would have abandoned his contract and the State might have whistled for any remedy. I never knew the State to prosecute a man under such circumstances, and I do not believe it ever will. There is no man in the State of Michigan who, unless he had some justice on his side, could get a recommendation of the Governor, and a vote of two-thirds of the Legislature, authorizing extra pay for work that had been done. There never was a Legislature assembled in the State of Michigan which would have allowed such a claim unless the justice of it was as clear as noonday. - UJnder the circumstances, where the recommendation of the Governor must be obtained before the case can come before the Legislature; and where such a heavy vote must be obtained in the Legislature to grant relief in such cases, I do not think it is opening the door at all-at least I cannot see that it opens the door to any extent beyond that which justice requires. Mr. BURTCH. In order to give the committee on insanity a little something to do, I propose to make a few remark]s. The CHAIRMAN. The question before the committee, is upon the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) Mr. BURTCH. Exactly; I believe I understand what the proposition is. Now, what is'the real extent of this proposition? We are engaged in making a Constitution; and yet it is proposed to put provisions in it for indi vidual cases. Now, in the record of the Ancient of Days, will be found a case where the question of pay arose. A certain man went out to hire laborers. He hired some in the early part of -the day, to whom he promised to give a penny. He hired others later in the'day at the same rate. And he hired others at the eleventh hour, to whom he promised to give a penny. When he came to pay them, those who went to work early in the day complained that they did not receive a quid pro quo for their labor; they had worked through the'heat of the day, and received no more than those who came in at the eleventh-hour. Now the man who hired them asked them if they had not received the price which was agreed upon. It seemed to be a settled rule there, that if you paid the price agreed upon, it was an hono'rable discharge for the payment of services. So the man who hired them eked these men if he had not paid them what he had agreed to give them, and why they should complain if he paid others the same price, though they had not worked so long. He said he had a right to do what he pleased with that which was his own. That is the rule we should adopt here. This amendment, however, would open the door for men to be hanging around the Legislature, who had neglecetd to :xami]ne into their, contracts before r s .1 July 13, 1867. DEBATES AND'PROCEEDINGS. 103 A 10 0 104 a;; C * Ow 6vR; w s;............ _. _...............................................................................................' -................................, _I........ they:made them. Perhaps there would be men who are all the time hanging around the public crib, and who would endeavor to take contracts at much less price than they knew they could afford to take them for, and then depend upon the Legislature for their salvation. They would be whining around here, shedding their crocodile tears for the purpose of reach'ing the hearts of these generous minded men, so that they might open the doors of the treasury, and pay these contractors this extra pay. Sir, I think the proposition is the most absurd folly and nonsense. And if I should ever offer an amendment so perfectly at variance with good sound common sense, for God's sake, expel me from this body for insanity. [Laughter.] Mr. LUCE. I should feel that I was neglecting a duty devolving upon me if I should permit this question to pass without saying a word. For once, I am happy to agree entirely with the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BuRTcH.) He has stolen my thunder and made my speech. But there are aYew things to which I would like-to call the attention of thecommittee. It is generally conceded that our Constituti6n of 1850 is more legislative than the Constitution of almost any other State; but I believe it is not in this respect. - In all 'the Constitutions which I have examined I find this provision, exactly or substantially as reported by the committee. And I apprehend that if it were not f6r this one individual case of Mr. Davis of Jackson, this amendment would never have been presented here. Now, in making a Constitution for the wants and necessities of the people of the entire State, shall we deviate from the old trodden path for the purpose of providing for one single case? If that was the only case which would ever be presented to the Legislature, perhaps I might not have so much objectior. I would have voted redress to that individual, if I could have done so. But I apprehend, as the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr.uBwTo,) says, that if we once open this door it would be hard ever to get it shut again. The contractors would appeal, first to the Governor and then to the Legislature, ~in almost every case; and' the time of the Legislature would be continually -taken up with these applications. I hope this Constitution which we are now framing, will stand for a quarter of a century. In that time we shall probably build a State House which will be the occasion of a con:tract:for a million of dollars, more or less. And there may be other con-tracts on the part of the State:uite ~s :important. If we should adopt this amendment, and make it a part of the Constitution, these contractors would come to the Legislature, whether they lost money or not, and take up the time of the Legislature, even if they should not succeed in getting the money of the State. Now, shall we deviate from the old provision in our Constitution, in order to meet this one case, when in the thousand and one other cases this provision as it now stands:has worked properly, correctly and economically for the people? I believe this section should be adopted just as it was — reported by the committee, without amendment. If we should adopt this amendment, I believe we should live to see the day when it would return to plague us. I earnestly protest against the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) I have examined it in all its aspects and bearings. I would give due weight to the argument of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BLLS.) At the same time I believe that this provision should not be amended. I believe it is necessary in order to preserve the purity of the Legislature. Where a contractor whose contract involves a half a million or a million of dollars, can afford to use fifty or a hundred thousand dollars in order to corrupt the Legislature, I think we will need such a provision as this. I think it is a just provision and one which should be retained. Mr. VANVATLKENBURGH. I hope the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CQNGER,) will prevail. I think the State ought to be placed in a position where it can regard cases of the kind mentioned. I think the State should not be prevented from doing-what my friend from Branch, (Mr. LucE,) and my friend from Wayne, (Mr. SHEARER,) would -do, were they themselves placed int the same situation. Neither of those gentleman would refuse to do justice to a con-: tractor, who had exerted his best energies to fulfill his contract, and had lost money by it. If they would, they are different men. from what I think they are. I think the State should be put in a position where it could do what an individual would do under similar circumstances. I hope the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, willprevail. I think it is due to the honor and dignity of the State, that it should be-able to compensate men who suffer loss through contracts entered into with it. My friend from Branch, certainly would not refuse to lend a listening ear to a contractor who had lost money by fulfilling a contract made with hi'm, in which he had used due diligence, and had exerted all his powers in fulfilling h contracts. Mlr. H]ENDERSON. I am informed that the chairman of this committee of the whole, (Mr. PREINGLE,) has -leave of absence to-day. In order, therefore, to enable him to take the train this after!noon, I move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordinglyrose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the Chair, Mr.:PlRINGLE reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Legislative Department;" had made some progress therein, and had directed him to ask leave to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr.- CASE. I move that the Convention now adjourn until next Monday morning at half-past ten o'clock. Mr. LUCE. I move that the Convention now adjourn. Mr. CONGER. I wish the gentleman would witlidraw iithat — motion. There are a great many of us who are going home to-night, and we shall not be back on Monday until half-past ten. Mr. LUCE. I will withdraw my motion. Mr. MORTON. If there was a quorum here on Monday at nine o'clock~ we might go on with our business. Mr. CONGER. If there should not be a quorum here, then the Convention would have to adjourn until the next morning. The motion of Mr. CASE was then agreed to. The Convention accordingly (at twenty-five minutes to five o'clock p. m.,) adjourned until half-past ten o'clock a. m. onMonday. - FORTY-FIRST DAY. A.~~~~~~~~~~~~4 MoNDAY, July 15, 1867. The Convention met at half-past ten o'clock a. m., and was called to. order by the PREsIDEN,T. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. STRAUB. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE Or ABSENCE. Mr. CONGER. By telegram from my colleague, Mr. HAZEN, I learn that his father, Who has been sick, died yesterday. I ask leave of absence for him. - Mr. MILES. He has indefinite leave of absence. Mr. CONGER. Then that will do. Mr. ESTEE. I ask leave of absence for Mr. UTLEY, until Saturday next,-on important busminess. Leave was accordingly granted. I 104 :1,, I — V.'IT.U.''- 'T..-j CONS T -ON-A T4 C.ON..- E —..ON. M.Oiiday, 4* . 0 0 ii Jul 15 187 EAE - RGE~S 0 PETITIONS. Mr. McCONNELL presented the petitition of Mrs. L. Supry, Mrs. E. Webster, Mrs. M. J. Bailey, Miss Sarah Tooker and 95 others, women of the city of Lansing, asking that section 47, article 4, of the present Constitution of the State, be retained in the new one; which was referred to the committee on: intoxicating liquors. Mr. TYLER. I have here a memorial of the friends of progress in Sturgis, St. Joseph county, to the Constitutional Convention, in favor of free and unrestricted suffrage. I ask that it be read. Mr. LEACH. If it is designed to have this memorial printed in the journal, I see no necessity of taking up the time of the Convention by reading it. Mr. TYLER. I move that it be printed in the journal. Mr. BRADLEY. This is a long petition, and I object to its being allowed to take up so much of the space of the journal.' I move that it be referred to the committee on elections. The PRESIDENT. The first question will be upon ordering it to be printed in the journal. The question was taken upon the motion that the memorial be printed in the journal; and upon a division, ayes 28, noes 23, the motion was agreed to. The memorial was referred to the committee on elections.. Mr. ROOT presented the petition of James Underhill, W. W. Green, M. Herrington, and 60 others, of Hillsdale, asking this Convention'to provide a clause in the new Constitution prohibiting the manufacture of spirituous liquors, and the importation of the same into the State. Also, the petition of H. H. Hecox, J. W. Wade, and 29 others, of Hillsdale county, on the same subject; which were referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. CITIES AND VILLAGES. Mr. MILES, from the committee on cities and villages, submitted the following report: The committee on cities and villages, to whom was referred sections 13 and 14, of article XV, entitled Corporations, respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report the accompanying article, entitled Cities and Villages," recommending that the same do pass, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. M. HI. MILES, Chairman. The report was received, and the committee discharged. -The article was read a first and second time by its title, ordered to be printed, placed on the general order, and referred to the committee of the whole. Vol 2-No. 14. HOUR OF DAILY MEETING. Mr. STOCKWELL. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That hereafter until otherwise ordered, the daily sessions of the Convention shall commence at 8 o'clock a. m. The resolution was not adopted. ELIGIMILITY TO OFICE. Mr. RAFTER. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That a section be incorporated in the Constitution, defining who shall be eligible to office. My object in offering this resolution is to bring it to the attention of the Convention. In the present Constitution there is nothing defining who shall be eligible to office. I know the questiol has occasionally arisen as to who might hold office. I know that in our town the question once arose whether a lady would be entitled to hold office or not. The question has also arisen at' times whether a person under twenty-one years of age was entitled to hold office. There is nothing in the present Constitution defining who may hold office. I find in the Constitution of Mginnesota a provision which reads as follows:' " Every person who, by the provisions of this article, shall be entitled to vote at any election, shall be eligible to any office which now is, or hereafter shall be, elective by the people in the district wherein he shall have resided thirty days previotts to such election, except as otherwise providbd in this Constituiton, or the Constitution and laws of the United States."' It seems to me that it would be well to incorporate a similar provision somewhere in our Constitution. Mr. LUCE. I move that the resolution be referred to the committee on miscellaneous provisions. The motion was agreed to. READING NEWSPAPERS DURING SESSION OF CONVENTION, ETC. Mr. CASE. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That rule 57 of the House of Representatives be adopted as one of the rules of this Convention. Mr. McCLELLAND. Let that rule be read. The rule was read as follows: " No newspaper or other matter foreign to the business of the House, shall be read within this bar during the sessions thereof." Mr. CASE. I think we have all seen the necessity of some rule of this kind here in this Convention. Perhaps we have all been guilty of the practice which that rule was intended to prohibit. Quite a number of times the progress of business has been stopped, on account of some member not understanding the question pending, because he had been interested in some newspaper or something foreign to the business of the Convention. I think that during the latter part of last week, a number of times when we were about ready to vote on some question, some member had to inquire what the pending question was, because he had been reading a newspaper or something of that kind. It seems to me that it is necessary, if we must attend to matters of this kind, reading newspapers and such things as are foreign to the business of this Convention, we should shorten the hours of our daily session in order to give members time to attend to such things. But wlawhile we are in the Convention we should give our undivided attention to the business before the Convention. And there is another thing which is quite annoying to me, and I suppose to a great many other members of this Convention; and that is, when some member is spealking upon a question before the Convention, there is so much conversation going on in this hall that it is almost impossible to hear the remarks made by the member. I think that we should in some manner endeavor to give our undivided attention to the business of the Convention during the hours of its session. If we have to shorten our sessions to two hours a day in order to do that, then let us do it. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I have no objection to adopting the'resolution of the gentleman from Montcalm, (Mr. CASE,)' if it shall be so amended as to apply to him alone; otherwise I shall most certainly object to its passage. Mr. BURTCH. I am very glad that the gentleman from Montcalm,. (Mr. CASE,) has introduced this resolution. If this resolution is adopted, meaning as I do to obey the rules of this Convention, I should not again be caught in the condition I was the other day; that is, reading a newspaper when the question was pending before the Convention. I have observed the same thing in regard to other members, a constant violation of the rules of this Convention. It has been permitted, both by the President and the chairman of the committee of the whole, to allow conversation to be held during the hours of the session here, to the disgrace and disparagement of the business transactions of this Convention. Mr. TURNER. If it be in order, Iwill move to amend the rule referred to by the gentleman from Montcalm, (Mr. CAsE,) by adding to it the words " except while some delegate is speaking." I have no objection to voting for it in that shape. Mr. HOLT. I move to amend the amendment by adding the words, "of more than fifteen minutes in length." 105 DEBATE EDINGS. S AND PROCE Jul 15 1867. y ..6.O~IUTOA CVETO. F — Moi- d- - Mr. LEACH. I move to lay the resolution on-the table. T- The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. RAFTER. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into cornmittee of the whole, on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the whole, (.Mr. PRINGLE in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled " Legislative Department." LEGISLATURE NOT TO AUTHORIZE EXTRA ' COMPENSATION, ETC. ;The CHAIRMAN. When the cornmmittee rose on Saturday, it had under consideration section twenty-nine of this article, which is as follows: "The Legislature shall not grant nor aun thorize extra compensation to any public officer, agent or contractor, after the services has been rendered, or.the contract entered into." - The. pending question is upon the amendment proposed by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) to add to the section the following: " Except upon the special recommendation of the Governor, and by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members elect of each House.:" Mr. MCCLELLAND. I am afraid if we adopt this amendment we will open a Pandora's box of evils which we do not now expect. The provision contained in this section was placed in the'old Constitution,on account of a large number of claims that had been presented, and were'being constantly -presented to the,Legislature, consuming timne unnecessarily, and in many cases without any foundation whatever. Now, sir, what will be the effect if the Convention adopt the amendment of the gentleman — from- St. Clair?. We all very well know that in regard to claims against the State, there is no limitation. As a matter of course, all the claims that were cut off by this provision in the present Con-Stitution, and all the claims which have subsequently arisen, will be presented for the action of the'Legislature.' It; does not appear to me to be sufficient, that the amendment: proposes to cornpel the claims to pass through two channels. I have- no doubt that our present Governor, in whom -I have great confidence, would act justly and properlyin regard to all claims that :might~be submitted to him. But there fare such things as facile Governors," "men who can be imposed upon,- men whose sympathies and feelings can -be operated upon; and there may be Legislatures equally-facile with your Gov-.' ernors. -I hardly ever saw a claim that-: -had any merit in it at all, which was not finally allowed, when. such. claims could be presented to. the Legislature. I. might remind persons here, old members of the Legislature, of a certain claim which used to come up from Monroe county. Myimpression isthat it was before the Legislature some fifteen- or sixteen years. It was a claim for:a horse. Legislature after Legislature pronounced it entirely groundless, but finally by the very persistence with which the claim -was pressed, it was allowed. Now, I ask those gentlemen who are in favor of this amenddment what there is in it to prevent the presentation of clams in regard to the'northern canal, and the northern railroad, and all our railroads in -this State,.which formerly constituted part and parcel of the, State improvements? I recollect very well .whilee: I was in the Legislature that these claims were very numerous. And even in,1853 when I had the honor of being Governor of this State, many of these claims were. presented, ahd some of them were calculated to excite the sympa,hies and feelings of the Legislature; just as the case which has been mentioned here is calculated to excite our feelings and our sympatiies. fin my legislative experience I have always foundthat'i. was an exceedingly'dangerous':thing. to -abrogate a.- general principle, merely for the purpose of letting in one or two claims-based upon sympathy and upon feeling. If gentlemen will reflect a moment upon the condition of affairs in this State for the last five or six years, I thi'ik they will find numberless cases of this kind, not only in regard to the State, but's betweeen individuals. I would like any person to point.out to me one single man who, at some one time or other during the late war, has not lost a great deal of money uponI contracts entered into at the beginning of the war. Are you going to -:relieve all those men; or, in other words, if you cannot relieve those men, are you going to take the money out of the pockets of other men- for the purpose of paying the deficiencies in prices- allowed to your State contractors?: If the claim -mentioned here is allowed, as it surely will be if you relieve this section from the restriction which has been in operation for seventeen years past, no man can anticipate the amount of claims that will be presented against the State. These claim-ants are very persistent: and enterpris-ing,: and I will guarantee that at:some time or another they will be presented 'to the -State if this' amendment is Radopted..Gentlemen who have been in Congress know very well that claims seventy years old are still pressed upon Congress, and the older the claim, or, to use an expression in vogue there, cc the more -stale the claim the more likely it is to be paid by Congress." Mr. IF. C. WATKINS. If this amendment is adopted, every man -,who has-a contract With -the State, every .employee of the State, if he suffers loss,.or thinks he suffers, will ome up here and ask - for. relief. It will- open the door for a countless thron,g of beggars, who will beleaguer your Legislatures, annoy and delay. them,:!at the expense of the State and the great detriment of the public interest. -:It is possible, Mr. Chairman, that-my fiend from St. Clair; the very -able chairman of the committee, (Mr. "ONGER,) has mnade a slight mistake- in offering the amendment. I - believe the section as it now stands, is just as-perfect -as the wit of man can make it. :Mr. LAWRENCE. I-confess that I do not see.the force- of the arguments that have:been used - against this amendment. I am perfectly. willing that this -body shoud retram the Legislature from-.-dong:wroig. I cannot.,, however,:-see.:the- force:of the arguments in!favor of' laying-:retric tions upon them to prevent their righting a wrong.'If there is any member of this- body who desires that- one of the Citizens of this State should- suffer in consequence of having entered-: into a contract with the State,: should-suffer from any cause whatever,:who is wil ling to prevent the State of M.c.higan, when it desires;s, from;appropriatig the ..money that honestly and fairly- beolongs to one of its citizens, then I am Tvery mui'ch mistaken in the character of the people of this State. Gentlemen seem to talk here as if -the Leg-isatnre.,were not sufficiently grounded in.the princi ples of justice,, were not su.ffi'ciently tight-fisted to audit an ordina.ry ac count, and to- ascertain -whether.that account was honestly and justly-;due to ' the individual or not. The only ques Lion the Legislature should be required to ascertain is whether the claimant is honestly and justly -entitled to the money he asks. Who does it en:ch ifa man is robbed of athousand dollars to which heis honestly andjustly entitled? Does it put a penny in.mypoecket, or the. half of it,"when diffused'ai over the -State? Is- any -gentleman.pecu.liarly:anXious to -have -two or t-ree thousand:dollars which honestlY be long to -one of our citizens,::tiaken by the State in order to save - him from some little taxation? Does it impoverish him much:even:iff a dishon est claim should be allowedd for a few hundred or a few thousands of dollars? Do we have to pay any- less -because one of our citizens, who has:met his contract like an- honest-man even to impoverishing himself, is not paid by t 1 CONST —UTIONAL,,,,CoNVENTION. -Mon-day, i Juy - v. the State? Notwithstanding there has been so much said in regard to this, I cannot see the force of this argument. I was -glad when the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) moved this amendment. I do not find that the people of this State wish that any man who serves them shall not be reimbursed for that which he has expended honestly in carrying out his contract. As was stated by the venerable gentlem from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALRENBURGI,) there is no member on this floor who would not take it as an insult, if an honest and poor mechanic should enter into a contract with him and make a mistake, or in consequence of a.change in prices sustain a loss-who would not take it as an insult if any one would suppose that he would not reimburse him for his loss. Why should the State act like Shylock? Why should the State say "it is so nominated in the bond?" Why is that argument echoed all over this hall? I ca,not see the force of that argument. Mr. LONGYEAR. I move to amendthe amendment by adding to it the words: "This exception shall not apply to any case arising before the first day of January, 1861." It seems to me that it is unsafe to open the door generally for all claims no matter when arising. At the same time, it seems to me eminently just and proper that we should open the door far enough to enable the State to afford relief for great hardships which have occured during: the late war. There is no doubt that many persons within this State- are now- groaning under the weight of indebtedness,- and of obli gations: which they cannot discharge, owing to the rapid mise in the price of gold, and the prices of products and materials necessary to carry on con tracts with the State. I think this rapid rise commenced about the first of January, 1861; and that is the reason'I: have fixed that date in my amendment. I believe that would cover all. the meritorious cases which have arisen during the war, and in consequence of the high prices grow ing out of the war. I hope the amend ment to the amendment will be adopted. Mr. BURTCH. Lest that amend ment shouldpass, from the fact of its being introduced by a gentleman whose influence upon -this floor is ponderous and weighty, I desire to make a few suggestions. If the argument of the gentleman is sound and logical, then I think it would be well for us to enter into a: policy of general insurance against losses.-' And if that is done, I think I may go in for a share in conse quence of prices being increased dur'mg the wa. I have paid out my money, and I am in debt now on- property which, if I could have expended my money legitimately, would have Canceled the debt;, the debt now hangs over me. But we have one of those wise laws which relieves men from all indebtedness, and places them as they were before, free in that respect. It is true that there: is a vast amount of hardships in connction with the af-. fairs of men. It ia,true that men have misjudged a -thousand times, and, in consequence of their misjudgment, they have failed to make money.' That is not all; they have lost money which they had before. - Now, how can we provide for all these cases in the fndamental law of the land? I do not see that any proper provision can be made. As I remarked before, a door, it seems to me, will be opened, which will cost - the State of Michigan thousands and thousands of dollars. Let these men here who are so generoushearted, whose purses are so long and deep, and well filled, show their sympathy and their enlarged humanity by contributing of their own means, to save those who have suffered from loss. But I venture to say that if one should call upon those men who advocate these doctrines- here, to open.their purse strings, they would be the very last men to do it. Mir. SlHEARER. It is very well known that claims which would be presented to the Legislature hereafter in consequence of a failure to fulfill con traocts, during the time from 1861 till the Legislature would be in session, would be vast in amount; whether just or unjust, they would be vast in amount. I could not go for the amendment from the fact that it propo sesato interfere with a just principle. It is well settled, both in statute and com mon law, that an agreement made be tween parties should be always binding. If any gentleman will convince me that sympathy has anything to do with agreements between parties to perform certain duties, and public transactions, if he will convince me that the sympa thies of men should be appealed to in establishing very great principles of law, then I would be willing to go with hiim for this amendment. But I hold that sympathy has nothing to do with establishing a principle of justice. Jus tice knows nothing of sympathy. Jus tice is based upon the principle:of right. It is always supposed that con tractors have equal rights to establish. an agreement between themselves and other parties. There are a great many sympathies that appeal to the better feelings of mankind, which every man and every individual is apt to yield to. So far as individuals are concerned, they have a right to be sympathetic. .Where parties-have been aggrieved in the common relations of life, they have a right — to let their sympathies govern them. But here as a deliberative body, to frame the organic law of, the State, I - hold that we have no right to take the property of others, and use- it through the medium of our sympathies. The Governor of the State is to be appealed to; two'thirds of the Legi slature are to be appealed to. And to do what? To yield to a sympathetic appeal, and take money from' the treasury to assist some person on account of some pretended grievance. I hold that you have the right to give what you please, and to make what presents you please of your own money; but I hold that no one has a right in a legis lative capacity, to take the property of one individual, and give it to anotherunjustly, because of sympathy. If we establish such a practice as that, as. a principle of law; if we say that our Legislatures hereafter shall be govern ed by feelings of sympathy, contrary to the established principles of justiCe and the law in regard to agreements, then I think we transcend our duities. :I will illustrate by going into details. Two men, A and B, each make a con tract's with the State of Michigan to perform certain duties. A goes on like an energetic man, fulfills his con tract, and makes money by so doing. B neglects his duty, squanders away his time, and does not perform the business he has engaged to perform, and through sloth, and negligence, or something of that kind, fails to make a proper profit fiom his contract. B will come to the Legislature and ask to be remunerated for losses-which he could not foresee. Now are the Leg isolature to make men perfect, so that they can foresee future events? Are we to permit the Legislature to go on and legislate men into the performance of their duty, of- providing: for failure Jto foresee and to calculate for all the mishaps that may befall them? Are we to do it by this amendment, or the amendment to the amendment? Can we increase the capacity of men to look forward into the future, and enable them to make their bargains all just and right? No, sir; no legisla:tive body could do such a thing. But by adopting the amendment or the amendment to the amendment, we would be allowing tlie Legislature to prepare' the minds of men to make sharp bargains with the State, and then, if they fail through some mis conduct or negligence of their own to carry out-the contract, the Legislature is to pay them for that failure. I: In all business transactions among men it is evident that there should be i Julv.. 15'.,1867. DEBATES- AND- PROCEEDINGSIO 107-7 10 OOSIUTOA /OV~TO Mona one certain established principle for the making of bargains; that is the law of the land. If men make their bargains in conformity with just laws, they should live up to them, and per form them. I claim that we should not hold out inducements in this or ganic law, and cause men when they make a bargain to do so with the un derstanding, that although the bargain will probably be a bad one, yet, if they fail to fulfill it they can apply to the Governor and two-thirds of the Legislature to give them compensation which will pay them well for their bargain. They will enter into the bargain with the understanding, that should they fail to perform their duties properly they can resort to the alternative of applying to the Legislature and the Governor for assistance. This would deprive -good business men from making contracts with the State; for those other men may go into the market and make contracts at a less price than they could really do the business for. Now, so far as the statement that the great State of Michigan has power to help poor men, that is all true. But our State is not entirely out of the woods yet. We have a great many legitimate and lawful matters to look after, in order to make and keep our State great and prosperous. We have an enormous debt hanging over us. We have a great many debts that we must pay. I presume that the general government will never release us from any of our debts incurred on its account. So far as I have been able to learn anytbing about it, it has not been the policy of the government of the UTnited States to release men from their contracts; when they make contracts with the government they must fulfill them. People have become largely involved in consequence of the rebellion; and if the State would pay all their debts do you suppose the general government would release us? Shall we say to the general government that we want some help to pay all these enormous debts, and that we want deductions made to us to enable us to do it? No, sir, we stand firmly by the principle that we calculate to pay our debts; and not repudiate any of them; we calculate to pay every cent which is due from us. But we must be careful to see that economy is used, and prudence is practiced, so that we may be able to pay these enormous debts which have been incurred, in order to save the Union, the Constitution, and the government. We must husband our means in order to do it. We ask no sympathy; we claim only that we shall exercise that energy, persistent industry and economy, and prudence, which is necessary to enable us to pay these debts.. We should therefore not open a door to admit all those claims against the State, which would cripple us so that we could not pay our debts. We expect no sympathy will be shown us; we expect that we shall have to pay the hard cash. And we are willing to work and labor, and be industrious, economical and prudent, in order to pay those debts; and we want topay those debts as fast as we can. We should, therefore, not cripple ourselves by allowing all these men to come forward with their claims. There is no doubt but what there are many honest men who have such claims; but we cannot help all the suffering there is in the world. Our organic law must not be so made that the Legislature will be compelled to help all the suffering, and listen to the cries of all the needy. If we do so we shall cripple the vast energies of the State, and take from the treasury the money that should go to pay our debts, and we would be left continually in debt. I hope that neither the amendment or the amendment to the amendment will prevail. I see no wrong in the clause, which provides that "the Legislature shall not grant, nor authorize, extra compensation to any public officer, agent, or contractor, after the service has been rendered, or the contract entered into." Let us live up to that; for one, I will try to do it. I hope that gentlemen will not vote to change this section. I have seen too much of this lobbying around the Legislature, and getting up old claims, and taking up a part of that time which should be occupied for the legitimate purposes which the people send the Legislature here. Mr. WITH EY. I do not like the amendment that has been offered, and I would, therefore, propose a substitute for it, in order to make the section as I would like to have it. I offer as a substitute for all the amendments which have been offered, the following: " Without a two-thirds vote of all the members elect of both branches of the Legislature and the-Governor's approval. The section if so amended will then read as follows: "The Legislature shall not grant nor authorize extra compensation to any public offlicer, agent or contractor, after the services has been rendered or the contract entered into, without an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members elect of both branches of the Legialatire and the Governor's approval." The CHAIRMAN. The question will be first taken upon the amendment to the amendment, and then upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) Mr. WITHEY. I cannot vote in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) for this reason: I think if extra com pensation is to be allowed at all, the proposition should come, not from the Governor, in the first instance,'but it should go to the Legislature and there be discussed in both branches, with committees to examine it, and elicit all the information possible under the circumstances; and then if it passed both branches with a vote of two-thirds of the members elect, the Governor will have information from the reports of the committees, and the discussions which have taken place in the Legislature, without being committed to the measure by any previous recommendation of it, and can then unbiased examine it and approve it, if in his judgment: the extra compensation should be allowed. He would thus stand uncommitted and.independent upon the question. If, however, it should come the other end first, the Governor recommending it to the Legislature upon some ex parte statement made to him,: he will be differently situated. When the application would be made to the Governor, there would be6 presented to him only such facts as might be deemed necessary to induce him to make the recommendation to the Legislature; there would be but one side of the question presented to him. Besides that, if he should recommend. it in the first instance, his influence upon the Legislature might be quch, as to lead them to pass the measure, when it might not be proper for them to pass it. I am opposed, therefore, to the amendment, and also to the amend-' mnent offered by the gentleman ~froIngham, (Mr.,oNGYEAR.) I have so worded my substitute, that even if theclaim passes the Legislature by, twothirds vote, and the Governor disapproves of it, it cann6t be passed by the Legislature over his objections. Thusguarded, it seems to me there can be very little objection to adopting this amendment. It is true, that it might open the door to frauds upon the State. But I apprehend that upon the whole, the better rule Would be to so frame the instrument we are now engaged upon, that the State, as well as individuals can do justice. I am: inclined to think that the measure may be a good one. Mr. STOUGHTON. I desire -to read a substitute which I propse to offer at the proper time, differing in some respects from that offered by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) I shall move to add to the section-these words, "except upon a vote of threefourths of the members elect of each: House, and the approval of the Governor. This exception shall not apply to any case arising prior to the; first day of September, 1861." Mr. CONGER. I am willi-g to ac 108 .CONSTITUTIONAT, CONVENTIONO i)fo,nday, July 15, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDIGS. 109 cept the proposition of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) in lieu of the amendment which I offered. I see by reference to the minutes of the committee that reported this article, that while this subject was under consideration, the proposition to require a three-fourths, instead of a two-thirds vote, was the one to which a majority of those agreed who were in favor of such a measure of any kind. Therefore the proposition of the gentleman from St. Joseph would perhaps meet the' wishes of a%l the members of the committee who were in'favor of making any innovation at all upon this section. I am inclined to think that it would be well to submit such questions finally to the Governor for his approval, instead of having them submitted to him in the first place. The object I had in view in requiring the. Governor to recommend these claims to the Legislature, was that he alone should have the opportunity of referring them to the Legislature; that his time alone should be taken up in examining into the questions, and ascertaining such proof as would sat isfy him that the claims should go to the Legislature. But with the pro posed amendment, requiring the mat ter to be referred first directly to the Legislature, I think it will perhaps meet my own wish better, and guard it thoroughly, and still leave a door open for the Legislature to meet special cases, calling for'the exercise of justice and equity. I think the leading objection to al lowing these claims to be considered by the Legislature, was presented by' the gentleman from Eaton (Mr. BUrTCoH.) I was very sorry to see a gentleman of his well known desire to do justice to all, express his willing ness to leave the State so bound up by constitutional provisions, that it could not do what the people of the whole State might deem to be right and just to their contractors. I cannot see why a State should be bound by a constitutional provision so as to be prevented in any and every contingen cy from doing what the united voice of the people might otherwise demand of the Legislature to do. But I ex pressed m~. opinions the other day on this subject, and I do not know that I wish to add anything to them. I de sire, however, to ask the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) who has before him the report of the in spectors of the State prison, to read that portion relating to the cases which I mentioned Saturday. The CHATRMAN. The Chair will first state the question. The motion was first made by the'gentleman from Sty Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) to amend this section. The gentleman fromIngham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) moved an amendment to the amendment. Then a substitute for the amendment was offered by the gentleman from Kent, (Ml-. WITHEY.) The Chair ruled that before the substitute for the amendment could be voted upon, the question must' first be taken upon the amendment to the amendment. A second substitute for the amendment was read by the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) which the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGEa,) proposes to accept in lieu of his original amendment..In the opinion of the Chair, the gentleman from St. Clair camnot accept the substitute, without the consent of the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYrAR.) Mr. LONGYEAR. I am perfectly willing to give my consent, except that I do not think that the substitute proposed by the gentleman from St. Joseph (Mr, STOUGHTON) goes far enough back. I should think it should reach back as far as January, 1861. 'Mr. STOUGHTON. I have no objection to change the date from September, 1861, to January, 1861. Mr. LONGYEAR. Thenf I have no objection to the gentleman from St. Clair accepting that substitute for his original amendment. Mr. WITHEY. I am perfectly satisfied with the substitute offered by'the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHToN,) and therefore I withdraw my substitute. The CHAIRMAN. The question ,will then be upon the amendment of the gentleman from St. (Clair, (Mr. CoNGcE,) as modified by the adoption of the substitute proposed by the gen tleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGH TON.) M r. BRADLEY. I will read to the committee the items of the report of the State Prison linspectors referred to by the gentleman from St. Clair. (Mr. CoGEER,) simply for the purpose of giv ing such information as they contain in regard to this question. The facts can be considered by gentlemen in making up their minds how to vote up on either side of the question. To me it'seems that we ought to guard this matter very carefuilly if we adopt this amendment at all. I should not be in favor of accepting,ny of the amend ments which have been offered to the original section, unless it be the last, requiring a three-fourths vote of the Legislature and the final approval of the Governor. I will however read from the statement of the agent-of the State Prison in regard to contracts which have been referred to in this de bate..The statement of the agent' is as follows' "Last year we made a contract with 0. G. Davis to furnish the prison with the beef rations for the year closing Nov. 30th, 1864, at 34 cents per pound. He has furnished 136,376 pounds, which he claims has cost him six cents per pound, amounting to $8,182 56 And received from us at. 3i cents, 4,432 22 Making a loss to him of,.......... $3,750 34 I have no doubt that this is nearly correct, and it does not seem to me just or reasonable that the State should profit by this man's misfortune, and insist upon his losing so large an amount. Mr. Davis, being a man of quite limited means, feels this loss severely; and I submit for your consideration, the propriety of your recommending such relief by the Legislature as at least will repay him the original cost of the beef, if not for his time, trouble, labor and expense. For the coming year we have let the beef contract at 6i cents per pound, and it is quite doubtful whether the contractor can save himself even at that price. Mr. E. B. Fuller, also contracted to furnish flour for us the past year, at i cents per poundt upon which he claims to have lost upon first cost about fifteen hundred dollars. During this war, prices have been so variable that it is almost impossible for one to arrive at any definite conclusions, at what prices anything will rule foe a year'to come. And it seems to me no more than right that the people of this State should take i-nto due con sideration the times we live in, and do by others as we would be done by. These men have faithiully fulfilled their contracts, well knowing that they were losing from five to ten dollars per day, yet trusted to the mag nanimity of the State for a just and equitable relief." In the report of the inspectors they have referred to this statement of the agent, as follows: " While here we would also respectfully in vite your special attention to -the recom mendation of the agent concerning the beet contract of this last year with Mr. C. G. Davis, who made it in the month of Septem ber, when the price of beef was ruling very low. Mr. Davis is a well known resident of the city of Jackson, and is regarded as an in dustrious and honest man. Even the most sagacious men in our country did not antici pate at that time - the exorbitant price at which the article of beef stood for a great portion of the year. In many instances he was obliged to pay double the amount per cwt. for stock on foot, that he received from the State after the beef was dressed and de livered. Notwithstanding the heavy loss that he was suffering, Mr. Davis fulfilled his contract promptly and faithfully, and we cannot too strongly urge the favorable con sideration of the Legislature in his behalf. We do not believe that such a sacrifice on his part will approve itself to the feelings and consciences of the public." "We would alsofurther concur in the recom mendation of the 4gent in behalf of Mr. Ful ler, who has furnished the prison promptly and faithfully with the best of flour, upon every pound of which he was an actual loser. He has been scrupulously honest in all his agreements, and does not ask remuneration for tfme or labor, but simply to be made good on the first cost of his flour. We hon estly think that every principle of justice de mands that theme men should receive some further remuneration for services actually rendered. For further particulars concern ing these contracts, we would respectfully refer you to the agent's report." I think we shall find in these state-' ments specimen samples pf such claims as may be made upon the State from time to time, on the part of those who will claim that they suffered losses in' their contracts with the State. Of I July- 15, 1867. D'Pj'RATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 109 I .. I. e - -...... course, it is for us to judge,.in making up our minds upon this subject, whether claims of this character ought to be allowed; whether there ought to be any relief for such persons through the Legislature or otherwise. It seems to me that if we can guard the matter with sufficient care, the State will very seldom suffer by- frauds which may be practiced upon the Legislature in regard to such cases as these. But, I would be decidedly op posed to going back further than the date referred to in the amendment. Mr. WRIGHT. I cannot agree to the proposition as it now stands. If it is in order, I would offer a substitute for the amendment now pending. The CHAIRMAN. A substitute for that amendment would be in order. Mr. WRIGHT. I will then move to substitute for the amendment the following: "But any contract may be canceled and annulled by the Legislature when the interest ot the State or justice to the contractor shall require it." I will state briefly my reasons for offering this amendment. I feel unwilling to have incorporated in the organic law of this State a provision that shall induce -men who have made contracts with the State, and which contracts at the time they were made it was supposed they would fulfill, and that the sum'of money required to be paid by the terms of those contracts would be all that would be asked-I am opposed to having the organic law of the State so framed that these contractors may come back to the State and demand an additional sum of money. I am opposed to having our organic -law so framed, that losses suffered or incurred may be made up to the contractors. I am opposed to it because as has been stated by several gentlemen on this- floor, it will open a wide door for such claims, and future Legislatures of this State will be continually flooded with such applications for renumeration; there will be no end to such applications. I am opposed to it for the fuirther reason that this is — a one-sided proposition. It is a proposition to remunerate contractors who have suffered loss, and to pay them money because they have lost by reason of their contracts with the State. But there is no provision made to remunerate the State for losses that it may sustain, or to have re-paid to the State the increased amount of money contractors may make by reason of changes in prices after their'contracts were made. My amendment proposes that in the future whenever a contract shall be made with any individual to perform any services for the State, to furnish any material for the State, if it shall appear:to the Legislature that the contractor will suffer materially if he fulfills his con tract, the Legislature may be pernritted to annul the contract and wipe it out, and then there will be- a re-letting of the contract; or if it shall appear to the Legislature that the contractor will enrich himself at the expense of the State, that the State will lose by the continuance of the contract,th then the Legislature will have power to annul it. It gives both sides, -the State and the contractor, an equal opportunity to be benefited by the proposition. It will permit the annulling of the con tract either f6r the interest of the State or in justice to the contractor. But I am unwilling to consent to adopt an amendment which will' open, the door for claims which may be-drummed:up in connection with services performed in the past. I am willing to consent only that there shall be a provision adopted by which in the future neither the contractor nor the State may suffer. Mr. COOLIDGE. I am opposed to the substitute.' In the first place I do not see its practicability. In the. sec ond place I can see that D a case of that kind the Legifslature would have all the power they would. have un der' the original amendment, and I think a great deal more. Suppose a contract is entered into between the State and other parties on the first day of February, 1868; and from the necessities of the case it would take about two years to complete the contract; at what time shall the Legislature cancel that contract? They could not very well do it during the first six months, even if the Legislature were in session; because changes might occur during -the remainder of the term of the contract, which would make it well enough, aid which would enable the party to carry it out, and suffer no losses under it. It might be that during the- entire two years, circumstances would be such tat there would be no principle of justice or equity which would require the cancellation of the contract at alL If we have biennial sessions of the Legislature, then as a matter of course many times contracts could not be- canceled at any time while in force. I think, therefore, the substitute is not very practicable. And again, if the Legislatureshould have power, as they would have if the substitute be adopted,- to cancel a contract after the expiration of the time/ during which it was to run, then you give them more power than the original am endlment proposed to give them. I cannot see- any necessity in the world for giving the Legislature such'power in regard to contracts. Why is any contract to be annulled? 1 The mover of the substitute says that -he offers it in order that simple justice may be done to the parties. But can not we do justice to the parties under the principle of the original amend) ment,: just as well as to adopt a protvision: for the cancellation of a con tract? Certainly. If the Legislature shall meet only once in two years, -then: there is no necessity to give the Leg. islature power to cancel or annul a: contract. By that time the contract would have expired; andl the simple ; question would be,'what is required to be done upon, principles of justice,. fairness and equity? I am in favor of the amendment of fered by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) And I wish to say one word upon that' subject. I apprehend that the issue of this question will de;-termine whether the State has any soul, or whether like other corporations it hasnone. I would be sorry to seethe' day come in the State of — Michigan, when the Legislature w;ill act uipon. any such principle as that. It baswgrated upon my ears to hear it said that- the" Legislature in no case should. have- the power to relieve a man, however fortunate he: might:e, or- whatever: emergencies may have arisen. That is a proposition which to me sounds —oexi trem ely harsh; I do not'Iike it.- I: do: not knOow why the Legislature should . not be governed by the same principle' which governs private indiiduls in, matters of this kind. -.If they are to be govelm-ned by prciples of justice ad: equity, I do not see why this power= : should not be allowed them. Hence, I do not feel the force of any.of the ar-: guments which have been made agaiMnst: this amendment. I will not discuss- the merits of. either of the cases which have been presented::to this coimmittee; either the one aris ing in Jackson or those in Kalamazoo. i havenothing to say of any particular case. I will simply say that lemergen cies will probably arise- where it may: become necessary, and proper, and right, and not only that, but obligatoery upon the Legislature to grant relieLf 'I am' not saying what those; cases may be. But the proposed amendment provides that if-a case of that: kind shall arise, and three-fourths ofthe Legislature are'satisfied: in regard to the equity and honesty of the claim, and the Governor approves-of it, then this relief shall be afforded.. And why-: should not this power be given to thie Legislature? Why should we says in! the Constitution, no -matter what; theexigencies may have- been; no matter how fairly and honestly and: justly the party may have acted, no matter by 'what poWer of man or of.Omnipoteneo, 110 CONS"-VlTUTION.AT, -CONVEN ON.'6 Mon,;d -a -y -; .. 1. Y 111 DJ EBiATE,S AND':P OCEEID iNG. he may -have been prevented from fulfillinTg his contract,. there shall be in -the-State of Michigan no relief for him at all? What is the necessity for such a rule as that? Why should this Convention forestall all future Legislatures, for all time to come, by such an iron rule as that in the Constitution? I do not think it-is right. I do not think it Will sound well here or anywhere else. I do not think there is any particular danger at all to be apprehended fromn such applications, where the provision is guarded so stron gly as is this amendment. A-And to say, that during. the whole time this Constitution. may live, if it ever have life, -that in no case whatever, be the necessity ever so clear, -theb,Legislature shall girant relief to a suffering man ruinmed by misfortunes, by accidents, by emergencies, not to be foreseen by anybody, that I think is wreng. - As my friend here, (Mr. WITHEY,) remarks-let justice be done, though heaven and earth should fall. [LLughter.] Mr. WITHEY. " Though the. heavens fall." Mr. COOLIDGE. My remark is perfectly true. I have added a little to',the current phrase; but,the- earth may fall after all, : Mr. BRURTTCH..I desire to propose a substitute for all these amendments. The CHAIRMAN. No -further amendment at the present time is in order. Mr. M ILLER I would inquire if an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CosGER,) or an amendment to that of the gentleman - from Barry, (Mr. WRIGHT,) is in order? The CHAIRMAN. The question now is upon the substitute offered by :the. gentleman from Barry, (Mr. WRIGH-T,) to, the a.mendment of the :gentleman from St.:Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) 'Which' has been modified at the sug gestion of the gentleman fom St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON.) The question was then taken upon ihe substitute of Mr. WMRGHT,' and it -/was not agreed to. -The question recurred upon -the amendment of Mr. CONGER as mod ifiea.. Mr..MiLLER. I-move to amend the amendment by striking 9ut "1861," and inserting "1867." I wish to in quire why cases-arising:smce 1861 should b.e: made- exceptional cases? tWhy sh1ould not the rule be applied also to meritorious cases: during the years preceding 1861? I wish to bring out: from the gentlemen who made that proposition their reasons for liimiting it toel cases arising: since 1861. -I sup posed that we were to create a general rule-a rule which should limit the action of the L-i slature upon all these cases,.where the?i —had been either a i violation of cont ract,: or a neglect to flfill -the contract, so that damages were claimed under it. If they are meritorious cases, I have no objection. that they should be -included within the rule; if.they are not, I see no reason why the rule should:apply to i them, and l-not: to all the others. Mr.:LAWRENCE. -I hope the amendment of the gentleman. fi'omSaginaw, (Mr. MTrTLR,) will not% prevail. It- does seem to me that it must, be impossible for: the.. members of this ] Convention, with a knowledge of this one nmstance which occurred at.:Jac- - son, coming as it does in such a dis- tinct shape before -them, to -refuseto insert a clause in the Constitution that will permit that individual to have justice: done him. Do the members of .this Convention wish the State to. pocet the amount which that man has. lost -in fulfilling, honestly his con tract with the State, and to say we' have so much money that belonigs to. that individual and we will make our constituents all rich out of it-will they say that in regard.. to this individual or any other? Why not permit this, question to be submit ted to the Legislature, composed of men in whom we repose confidence to make the laws of the State, and who guard the treasury, under the obliga tion of an path, with the hundred eyes of the fabled Argus?:Why should they not, w. hen the most indubitable testimony is presented to them, that a man has suffered from his honesty in the fulfillment of his contract, be allowed to take some action for his relief? Would we'repudiate'for the -Legislature a principle which.every [ man would applr —in his own transac tions? Sir, we would scorn, in the very- highest degree, the imputation - that we would not ourselves be gov erned by such a principle in our own tranSactions.: And will we say here x that that man, shall pass:his whole life long.witnessing the State in possession of his money, and himself forever de barred from obtaining relief? I say - that it looks to me as if it was utterly impossible that such a thing should be i done by this Convention. I am confid dent that there -is no respectable por- tion of the people of this State- who would countenance such a thing for ? a0moment. Mr. B1.RTCH. I have:not been~ made acquain'ted with the hardships of t ~his:matter in::reference to a certain i contractor at Jackson. It may pert haps be all understood by gentleman _'somewhere outside of this House. If d there is a lamentable hardship- - e The CHAIRMAN. The question is mply upon striking out -"1861," and serting " 1867." Mr. BIURTCH. -Exactly; I underand that. -I am very thankful to the hair and to gentlemen of this Conention for their kind instruction to me to what I.should say. [Laughter.] was.going on to -,say- that , there is a question. of this ind which should excite the symathies of this Convention, and of he people of the State, to such an tent that it.should be engrafted in he Constitution, then we should- put a rovision in the Constitution expressly :ating what the case is, and then I would go for it. I propose to intron.e an amendment which will apply o all cases of a like character, so that ohen the Legislature, by a joint.resoltion of the two Hauses, provide for uch a claim and the people of the State vote for it when submitted to hem, then it should become the law of he land, and the parties should be enitled to remuneration. I wanted to ffer it before, but I could not-get it efore this committee. I would be glad o have it adopted in order to establish hose principles of justice and humanity which we are endeavoring to follow, and also to be in keeping with what the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) ntimated were the principles which ave constantly guided me here. I herefore offer the following as- a subtitute for. the-amendment: " By a joint resolution of both Houses of he Legislature, and by submitting the same o the people, relief to contractors may be lad, by the people- giving a majority in-favor of such joint resolution." The question was then taken'upon the amendment of Mr. MILLER to strike out of the amendment of Mr. CONGER, 1861," and insert "1867," and it was not agreed to. The question was then taken upon the substitute of Mr. BURTaH, and it was not agreed to. The question then recurred upon the amendment of "Mr. CONGER, as modified, which was as follows: " -except upon a vote of three-fourths of ,,-xe0 pon a vote Of threefutso the members elect, of each House, and the approval of the Governor. This exception shall not. apply to any case arising prior to the first day of January, 1861." Mr. MacCLELLAND. My impression is that it will be necessary to make another change in this amendment, perhaps. I would ask the attorney general, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) whether if a bill shall be passed for this purpose by La thnee-fourths vote of the ILegislature, and be sent to the Governor and re(turned by him with his objections, the Legislature could then pass it over his veto by a two-thirds vote?. UMr. STOUGHTON. The:amendment provides that the approval of the _,-iuiy . 15, 1867. 4 11 CO-IUTOA CO YETI. M vo eday, Governor shall be obtained in all such cases. Mr. McCLELLAND. There is a provision ofthis article which provides, that if a bill when sent to the Gover nor shall not be approved by him, it may be passed by the Legislature, not withstanding his objections, by a two thirds vote. This amendment might be considered as coming within the other section of this article. Mr. SHEARER. I have only one remark to make on this subject. I wish gentlemen to bear in mind tiat if they interfere with this section as it ,is proposed to do by this amendment, it will cost the State hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars- in the way of allowances for claims. I have known the effects of such things as these from my experience for over thirty years. Legislatures have been surrounded by petitions with the strongest appeals to their sympathy, when upon examination it would be found that there was no justice at all in the claims. Yet the legitimate business of the Legislature would be stopped in order to hear these appeals for sympathy, to get money out of the treasury of the State. I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet; but I predict that if you interfere with this section, some of these gentlemen here who will probably be living when I am gone, will see the Legislature harrassed year after year, worse than this country has been harrassed by the rebels of the South. It will cost thousands of dollars and millions of dollars within the life of this Constituti6n. When these claims become old they will be paid; as it has been said here, the older a claim grows, the stronger the appeal is to the sympathies of the Legislature. I predict that if this provision is put into the organic law of the land, it will during the life of the new Constitution cost the State hundreds of thpusands of dollars. Now, if there is so much necessity for such a provision as this, and if such cases as have been referred to here are entitled to so much consideration at our hands, I will agree to wallk out of this hall with these sympathetic gentlemen, and put my hand in my pocket and take out as much for the relief of these worthy claimants, as any other gentleman on this floor. I am willing to untie my own purse strings for this aggrieved party, and to follow the track of any of you in that respect, but not to change the provisions of this section. I am not willing to put a provision in this organic law of the State, which will lead to the taking of money out of the treasury through these false sympathetic appeals. We have a right to appropriate money out of our own pockets, but not out of the pockets of other people. I have seen so much of this thing in the history of this StAte, that I want to have this section remain as it is. Mr. VAN VALKFNB-URGH. Ihope the amendment as suggested by the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) will prevail. I have already expressed my views upon the necessity of having a power somewhere to adjust wrongs. I think the difficulty as suggested by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MGCLELLAND,)-is answered by the provisions of the amendent itself. These wrongs are to be redressed by the passage of a law to that effect, by a threefourths vote of the Legislature, with the approval of the Governor. If it does not, meet the:approval of the Governor, then the law does not take effect; if three-fourths of the members of the -Legislature do not vote for it, the redress is not to be obtained. It appears to me that upon the face of it it is plain that the bill cannot go back to the Legislature after the Governor has vetoed it and be passed by a twothirds vote. This'amendment expressly states, in so many words, that a law for this purpose pnust be passed by threefourths of the Legislature, and be approved by the Governor, in order to effect the object. Mr. BUJRTCH. I have but one more word to offer, and that is to say to my friend from Wayne, (Mr. SHEARER;) that he need have no apprehension in regard to this amendment, because if it is adopted, the people will never ratify the Constitution which containfs it. The question wak then taken upon the amendment of Mr. CONGE.R, and upon a division-ayes 31, noes - 38-it was not agreed to. Mfr. W. E. WARNER. I move that the committee now rise, report progress, and aak leave to sit; again. The motion was agreed to, upon a division; ayes 41, noes 10. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the Chair, Mr. PRINGLE reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Legislative Department;" had made some progress therein, and had directed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. HOLT. I move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion was agreed to; and the Convention (at twenty minutes past 12 o'clock p. m.,) took a recess until three o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The committee re-assembled at three o'clock, p.m., and was called to Qrder by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorumanswered to their names. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. P.D. WARNER. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. PRINGLE in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled Legislative Department." The CHAIRMIAN. When the committee rose this forenoon, it had under consideration section twenty-nine of this article. If no amendment be offered to that section, the next section will now be read. No amendment was offered. APPROPRIATION FOR RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES, ETO. - -- The next section was read, as'follows: - SECTION 30. No money shall lIe appropri ated or drawn from the treasury tor the benefit of any religious sect or society,} theological or religious seminary, nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purpose. Mr. MUSSEY. I would inquire if the committee, on Saturday, did not postpone the consideration of section twenty-seven of this article until t6day? I have no objection to going through the article before we take up that section, unless it is thought best to go back and take it up now. Mr. BILLS. I supposed the section to which the gentlemen refers -as passed over until we concluded the consideration of the rest of the article, and then we could return to it. Mr. MIUSSEY. I understood it was passed over for the day. I have, however, no objection to going on through the article. The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, the remainder of the article will be considered, and then the committee will return to section twentyseven. No objection was made. The CHAIRMAN. Section- thirty has been read, and is now open to amendment. Mr. BRADLEY. I move to amend this section by inserting after the word seminaries," the words,'" or schools under denominational control;" so the section will read, "No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious seminary, or school under denom'inational control," etc. I do not knotw 11-2 .CONSTITUTION,AT, CONVENTION. -Mo "nday I -I July 15, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDIXGS. 113 that there is any particular necessity fo, that clause in order to cover the ground that I desire to cover. It is possible that it will be regarded as already included under the words, "for the benefit of any religious sect or society." I know, however, that"heretofore there has been some difficulty on that very point, and I thought that perhaps the insertion of the words I have proposed would preclude any controversy of that kind hereafter. I present my amendment for the purpose of obtaining the views of members upon this subject. Mr. PRATT. I hope the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kalamzoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) will not be adopted. I have had no intimation that any amendment of that kind was to be moved in this Convention. I think this section goes quite far enough in that direction. I do not propose to enter into any discussion with regard to the particular section now before the Convention. I know, however, that it is the policy of some States to divide their educational fund among the various institutions of learning pro rata, according to the number of students in those institutions. It may, perhaps, at some time be deemed wise to do so in this State. At all events I am not willing that the Legislature should be so tied up that they would be prohibited for all time to come from making any ap propriations for any institution of learning under denominational control It is well known that all our institu tions of learning, or nearly all, are un der the control of particular denomi nations. I am unwilling that we shall place ourselves upon record as prohib iting the Legislature from doing any thing to foster, build up, or promote those institutions. I am not asking this Convention at this time to provide for appropriations to be made for the benefit of those institutions of learning. But when it is well known that the principal educational institutions of this State, with the exception of the University are under the management of denominations, I am opposed to having the Legislature trammeled, or so tied up that no appropriation for those institutions can ever be made by them. I very much doubt the pro priety of giving to the University the monopoly of the education of this State. But that is a very important question, and one which I am not now prepared to discuss. All I askof the Convention is not to adopt the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kalamazoo. Mr. WTTILAR). -It seems to me we have a sufficient safeguard in sec tion twenty-one of.this article, which provides that "the assent of two-thirds . of the members elected to each House Vol.2-No. 15. of the Legislature shall be requisite to every bill appropriating the public money or property for local or private purposes." I agree with the gentlemnan' from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) that there is no propriety in our tying up the hands of future Legislatures against the appropriation of money or property under any circumstances whatever for the use of those institutions of learning which have been planted in our mldstby the different denominations. It is well known that something like two million dollars' worth of property has been collected by the didrent denominations of this State, and devoted to the various institutions under their control. They are doing more at the present time for the higher branches of education than any institutions that have been established by the State. I do not say that were I in the Legislature at the present time, and the question of appropriating money for these institutions was before us, I would vote for it. But I can see no reason why we should tie up the hands of future Legislatures under all circumstances, against making any appropriation whatever to-these institutions. I apprehend. that if this amendment should pass, it would preclude that which has been a favorite project with' some of our educational men for many years past; the establishment of anormal de partment in the different schools in the State. I see no reason why we might not have a normal department at Hillsdale, Albion, Kalamazoo and Oli vet, for the education of teachers. In- asmuch as these institutions are doing so much for higher education in our State, I see no reason why we should withhold from them that assistance which we could indirectly give, by making appropriations for the educa tion of teachers in this State. I think we should pause before we take this step. The Constitutional Convention of 1850, which waj sufficiently close in such matters, did not go so far as is now proposed, and why should we? With all due deference to the mover of this anendlment, I hope it will not prevail. Mr. MUSSES. I would like to ask the gentleman from Calhoun (Mr. WILLARD) if he does not understand this section, as it now stands, without the amendment offered by the gentle man &om Kalamazbo, (Mr. BaADLEY,) 't prohibit utterly and'entirely the ap propriation of any money for the class of schools or institutions of learning to which he has alluded? If he does note, I will say that I do. I am in favor of the section just as it stands. I do not understand the gentleman from Kala mazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) who offered this amendment, to wish to change the character of the provisions of this section, so as to allow such a thing to be done; but, on the contrary, to'make it still stronger-to make a thing which is certain still more certain. I eonceive this to be quite certain asit is. It is, I believe, an exact copy of section forty of the article on the legislative department in the present Constitution.. Under that section there has been, I believe, no money appropriated for the last ten or twelve years, or more; no attempt has been made to make an appropriation from the treasury for any such purpose. There might have been an effort made to appropriate lands; I think there has been, but it was not successful. I am satisfied witli the section just as it stands. I think it is as strong and close as we can make it. Therefore, I should hardly be willing to make it stronger than it is at present. I do not see any necessity for the amendment. Mr. BRADLEY. I did not fully understand that there was any_ necessity for the amendment —. I offered it, or I threw it in, rather for the purpose of calling out an interpretation of this section. If the section shall receive the interpretation given to it by the gentleman-who has just taken his seat, I am fully satisfied with it. I supposed that was the just, full, legal intest of the section as it stands, and as it was reported by the committee. But lest there should be any other view taker of it, I shall be inclined to make the amendment I have offered. If that has been the interpretation of the section as it stands in the present Constitution, by the people, by the Legislature, and by the courts, thenI should prefer to withdraw my amend ment and let it stand as it is. But if that is not the view which has been taken of it heretofore, I want to make it certain on thevery point which has been discussed. Mr. McOLELLAND. I approve of the amendment which has been offered. I am fearful, from what has been saids here, that there is a disposition to divide the common school fend of this States and the University fund also. I think the construction proposed by this, amendment should have been put upon this section. I can see no objection at all to the amendment of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY.) I heartily approve of, it, becauseJI want to protect these two educational funds for the benefit of tie people of this State, beyond any other fund which we have. I shall, therefore, vote for the amendment.'' ~ Mr. WILLARD. I thinkthe section in the present Constitution sufficiently confines those funds to-the specific pur s July 15, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 113 Is t* 6 ...-....'7.'. -.. \ - -I..' pose for. which they have been created. We say, in section two of the article on education as it: now stands, anld I presume- it will,not rbe. materially changed by this Convention, that,,,....... -'.. ",::The:proceeds':rom:the sale o. a:ll lands; that have been or hereatter may -be granted, by the tnited States to the Sta,te for eiducational purposes,- and the preceeds of aill l.ands or other' property given by individiuals, or ap,propriated by the. State, for like purposes shall be and leain a perpetual fund, the interest and incomne of which, together with theb' rents of:-a1ll laudi that may:remain..unsold,; shall.be inviolably appropniated, and. annu-. ally applied to the specifc objects ot the orig-' lnal:gift, grant or appropriation." I do not see how it would:be possible. if thisprovision shal remain in the C6nstitution, for the Legislature to: appropriate. either tke primary shol: fund or the university fund, fre any .ot,herpupose th a n that.: wh icht -hey were created... Mr. B/RADLEY. Will the.gentleman allow me to ask him a question. Mr. WILLARD. Certainly,. Mr. BRADLEY. I do not suppose that'tihe.fnd already accum'ulated'and' set apar 6coufld be otherwise appropriated under that constitutional provision. But suppose that hereafter we have other funds created; would that' section cover- them.? - Mr. WIILLRD. I!Understan'~thatit woul$. It says "the proceeds from the sale of all lands that have beben, or: maybe. hereafter,-granted,; also, of all lands o. other property given by indi — viduas,: or appropriiated by the - State for like.purposes." Whateveris: appropri.ed by the State must be usedfor that purpose. -: Mr"_. GIDDINGS. I do not myself th,k the-':construction given; by th:e gentleman from Maeomb, (Mr..UssEY,) is by any mean's the' correct construction of this section. I never before heard tha construction givento it. I take it that a literary school, that may be Tunder denominational control' is neither a religious seminary nor a theo-logial seminar. I do not kn'ow where the ge-geleman g~ets his constctioon: of this. sectio. There maybe so-me question as to- wiieher it;is proper' to adopt: thoe- amendm'ent' of my collneage, (Mr.: BRADLEY;) but' I a-mn sure that:it-: should neither succeedd- nor- fairby th'6-'-e- ruile of consucEtion- whice:the gentle'm'an from Macomb presents here. Money-mi gt'-kbe app~priate-d to these: literS' institutions, notwithstandig. this section..: The' 4uestion:comes up: whether:we should -debar;the- Legisi-s-: from:providng,any rneans.-to go: to *-i'iterary schbools, in'ourE St~ate. -Ii c-an thw~ of instanSces ino which Wef might des~.o appropriate money- to: lite;rar iinstitns thact arealready establshed.;- ste'S the' Congress of thb United stges intits gener'osity, w'hich has been ~considerabl'e towatds us in this State in theway of public lanas, should make still further appropria'tions of lan'ds.for. schools by name min the St'ate of Michigan. Thesec;tion of the present Constitution which the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WIL:LA~RD) read, certaimly would- not avail there. There mig arise' a case in'm which we" would desire power in:the Legislature to grant: such lads, afte'r they had been: granted to:the St;ate for :the purpose of shools, to these S~hols, which: are coUe6giaDe-:litierary institutions.,; Perhaps theyare under denomiInaiona control, but the literary schoo0is nare not theological seminaries or re ilgius seminaries. M wrMU8SSEY. My extreme d'esire to agre.eewith my friend from KalamaZoo,- (Mr. GDDINGss,) inaduces me to define —my position a little more definitely; and I d6 not think he will disagree w..ith me i% my understanding,of the language of this section. In reference to the in'stitutions'namedby th' getle'man' from Calhoun, (Mr.: WILLARD,).Isaid: that'I underst6ood secti[0n forty iof this article' i the prese'nt Connstitution, to be a perfect prohibiitionii agai'nst appropriating money or propertyf the State to such institutions:. Thoe institutions named by him were those at Kalamazoo,:Albion, Hills dale, and Olivet. Each of thmose institutions has a the0olgical name,: representing a religious sect. Mr. GiDDINGS. Htave they each a; ,6heological department?'. t Er-m.- MSSEY. They are religious seminaries, as I take it. If thegentle[man is smart enough to so construe thIe language; of- the section as to leave oiut these institutions, then I think they ight be. able] to take advantage of it; if he' can establish it so far as to give them.confidenice to -believe that the Legislature has authority, under such a provision of the' Constitution, tq make ani appropriation'Tr their beniefit. But I thinki: he certainly will h:ave; to go' wit'h them in order'-to convince the Legislature that they have the right to do it. Mr'. GIDDINGS. By what.ithorLty does the genitl'eman state:-that the institution at -Olivet is a religious semi taby'"a.~~~'.:B na:Tatall?: M:r. MUSSEY. It claims to- be' —a scdhol under the: contln of a certain religiouS dabnominatiion, I believe.:. Mr. GI-D:DINGS.:: That is true;; but it' is not; a eigious sch6-ol, or a reliig ous rseinary, or a' th-eological semi-0 Mr -'. MuSEY. I am- sorry: for the peQ plo of Oilvet if they have a schol; With.ut any reliigion i'it. - Mr: GID;DINGS'.' It:is'- undoer the control of- religious men, but -it:ajO:t '- religious school, it is a literatry school., - Mr. MSStEY. If there be any question in regard: to whether these institutions are not excluded from receiving appropria4ions from the Legislature, th1en mI a'min'favor of the amendment. But I apprehend they are; I have no idea theywill be able to obtain very muh fromi the Legislature under the present Constitution. I know this; I ki0ow that apphlicati6ns have been made by these' various: institiitions to the Legislature, which applications have been rejected under this cliaUse of the Consthtution.- I know it to have been :the case,-and, I think. very properly, too. Icouid not- conscientiously voe:: fr the appropriation of money, or even of, land, under this Constitution to these instutions. Mr.'' CONGERi.Withou oexpressing any opinlion with regard' to the merits: of this proposition, l ish to ca the atitentlon of this committeeto the lands * hic- ha ve been granted. to th{is: State for educational purposes.that-the com — mittee may see whether it is necessary tio make: any further provision.~ The main portion of,the lands. granted to' this State for -ogeneral educational pur-t : poses is the' grant- of section No.; 16 i'n e:ery.t6wnship, or the equivale nt-: of it, in provisional townships:. The act for the admission of the State of Michigan into the Union contains: a section making such a gran. s It does not say what kindof shohl, whethor common schools, denommina tionail schools; or any otoli'.: kind- of schools. Inn connection, I will read the: second isection of articlie thirteen of thei pesent COnstitution, referred' -to by.:he genitlemian: from' Calhoun, (M-i. W' LARD:) " The proceeds from the' sale: of all landsthat have been or may: hereafter.'be:granted by:the United States "to: the State f tor. educa-:, tio nal purposes,.and the proceeds of all lands or oth-er property given by individuals or appropriated by the state for like purposeis,-: shall be a'nd remain a perpetual fiud, the in terest and income of which, together with the rents of all such lands as"may remaid u(tSold, shall be invioiably appropriated,'and anuually.:applied, to -the specilic objects of -the original giRt, grant, or appropriation,." I cannot see,. as the gentleman from Calhoun, (f(Mr. WILLARD,) seems to inti'mate, that there is. any restriction in the original grant, or in oure COnstitution, against appropriating these liands or teir proceeds.so long as- they areappied to schools or for educational pirposes, as..any.Legislature may seefit, nunless it is, expressly prohibited in: the Constitution. The igrant is for: schools, not for common schools, no~t for any particular system: of schools, :though it has alWays been so applied and:so.used. — The: question raised by this proposition is whether these grans: of oands which have been given b" the CONST A EN.. -. I.............. I ... -.-. -1... 114-. Mo dq- " n, -v, a I . 0 0 July- 1 1.. I I.It. —..I..................I..:........'. _: PROC DI......... [D ND PROCEE.11:G, -State -for educational purposes, shallbe confined to.,general education of the people of the State of Xichigan, irrespective of denominational scoior, whether the Legislature, on the application of different denominations, may di.vide and subdivide our school lfund 'among schools controlled by::denomin,a:tions.'''''' That is not a new proposition in this State. Applications' have been' hereto-. -fore made many times to divide among the different religious denominations our.primary school fund, n-:ot the imfeteeSt of it, that they:might contr0ol ~the: portion'which would belong'tothem, in their own w..ay,.for-tebenefitof:de'nominational schools.' That:mussthave -been before the Legislatmre, in, differ-'.ent forms'Perhaps ever since.this;has :been a State, sometimes urged:with agreat deal of zeal, at other- times with less. It may perhaps be aserious question with:us: here whether the great school:fund which all pre-. ceding -Legislatures, and -thepeo'ple' of this State, heretofore-have held so sacredly as a common fund, .for the education of t.[:he State,:without a denominational:character, shall con-.. "tinue-to be so held; or whether it sh'albe left open to the.Legislature' to. distribute it, or any portion of it, among'the:different sects or denominations-that may: hereater desire.it. I say:then.as: I said at the opening of.my remarks, :that I do not propose -to speak to,the :proposition at all, or to'. enter.'into. any 'argument'uponit one way or-the o.ther, But in my opinion all the colleges:ol this State, the common: schools, or -the. class of schools that Are:kept upby denominational.infl-uences,::would.noit come under the'head of religious or theological seminaries. Religious'.and: theological'seminaries have. inlaw, and in' the common acceptation of'lan gae, a- distinct'and particuliar mean-. ~ing; they are,not literary'institutions;' they -are not schools:for- educational: purposes merely,.'but th'ey are ~strictly: religious or:'theological seminaries,: in.stitutions for a partienlar purpose, for the t~eaching. of -so'me'.particular'belief .or dogma.held:by-.some denomination.. I ihave never considered,~ and,I do not think it could be' capable-.of that con.struction, that"'-mer'e.denominational schools.for educational1 purpo'ses,.would. 'come under'the classification:of religi ous or'theological' seminaries.- T.h-ere-[ ~fore the different' views:which different :gentlemen:of:thi's committee may have eon the.construCtion of ~the sect~ion i~. ':the; -present' Co.nstitU~tion, or. the pro:p-riety of engrafting any restriction lik~e. ~.this'in the new..Constitution,.would ::gi~ve gre.ater or l ess importan~ce':to:the: :a..men. dment. proposed-.by't he'.gentle Mr OTON "I hop'h- aed mnient ffered "by the'ge'ntleman(m::::om. Kalamazoo, (Mr.' lDGr s,) will' Ire-' vail. I do nt consider' the State of Michigan under any obligation:to support any sectarian School..Whethe tey are: reliUioUs ornot'in'themore eniarged and comprehensive:meaning of Chistianity,:is extremelydoubtful:in my opinion,/when they teach seeta/ian-' ism. m But one thing is certain;"Prof.: Hosford.sent.a commu.nc'ation tothiso Convention, a few days sn'ce,4'in which he says'that there are 74,000children:i thisState W..ho are-, den.ied the'chan~ce lof a common scho6 aeducation. That I thnk is, more important than t aid' wea,lthy religious s'cieties.or organizations,:in any: part. of the State, under any pretence.Whatever. i consider.it 'far more::::importa~'nt to rproviide:!for the e:dUcation of these 74,000:chiildren. The:professor alsotellso susfurter,. that. tere is no provision /mae for sco.l rooms in the: State to,accommoate them allat.0ne time. N:ow,theState. is under obligation to see tht all!our children.have certain educati. ual ad-, vantages.''.W.hen:'there is.thiS lack of edUca'tional advantages,'I do:n'ot think it.t becomes us to,pro6de mea pns,ora lLow means to be provided, by aropriating /the funds of the State to support these:higher intstitn:tios hich' pav o.werful -denomin ation,.t.: bak[ them. They have a facuity of begging, which the poor common sch0ols do not possess. I think, to make the matter pidositive, the amendment of the gentleman,from KaItlamaoo, (M.BRA,&DLRYT hol prevail, so..that -this question may n be definitely settled.- In 1863 the egislature wao besieged by appli,c6ations for appropriations to all the.schools''all ov0er the'State under/the..pretence. of .educatingte-achers., -Now, we:have a State Normal school for that purpose, a.ndahow' does~it"operate?'Ever'y:teach-: [er, although educated a,t the':expense .of/ithe St'ate, when'he leavnes' t-he Norimal school goes to a comm'erci:alschool,, -or to'some other place to" fit himsel'fofr: other ".duties;. and. the [femaies":thus: ta. ught'go inrto the worid,.:and, the first .possible:"opportunty'-that.: offers. they get.mar~ri.ed;, as they. Should..-Whe~n ..he people of t~his:St~ate are itaught' to "fst'er land alda the'common schools:as '.ihey ought,'we willthen. ha-ve t~ea~chers enough, inestead:of:these"'t~a:xe:s under .the...pretencee of. educatinmg-:.tec~hera':, ,And when,ed~ucat~ed,:in t'r':any cases' they a-re noth,mg::but slectarian' bigot~s. I am willi'ng':to' be'[taxed'for o.ur:co:m" mon s~chools';,that I:hin.'k "is enouagh.' I hope the amend~men~t of t~he,gcn.tle iman fkrom I,alamazo~o'will' prevail.:! .endorse.the se'ntiments':of.the'gentle. 'rean who "has just:taken his seat.,i :hk:: the "pre' se ction g~es quitie :fiar:en:fUtgh -I think the matter should -be l::eft as it'has- been. with th'h provi:o..fin:as,.reported by -the:committee.l. If Lhe power was given' to' heL.egislature gopmakenappr onations.to cetai -in'it~utions of learing, I" do not:think it wo-:duld be given. improperly:; I do :not believe:in the propriety -of tying'.up the hands of the'Legislature for'twen Ly,~ ~~' tit,fryorffyyears: to.com~e. '.know that in the citywhich I.have the honor "in part to' repres4:ent, there are many i Persons who,:owing to their peculiar' religious vtiews "'do not psee ft o'- patronize' our: union :.schoois; our common schools. T'hy :ke~ep:'very.good private schools,"and those sc hols have" b'een sup' 0orted by it de iividuals entertaining'i thos:epecUliar-'relig-ious views. I:may m ay,:perhaps,'. t;: t thevy'feel as -ee~p an interest in' the educational a'dvana ges' of our State, as those.who-virtU ally en, dorse0 our'common scho1'ol-system-i. I m-ay pay here in this-conn~ction t.'.~hat,::tho,.ug.h our CommOn',sch.Ols',,in th,sState are.said not.to represent.any peculiar sectarn views, they do -.en.dorse or teach principles -whch are:at -variance with'the belief Of many.of ~~.hose. wh o, owing "w.their:ligious beHoef', are denied tfhe privileges of'those Schools.'I know that "i'"the -': ks a-used imany of to schosols -.wi.fll:-be ."da pr:in:ciples, relative to:r'to'."gio.us .,forms of belief, which. are.:'contrary.to thos — wh1ich are taugh inte c'os of these prt ricular denomionS: It appears to moe -tha if. te LegiSlature are -given:hi right to make.appropriations to these schools, at any atime whenath, eytsee fit, or to diide the'public money.among those schools, itere will be nothing wrong in it.' am not in fa*vor of so dividing -the:funid that the common.schools of -this:State must be broken Up. But that woUld not necessarily fOllow...Pri~vate Schools,' or schools carri'ed on by parti~cular denominations,' may "be:"ketup6:,as ~well .as the:~commo~n.'schools, i'n man~y::o'four ::cities, wi~thout -interfering "with' -those common:schools.':::: With all due. deference to ge~ntlemenc who have preceded'me,'I do no' no'know t~hat any'particular class o:f our c'itiz:ens, :"n~der: a~ fr~ee:government.-':lke o.;ur,s, ' ho'uldbe proscribed inn:conseqnencee of Liholdin!gpec uliar religiousvi'~ew~s.::!I do. n.'ot.know tha't t~hey are le'ss.:worthy or honorable citizens.in.consequence of :those' views..If" in'a' city'-like'!':that ::Which:I have the,h0.nor:in'-:p~art' to ,'represent,' a:portion-'of'the pe~eople'see :fit: "to::keep o:pen a'goo:a ~lo~urishing ::s'jchool,:supprt0ed by: a partic:ular::re ig:i/:ous denom'/0~-i~naton with -a::'Union :!::~c~ho:o!:th/ei':i~n a flouishin':g co~ndition, i 115 .-Jul.,v- 15. 1867. ,.1 - - I I 1l COSTITUTIOAL COVENTIO. Monday, but too small to accommodate the wants of our city, and if the Legislature sees fit to make an appropriation for the school kept up for that particular denomination, I can see no impropriety in it. For instance, take the Lutherans, or take the Catholics; as far as I know, as a general thing, they do not send their children to union schools. I know that in our town there are three dr four schools kept up by the Lutherans, and two or three by the Catholics; they are, for aught I know to the contrary, good schools. I think they have a right to their pro rata share of the public money. But owing to their peculiar convictions they see fit, under the present circumstances, to sacrifice their interest in the appropriations of the public money,for school purposes, and to keep up their private schools at their own expense. I hope that the amendment proposed will not prevail. Mr. MORTON. I wish merely to say a word in explanation. I do not wish to proscribe any school, or any denomination. I am perfectly willing they should keep up their schools, as many as they please. But in our city, I believe, the Catholics and Lutherans have adopted the policy of placing their schools udder the protection of the union school board, and conse quently are entitled to their share of the educational fund. So my remarks do not apply at all to those schools, nor does the amendment proposed affect th.em under any circumstances. The question then recurred upon the Amendment of Mr. BRADLEY, to insert in section thirty, after the words " re ligious seminary," the words, "or schools under denominational control." The amendment was agreed to. CHAPLAINS FOR THE LEGISLATURE. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I move to amend this section by inserting the following: "And each House of the Legislature shall have power to employ a chaplain to open their daily sessions with devotional exercises, who shall be entitled to the same per diem allowance as members of the Legislature." I offer this amendment, sir, in the confident hope that it will find a ready and a unanimous response in this committee; that we shall here indicate to our Legislatures in all the future our desire, the desire of our people, that they should recognize the Infinite Jehovah as the Great Governor of the Universe, holding in His hands our destinies, the destinies of States, and of nations, of principalities and of kingdoms, the great God who rules in the armies above, and among the children of men; that they should, before entering' upon the important duties assigned them, follow our example, and seek from above that wisdom which is profitable, and which alone can quality them for the faithful discharge of their obligations. Many gentleman on this floor would not enter upon their ordinary avocations without first recognizing their dependence-upon the Supreme Governor of the Universe, acknowledging their allegiance and seeking His guidance. How much more suitable then when gathered here to make laws~for this great State of ours; this State which He has so greatly blessed, and which has so signally prospered under His kind administration. Well may we- exclaim, "Surely He hath not dealt so with any people." With our sister States'of the North He has but recently "delivered us from the snare of the fowler, and given us a glorious victory." Well may we adopt the language of the inspired prophetess: "And Miriam answered them and said, Sing ye to the Lord, for He hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea." Not less wonderful our triumph than the triumph of the Israelites; not less wonderful our deliverance than their deliverance from Pharoah and his hosts. And, oh, as we now look back from the proud eminence we occupy, how visible the hand of God in all the dark scenes of the conflict; how we now see that the reverses, the oft repeated de feats of our armies, over which we shed bitter tears and made loud lamenta tions, ah, how evident now that the hand of a kind father was in it all; that these reverses, these chastisements were indeed blessings in disguise. And, oh, how we now bless God that our prayers and our importunities for victory were not heard in the com mencement of the conflict; that the nation might be speedily restored under the Constitution as before the rebellion. But God had better things in store for us; He was trying us in the crucible;,He was passing us through seas of blood and of carnage; laying low in the dust the beauty and flower of our youth; humbling our pride, teaching us our utter dependance on his Almighty arm, preparing us for a higher and a holier deliverance. He was preparing us for that great and glorious event, which has placed us on so proud an eminence among the nations, and when we had endured sufficiently the agony and the blood, when we were duly humbled, and felt that God governed, that none but an Almighty arm could save us, then in the hour of our deep calamity, then, at the appointed time, that great and good man whom God had raised up for our deliverance, and whose base assassina tion sent a pang of sorrow through the heart of our country which time can never heal-at the appointed hour the proclamation of liberty came-liberty to the poor downtrodden African, whose sighs and moans had greeted our ears upon every Southern breeze for the last century; liberty to the poor degraded toil-worn bondman; liberty to the colored man alike with the Caucassian, and the glad announcement was reiterated from land's end to land's end, liberty, liberty to all. And the fetters fell from the limbs of four mTnillions of our fellow beings, and they now stand forth, disenthralled, enfranchised, redeemed; enjoying the inalienable rights guaranteed them by our magna charta of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And this assertion in our declaration of independence is no longer a mockery and a lie, and need not bring the crimson to the cheek of him who reads it on the anniversary of our nation's birth-' day, as it has often done on mine. Now, the foul blotof slavery is forever purged from the escutcheon of our country, and our liberties are established upon a firm basis, the basis of justice and humanity; and the cornerstone of the confederacy is dissolved into the baseless fabric of a dream. Had the ear of the Almighty been open to our supplications at the commencement of the rebellion, had He an swered our prayers and restored peace speedily, our country might have enjoyed peace for a season, but it would have been the calm which precedes the tempest and the earthquake; the canker had been still gnawing at our vitals, and ere long the scenes of agony and of blood would have been rein acted; the wail of woe had again greeted our ears, and our country had again been clad in the habiliments of mourning. But now, blessed be God, our peace is established on the basis of justice and humanity, the greatest good to the greatest number, without: dis tinction of race or color, and our motto is "equal justice to all." The Constitution of 1850 does not prohibit devotional services in ourLeg-~ islatures, but prohibits payment for those services from the treasury of the State. And why this prohibition? Is not the laborer worthy of his hire? Is not the service performed for the benefit of the State? And is not the State morally bound to pay for those services? There is not in the wide world a class of men who are more poorly remunerated for the labor per formed and the good achieved than our clergy. Oh, brethren, let us not disgrace ourselves; let us not disgrace this great, this magnanimous State of ours by this contemptible parsimony. Let us manifest to the world that we I ', CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. li Monday, 4 I, are not only willing ourselves to contribute to the Lord's treasury, but that we are.willing, yea, anxious, that our State should acknowledge God as the Supreme Governor of the Universe, the source of all our mercies, and seek His blessing upon all her varied interests. And let us, my brothers, acknowledge him in the Senate Chamber, in the family circle, in the social gathering, in the congregation of his saints, in the Legislative halls, in the Constitutional Conventions; everywhere, under all circumstances, let us acknowledge Him as our God, and praise Him our fathers' God, and magnify His great name. Where in the wide universe, where in all the history of the past, has any people, any nation been under qo great obligations of love and grati tude and devotion as our nation? Well may we exclaim with the Psalmist, " If it had not been the Lord who was on our side when men rose up against us, then they had swallowed us up quick, when their wrath was kindled against us. Then the waters had over whelmed us, the stream had gone oyer our soul. Blessed be the Lord who hath not given us a prey to their teeth." Let us beware Mr. Chairman, let us beware gentlemen of the committee, how we ignore the government of God. Let us acknowledge His right to rule over us, individually and collectively. Let us be warned by the sad example of infidel France in her revolutionary days. Let us recognize our allegiance to His government, and remember, the Lord loveth a righteous nation, but a wicked people he will judge. Mr. LUCE. This question, it will be remembered, was referred to the committee who reported this arti cle. While -the committee were unan imous, I believe, in favor of giving to the Legislature power and authority to employ a chaplain for each House, it was not deemed necessary to put a special provision in the Constitution to that effect. It was our understanding that they had the undisputed right, and the unquestioned privilege, with out such a provision, to employ a chaplain, and pay him out of the treas ury. It seemed to us no more appro priate to place a provision in the arti cle for that purpose, than to put one in authorizing them to employ a ser geant-at-ams, or a secretary or clerk. While we cordially endorsed the idea that they should employ chaplains, we did not deem it even necessary to place a provision for that purpose in this article. If there was any neces sity for it, there would be no objection on the part of the committee. Mr. VAN VA LENBURGH.- It will be remembered by gentlemen, that in the Constitution of 1850, there is a prohibition upon this subject; the Legislature are expressly prohibited from employing chaplains, or rather prohibited from paying them out of the treasury. Now, I hope that this amendment may be adopted, that it may be understood that this Convention did not approve of that restriction in the present Constitution. Even if the construction of my friend from Branch, (Mr. Lucy,) should be correct, still it will be an indication to the world, an indication to all future Legislatures of our opinions upon this subject. As there is no objection to it, even on the part of my friend from Branbh, I hope the amendment may be adopted. IMr. MoCLELLAND. My impression is that there is an objection to this amendment. I am in favor of the object that the gentleman has in View. But suppose that it is deemed advisable to distribute this matter, and in vite the clergymen of Lansing to offi ciate alternately, as we have done in this Convention. This amendment, if adopted, might be considered by mem bers of the Legislature as binding them to employ some one chaplain. I would myself rather distribute the performance of this duty among the whole number here at Lansing. I am in favor of the object in view, of giving to the Legislature power to employ a chaplain. That will be done by ex pungimg section twenty-four from the present Constitution, which reads as follows.: "The Legislature may authorize the em ployment of a chaplain for the State prison but no money shall be appropriated for the payment of any religious services in either House of the Legislature." I apprehend that expunging that section will give them sufficient power. I cooperated with the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) in the Convention of 1850, in endeavoring to defeat that section, but we failed. I apprehend it is not necessary, either by way of revenge or by way of show ing our devotional feelings, to adopt that which is not absolutely required to be placed in the Constitution. Mr. CONGER. Lest there should be some reflection upon the committee in regard to their action upon this subject, the Convention having referred the matter specially to them, I wish to say a word or two in reference to it. Section twenty-four of the present Constitution has just been read by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MOCLEL LAND.) As if in defiance of the common judgment, and the common devotional feelings of legislative bodies through out this country, it contained a clause authorizing the employment of a chap lain in the State prison; and in the very next clause prohibited the pay ment of chaplains employed by the Legislature. It was well said by thegentleman who introduced the resolution which was referred to our committee, that that was a standing disgrace to the religious-sentiment of the State, and it always has been felt to be so. The matter was referred to the committee on the legislative department, and was considered by them. They quickly and unanimously agreed to strike out section twenty-four of the article on the legislative department in the present Constitution, with but one thought and one feeling; and that was that it was unworthy of a place in our Constitution. I question whether there is any gentleman on this floor, who does not agree most cordially with the gentleman who made this motion about the appropriateness of religious exer cises in the halls of legislation, whei ever that body is in session. Still, the reason suggested by' the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCTLT,L LAND,) in regard to the mode of em ploying a chaplain, is somewhat of an objection to the amendment now before this committee. There is also an an other thing which I would like to men tion. I would not desire to link the employment of chaplains by the Legis lature in a constitutional provision with the salary that they shall receive. I would not link religious appeals to the Throne of Grace and the reading of the Bible, with the pittance to, be given to them, in the same sentence in our organic law. I think, as the committee'thought, that it is a suffi cient condemnation of the prohibition in the old Constitution to strike it out, so that the new Constitution, if adopted, will leave our Legislature to provide the ordinary, usual and cus tomary mode of opening the proceed iugs by religious exercises in such man ner as they may deem best. My ob jection to the insertion of the clause here will not, I trust, be taken as an objection at all to having religious ex ercises in the Legislature, nor as throwing any disparagement whatever 'upon such exercises. But I think it would be better that it should be left for the Legislature to follow the time honored-custom of requesting the resi dent clergy of the city of Lansing al ternately, or'as might suit their own convenience, to perform religious ser vices for the Legislature. I would not have the question of their compensa tion coupled in the organic law with our acknowledgment of God and the propriety of religious services. I think all that might be left to each house of the Legislature. a, Mr. P. D. WARNER. If I rightly apprehend the amendment offered by July 15, 1867. DEBATES: AND PROCEEDINGS. 117 -1 I 1. i 8.IS..T......L COlV.TIO. M-. my colleague, (Mr. VA:AN VALNBURGaH,) I desire to move an ameidment to it. I move to amend it by striking out the words "who shall be: entitled to.the same per diem allowanceas members. of. the Legislature;" so::that it Will read: "And each house of the:Legis lature shall have power to employ a chaplain to open: their daily (sessions with devotional exercises." Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I accept that amendment. Mr. P. D. WAkRNER. While'I con cur most heartily- in all that has been said upon this subject by my venerable colleague, I desire to repQat somewhat what was said by the chairman of the committee, (Mr. CoNGER.) -The com mittee on the legislative department had this question under consideration, and were unanimous, I'think, in the opinion that the section of the present Constitution which has been read, not only accomplished no good purpose, but placed'the people of the State in a very bad light, and cast a reflection upon the reputation of the people of this State for morality that was unjust, and which it was not de sirable to have continued..With this view they omitted that section in their report. In omitting it they were of ithe opinion that the Legislature wouldbe fully authorized to take such measures as in their judgment they might deem necessary, expedient and proper,'.for the purpose of procuring services of a religious character, such as they might desire for the benefit of their respective houses., I have heard nothing to change the opinion that I formed at that time: I now think that by the simple omission of section twenty-four from the Constitution, which we- are now endqavoring to complete, all- theobjects that are desirable: to be accomplished will be accomplished. But with the amendment I have proposed; ~to the amendment offered by my colleague, and which has been accepted by him, I have no particular objection to add to this section what isnfow proposed to be added to it. It seems-to 'me, however, while I do not intend to oppose the amendment as it now stands before the committee, that the simple omission ofsection twenty-four accomplishes all that it is desirable to accomplish. I have no personal feeling in the matter. - Mr. BURTCH. I have no speech prepared upon this occasion, for this is a thing which I little contemplated would come up in the shape in,owhich it has, and I little contemplated the:remarks which have been made-upon this subject. Permit me to. say that I do not think it'reflects very:'much honor upon our Heavenly Father.- to impute all the bloodshed, and all the:mistakes, and transgressions, and shortcomings, during -the. laten -war to Him. That isnot my idea of- "God; that is not my way of showing reverence for Him. If that was my idea..of'God, Ilwouild introduce a-resolution here expressing the thanks of -this Conventionn for MOCLELLAND's course of c..onduct. Mr.:G-IDDINGS. Is the gentleman in order The -CHATRMAN. It appears to the Ch.air: that tthe gentlemain is not in order. The question;is upon an amendment offered by the gentleman: "from Oakla-nd, (Mr-. VANr V~AKENBURGH.) Mr-:. BURTCH. Exactly; I understand that. Prayer, I believe, is t-he right of 1l men. -To -im'nnpoune -the Throne of Grace is a glorious privilege. I thank God that in this country, overwhich floats the stars and stripes, every one under:the Constitution of the United States- is permitted to worship God in — his own way, and Sunder his own vne and fig tree, according to —the dictates of -his own conscience.-:But:i looking through-: Mr. ENDERSON. I rise to:a point of order. My point of order is, that the gentleman is not discussing the question before the committee. The -CH. AIRMAN.i The point of order is again made. Mr. BURTCH. -I would like the; point of order stated, and I will answer it. The CHAIRMA-N. The ~point of order is that the gentleman is not discussing the question before the committee. = -.Mr. BURTCH. I am discussing the subject.' lThe subject before'i,the committee is the payment of a minister of the gospel for services in M:the Legislature."' The;CHAIRMAN. The question is upon adding to the section these word.s: "but each:H:ouseof the Legislature shall have-power to. employ a chaplain :to open their.daily sessions with devotional exercices." 'Mr. BURTCH. - Exactly; that-is:all right; that is the way I understand it; and -for -that employment they are to. be paid a per diem,of four dollars. The CHAIRMAN. That portion of the: amendment has been strieken out. Mr. IBURTCH. But-it iswell understood- that it really:admits of their:. being-paid. I have: but a word to: say and it is this; long ago there'was a wise man- who - came -from azareth, I- -believe he -was a Nazarene, and he :told them that when they prayed M'r. L,M LEAC'H. I insist upon it that ithe gentleman shall speak to the question-before:t-hei committee, or that he shall not speak. at all. MMr. BUR:TCH.' W.ell, sir The -CEI A:"i.. The Chair will rule the gentleman out of order, and he canmot proceed except by the con sent -of:the: committee. - BMr.T BUR CHE. If I should happen to:;hit the question at once, I suppose I can proceed. The CHAIRMAN. Under the cir cumstances, the gentleman cannot proceed only by a vote of the committee. M!r. VAN VAILKENBURGH. I de sire to say one word in'explanation, -lest the committee think I am unduly zealous upon this subject. I have al-:ways remembered with gratitude the ,cooperation of -the gentlemen from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) in attempt ing to expunge that obnoxious section from the Constitution of 1850. We made strenuous efforts at that time for the purpose of placing ourselves properly before the public,'but we failed. I hope that on.this occasion we will be enabled at least to redeem ourselves rom the:imputation resting upon that :Constitution. I have heard no objection rom any one to the amendment as modified at the suggestion of my colleague, (Mr. P. D. WARNER.) I hope the amendment will be adopted. Mr. BTILL-TS.- The amendment as originally presented, met with my most hearty approval. I desire to say, as a member: of this Convention, that it shall be the duty of the Legislature to employ a chaplain, and to pay him. I am illing to say this much in the Constitution. No objection is made to that, except that it will be better-to leave the question of pay out of this expression-of the duty of the Legislature; I have:no objection to that. There is perhaps an argument'in favor of not connecting the question of pay withthe provisions of this section. I thinkfthere -was force in the statement made by the gentleman from St. Clair, (M. CONGER,) that that question should !be separated from the provision in whict we enjoined that duty upon the Legislature. There is another consideration: tle motion as first made was objected to upon the ground that it would be more in accordance with the views and sentiments of a Legislature composed of members of various religious views, sentiments and feelings, to permit them to invite; all -the clergy of the; city, as has been done in times past. The amendment as now modified certainly +removes that objection. The Legislature can do in time to come as they have done in times past. As that has been the only objection that I' have heard urged here, I'hope that we shall do ourselves and this State the credit of placing in the Constitution a provision like that introduced by the gentleman from' Oakland, -((-M. VAN~ VxEEN.:U.GH.)."It seems to me that,-it is due C O N S T I O N.A.T,,.: C O N V.-Fo ON.' 1-11-8 -Monday) i 11 0 I July~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I5' 1867 I..L-... DEll~E A.1t....-.... ~ll1 ~lD-."I...~. -. OEE IN GS,-,1 to this Convention, in, order that we may deny before the world the doctrine contained in the proscription of the present -Constitution.: This amendment I think is right; I believe it is the sentiment of the Convention that. such an exercise of.power should bel allowed in the Legislature. And while we thus believe, I think we shoUld be willing to say so, and put it in the-Con: stitution, in as few words as are embraced in the amendment now propos:ed. I hope the amendment'will: bee adopted. Mr. BURTCH.. Mr. Chairman The CHAIRMAN. The Chair can — not recognize the gentleman' from Eaton as entitled to speak upon ay subject connected with the discussione ef this: amendment, -until the conseint: of the committee shall have —been obtained for him to proceed' Mr.- BURTCH. I do not: —rise for that purpose, but to miake an inquiry. The CH'AIRMAN. What is- the inquiry? Mir. BURTCH. The inquiry is this: why -is it that I, a member upon this floor, with equal privileges, I think, with any other member, am' not-permitted to exercise the same privilege of speaking upon subjects here, that: is exercised by other members?. Why is that privilege denied to me especially? Ir:.-GIDDINGS. I call the gentleman to order.' The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanis clearly out of order, and he will t-ake! his- seat. Mr. BURTCH. Very well; I shalli be very glad to do that. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman fr6om Eaton is denied- no privilege granted to other members. The same rule has been applied to him that:ha been applied to-other members of the;; Convention; at least> such was the in.g: tention of the Char. The Chair, however, will not discuss the matter, but leave it to the consideration of the committee or to the Convention, before: which the gentleman is at liberty to: bring it at any time, if:hhe:.deems: any wrong has been inflicted upon hi-m. Mr. THOMPSON. I would suggest to the gentleman froiom Oakland,? (Mr. VAN VALKENnURG:El,) that the prgonoun "their," in his amendment before the:word i",daily sessions,;" should- bbe! stricken out and -the: pronoun -its," employed, as:the amendment refers to6 each house. - "'.:- - -Mr. VAN VALKE!UR('ij. I iw:l modi- my amendment so-asb to have it read: "chaplains," insteadd of " chaplain." — Mr. STOUGHTON.- I:- thin:k'- the ,ther expression was" correct. It.the gentleman modifies his amendment as: he s tuggestsi, it will' give each hoUse" authrity to employ -more than one :chaplaimn: - The — HAIRMA.N, If there is; any objection, the gentleman from Oakland will:: not be considered at liberty to modify his amendment. :Mr. MILES. As a mere matter of phraseology, I would inquire -if" it would not be better, as the gentleman friom Hillsdale -(Mr. THOMPSON) has suggested, to strike out - their," and iinsert- ", its;" so that: each house of the Legislature shall be at liberty to employ a chaplain to open its sessions with de-w votional exercises. I make that mot0ion.: The amendment of Mr. MIfLEs:was agreed to. The amendment as amended was hen agreed: to, upon a-division;: ayes 51, noes not counted. No further amendment was offeied: to this section. - THE LEGISLATURE PROHIBITED FROM AUTHORIZING LOTTERIES, GRANTING DI VoRcEs, ETC. .The next section was read, as'folLows: SECTION 31. The Legislature shall not pass any bill, of att'ainder. iex post laC'to law, or law impairing.the' obligation of contracts;' norauthorize: any.lottery or peFrit —the. sale of lottery tickets; nor grant divorces; nor audit or allow...any private..claim. or account; nor pass'special acts extending;-the time for the collection oftaxes:. Mr. VAN RIPER.:. -I raove to-amend this section by striking out -the. words "pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, orlaw impairing the obligation of contracts; nor;", so that- the section will- reoad: "The Legislature shall. not authorize any lottery," etc. I have no "obj'ection whaever to that portion.of the section I have moved te strike out, except. that: we- have in the -bill —-of righ: a section exactly similart to this; and I do not thim:n we want it twice over in mthe same:Constitu-o tion.: The amendment of Mr. VAN RIPER was agreed to. LAWS FOR CHANGINGK NAMES OF PERSONS. Mr. HOLT. I move to amend this section by- adding to it the followinag: - -,_.-nor..pass any:.! special acts changing the name3sofperso.ns'.' ~,.. IhWve but'(a very few.words to' say on0 this' question.' Those:members: of this Convention, who have ever been im the Legislature,: know th'at generally there are a number of bills introduced,, andi sometimes' passed, ii every Legislature changing the names.,of; persons. :im'eti" es a great deal-:of time.s taken: aUp: in' the considriaton.' of 0 those bills, !and-the annals'f t,he State"very mucht encinbered Xb them. — There -is a law ,now that-judges of probate-can-do this very thing. It seems to me that is the plaee where- it should be: done, and not in the Legislature. M r: —.,M. C WATKI NS I am inlined to oppose this amendment from the fact that' a- judge of probate is not authorize'd in all.cases to alter or change the-names of persons. There are cases where the facts cannot be brought be'fore a judge of.,probate so that he can attend to this business. My attention :was called1 to t the subject: four years ago, while I was a member of the L.eg'isIature. A-bill before the Legislature was -rejected for the reason that the judge of probate was authorized to do this; the matter was sent back to the county,, where the petitioner applied to hei judge of probate, and he decided that he:wasnot authorized to act in that case. The few cases that come before the Legislature for this purpose take up but a very smallportion of the time of the Legislature, and I think it would not be -well to hate a prohibition in this regard in'the Constitution. : ~ ~ ~~. - a - swf Mr;. MUSSEY. I am again unfortunately in the negative. I am aware there is a law' providing for the changing of names' -by probate'judges. - rather favored th elaw at thmetime it was passed, but I have repented of my ways, and now: think it was an error, and for this' reason. Very:much depends sometimes upon-the genealogy, of: individuals, in order to determine. ights of property. A hundred,years from now it may be very'difficult to trace back the-matter and find the evidence that the name of an individual as changed by-a judge of:: probate,. while it~wvould be per-ectly easy to find such evidenc6 if' it iwas. changed.by a !lawof the Leislaure. I' havq in my mrimd, when. makie -these remarks now, Istances where- the names of indviduals were changed, and the fact that they. are now unabld' to produce the proof that their names were changed deprives them of a very large amount of property.. I think any one can see very readily that a hundred years from now it woulad be very difficult indeed to show the fact that o'nanme was changed by a judge of probate, if -it was necessary to search the records of all the judges of probate in: this State:to ascertaim such a fact-. But: yet it may be necessary to do so in order to enable a person:to obtain his rights. Whatever may b]e the inconvenience to the Legis-, lature, or the amount' of time taken up: there/for this purpose, it seems: to me there should be some. provision made by which evidence of such, change might be perpetmuated anda made eassily accessible: so that the fact can be ascer-tained in some more' ready way thad by referencee to:the records of judges of probate,:' M..BURTCH~:.: I- ammn favor of the:a: end''ment'fr this;reason:'a person:': W!i0' wishes to c'hnge his name',:'"" July- 15 1867. S -AND PROCE........................ li'9 t I 0 I :20 CO-STITUTIO~AL COrYEsTIO~. Monday, can do so by assuming whatever name r he pleases, filing the statement with the Secretary of State, and advising t himn to publish the fact. All the t difficulty can be obviated in that way, Mr. GIDDINGS. There will al- t ways be applications to some body for i the changing of names; and there is scarcely ever a failure to get such a change made by the Legislature.. The Legislature, however, have found that applications to them were so numer- ous, so much time was expended, at great cost to the State, and it also being the fact that, in many of the States, ] in most of'them I think, the practice was to submit such questions as this to a court, the Legislature finally con- cluded to adopt that plan, and passed a law authorizing courts of probate to change names. I suppose it may be done in any court of record; but judges of probate were authorized to do so because courts of probate were courts of record. The applications for change of name are generally made in case of minor children that are adopted. The parties who adopt minor children generally desire that they shall take their names. I sup pose that nineteen out of twenty persons having a change of name are of that class. I suppose such change can be much more easily made in the courts, with less cost than to tax the people of the State continually by taking up the time of the Legislature for that purpose. So far as the objection is mge that that there will be difficulty in tracing through the records of our courts the evidence of such change, it seems to me that it would be very easy to find the evidence in our court records; far more easy than to run over all the statutes of the State for that purpose. But to change the name of a child, in a county where it is made a matter of record, involves an expense of only three or' four dollars. But it is an enor mous expense to this State to require the Legislature to pass special. acts for t~iis purpose whenever any one desires to have a name changed. The fact is that many persons would not have their names changed if they had to go to the Legislature, although they might do it if they had. to go to a court of record, probate court, or any other court. I think it is well, however, to have this clause in the Constitution, as the pe'0oplehave now got into the habit of changing their names by application to judges of probate. M Mr. CONGER. I do not understand that there is any law in this State giving to adopted children any rights of prop erty whatever, unless there are certain forms of adoption, apprenticeship and recording. Perhaps the great fault of the Legislature heretofore has been that it has never made any provision that, on the change of name of a child, any rights should follow. Years ago, I had occasion to examine this question. A half-weaned child was adopted n infancy, brought up by a party, took his name and lived with him as one of the family; yet, on the death of that party, the child was left as utterly helpless with regard to any rights to that property, as though it had been a stranger in the family. I do not think, however, that that question applies particularly to this case. I consider it important that whenever a man in this State doing business changes his name, there shall be given to it a publicity, such as can be given only by the Legislature passing a special law for that purpose. If a person changes his name in one county and then removes into another county, and changes his name again, there will be a-continual trouble arising. The publicity of a record of the event will never be equal to the publicity of a law. I have never heard any objection to the amount of time taken in the Legislature for this purpose. -I venture to say that of all the Legislatures which have assembled in this State for the last twenty years, not one-half of them have changed any name, and the others have changed only two or three each. Therefore, but very little time has been taken up, and I shall consequently vote against the amendment. Mr. MUSSEY. This Convention seems to run to orphans and widows. I will refer the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS) to the session laws of 1865, where he will find that the names of the father, mother, and all the children of the family were changed. I do not know that the father or mother wash an orphan who was adopted.; Suppose that in a few years it becomes necessary to establish the right of some of the connectiens of this family to certain property. The most direct way to procure that testi mony would be to refer to the session laws. That would certainly be a more direect way than to compel a person to wade through all the records of the probate courts in the various counties of the State of Michigan. 'Mr. GIDDINGS. I do not care very much about this matter.;I do not expeet jhis"Convention are going to repeal the laws upon the statute books in this State, and in view of that Ido not suppose it makes much difference whether this amendment is adopted or not. ~ o The amendment of Mr. HOLT was not agreed to. ORDER OF BUSINESS.. Mr. BILLS. I desire to offer an amendment to section thirty-one of this article now under consideration. I am, however, solicited by some gentlemen who wish to take up section twenty-seven, in relation to municipal aid to railroads, not to introduce my amendment at this time. I, therefore waive my right to offer the amendmient at the present time, with the understanding that, when we return to this section, I will offer it, Mr. CONGER. I hope section twenty-seven will not be taken up at this late hour. There are gentlemen now absent, who will be here by the train to-night or to-morrow morning, who wis' to( be present when that subject is considered. I hope the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILL4,) will offer his amendment now. Mr. BILLS. I have no choice in the matter; I propose at some time to introduce an amendment to this section, in relation to the traffic in intoxicating liquors. I mention it at this time, so that when we return to this section, if we leave it now, I may not be deemed out of order in offering the amendment then. Mr. CONGER. Doesthe gentleman refer to the section reported by him from the committee on intoxicating liquors'? Mr. BILLS. The amendment I, pro pose to introduce, is in regard to the prohibition of the traffic in intoxicating liquors. It is quite immaterial to me whether I offer it now, or at any other time. Mr. CONGER. I was in hopes that the especial matter referred to that committee, might be placed on the gen eral order, and taken up by itself as other matters have been, and consider ed in committee of the whole. Then ' whatever action the Convention might take in regard to it, it could be insert ed in its proper places I think it would be more satisfactory to take it up and consider it as a -separate report from Xone of our standing committees. I - have no choice myself about the mat ter. But I liave heard gentlemen rish that it might take the same course as ) other reports from standing committees The CHATRMAN. The Chair will say in regard to matters that have been suggested, that,' following the course heretofore adopted, he would rule that this subject is under the control of the committee. Section thirty-one is now s under consideration; the committee D have passed thriough the section. If e no amendment isoffered to it, the next r section will be-read. If the committee are of any particular mind in regard s to the matter it can be expressed by a motion and their-vote upon it. / CON;STITUTION A T, CONVENTION. Monclay, 120 e I I J'ily 15; 1867. -DEBATES AD PRocEEDIS. 121 Mr. BILLS. If a motion is made to return to section twenty-seven, I shall not object to it; otherwise I will offer an amendment to this section now. Mr. VAN RIPER. I move that the committee now take up section twentyseven of'thfartics. Mr. LONGYEAR. I hope the remaining section of this article will be considered before we return to that section. The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. VAN RIPER, to proceed to the consideration of section twentyseven; and upon a division, ayes 35, noes 22, it was agreed to. - UNICIPAL AID TO RAILROADS. Section twenty-seven was then read as follows: "- The Legislature shall not authorize any county, city or township to pledge its credit for the purpose or aiding in the construction of any railroad to an extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive -of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such county, city or township." Mr. WILLARD. I move to amend this section by striking out the word Cc county," wherever it occurs, and also by adding to the section the words, "no county shall be authorized to pledge its credit for any such purpose." The section, if so amended, will read: ' The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad to an extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the asessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to pledge its credit for any such purpose." Mr. VAN RIPER. I offer the following as a substitute for thesection: The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit or levy a tax, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad, to an extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any one-railroad, shall exceed five per cent of the assessed valuation of such city or township, and not to exceed ten per cent. for any two or more railroads. - The question of such aid must be sumbitted to a vote of the people, and no person shall be entitlel to vote at any submission of such question, unless -he shall be the owner of property liable to taxation. No county shall be authorized to vote such tax or aid." The CHAIRMAN. The question will be first taken upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WILLARD.) Mr. STOUGHTON. I have a substitute which I also desire to present. It is as follows: "The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to raise money by taxation or to pledge their credit for the purpose bf aiding in the construction of.any railroad, to an extent whereby the tax raised or to be raised, or the indebtedness incurred, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed, in any five years,. or at any one time, ten per cent. of the as Vol. 2-No. 16. sessed valuation of the taxable property of such city, or township; nor shall the Legis lature authorize any county to raise money, or to pledge its credit to aid in the construc tion of any railroad." - The CHAIRMAN.- After the amend ments to the original section have been disposed of, the question will be taken uion- the substitute offered by the gen ~ tle an.rore Car>, (A~ VA" RI_P_R. ) Mr. CONGER. I have vobjetion myself to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WILLARD.) I have no desire to retain the word "county" in this section for the interests of my constituents. I speak only for myself in this matter, and not for the committee; I have no objection to the amendment either striking out the words proposed, or adding the words proposed; it will suit my purposes equally well if the sectiqn be amended in that way. Although there should be no change made in the, section, I should not desire to have the county which I represent required to lend its aid to tis purpose, because there are dissimilar interests in different portions of that county. What would, be an advantage to one part of the county would be of no advantage to another part of the — county. I can see very readily that that would be the case in many other counties of the State. So far as my own views are concerned, I would-be willing to vote for the amendment. Mr. McCLELLAND. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question before he takes his seat? Mr. CONGER. Certainly. M-. McCTLELLAND. This section says that no county, city, or township shall be authorized to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding. in the construction of any railroad, to an extent exceeding ten per cent. of the/ assessed valuation. In some cities of this State, there are four or five railroads. Does the gentleman mean that this aid shall be given to the extent of ten per cent. for each railroad? Mr. CONGER. The section was intended to provide that the full amount of indebtedness of every kind for the aid of all railroads, should not exceed ten per cent. exclusive of interest. Mr. McCLELLAND. Will the; language of the section accomplish that object? Mr. CONGER. I think so. If the section shall be amended as is proposed by the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WILLARD,) it will read: " The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit fo~ the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad, to an extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to pledge its credit ifor any such purpose." I think that covers all which the committee intended to cover by this section. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. WmLARD, and it was agreed to. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. I move to amend this section by striking out / ~'a-nd inserting "five," as the per centage to ed by any city or township for this pipo~ Mr. CONGER. I had oped that the Convention would not, with some twenty-eight or thirty members of -the Convention absent, force a vote upon this question at this late hour. Neither do I wish such an amendment voted upon without some discussion, if it is at all likely to prevail. There are sev eral gentlemen very deeply interested in this question, who expect to be here to-morrow morning. I have already requested the committee to postpone the consideration of this-subject, at least until to-morrow morning, if noe longer. If it is not postponed, it Will compel us to discuss this matter'in Convention, when otherwise the discussion might be in committee of the whole. In order to test the sense of the committee upon this subject, as the time has nearly arrived for an adjournment, I move that the committee now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. I make that motion in order that the amendments which have been made may be printed in the journial, so that we can have an opportunity to examine them. If other amendments are to be offered, I will withdraw my motion so that they may also be placed upon the journal, but not be voted upon now. Mr. FERRIS. There is a substitute pending for this section. But in order to have my proposition printed in the journal, I will now give notice that at the proper time I willoffer as a substitute for this section, the following: " The Legislature shall not authorize any county, township, city or yillage, by a vote of its citizens or otherwise, to become a stockholder in any joint stock company, corporation or association whatever, or to raise money for, or to loan its credit to, or in aid of any such company, corporation or association." The CHAIRMAN. The substitute of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,) is not in order at this time for action;.but, by unanimous consent, it will be received and made a part of the record in the journal for the information of members. Mr. HUSTON. I desire to give notice that at the proper time I wish to move to insert "twenty" in place of "ten," in this section.: The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can move that as an amendment I .i: DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. July 15-,1867. .121 e N2- COSIUTION A.CO.N VE-NTION. A aendment now peding, moven bytihne: gentleman from Kent, (Mr. M.:C. WATKINS.) That amendmnent is to strike out " ten,"' and i:nsert "fiv" e." Mr. HUSTON. I move to amend the amendment by strik,ing out five," and inserting "twenty."' Mr. ESTEE. I desire to-6:move'anamendment of this -seetion -to insert a ter the words Cconstruction Of any railroad," the words,plia road, gravel road, or trn'ike,' The CHAI AN. The amendme':nt of the gentleman from Isabella, (Mr. ESTEE,) is nuot germane to the amend-, ment now pending. But if:no objeetion is'made,'it "will'be receit d -ad printed in the journal. Mr. -INGALLS. I give notkice :: t aatat the proper time I shall mo:ve to strike out " ten," and insert "fifteen," -as tihe per cent. of "the assessed valua:ti-hn'which-ay be voted to aid in'the ~const'ruction of railroads; and alSo, -to6 Suito the Seetion the words "a.nd v:no:sueh'ia majoibe granted,.except on d te.of'-a majority of ithe propey : holders thereof." The CHiAIR~MAN. The amendmen of -he genflemanr from' Menominej 'j(Mr. ISALtS,,) ^is -not in ordaer at:thei .present time; butit will be:received as other,amoendmentls have-been, and be printed in the jornal. Mtl/r.-:MiL(LER.'I desire to gve notice th't at the proper time, I 4ha! ...move to -.trike Ut of this seetion the f,,llowi/g: -"to aan exttent whereby th outsiataniding indebtedness exclusive o intfcrest on. acco'nt of aid to any and all railroas, shall not exceed ten piq cent o0f the asesse.d valuation: of su -:cit-y o-r township." -The setion if:Sd amended will rea:d: "The Legislature shall not authorize.-any city or tow,nship to pledge:its credit for'the puripose. of aiding in,the construction,of any 'railroad.". Ti~he CHAIRMAN. -The amendment will not be'in order for ci-onsideration at the present time; but itR wil'be held ::in abeyance::until, all amendments re lating ~to ait. portion of (the sectionn woved:to be.stticlten oi:shal ha.ie bee'dispsOd Qf - Mr. USSEY. In rder to use np thl remainder of the time this a':fter ~noonto some~purpose, I would request agentlemen. whoemoveadto stike out "ten,"'a ansd;isertfive," 4o withdiraaw i-t in or,dr that we -may -n'o,w consider thffe amedet~of thee gent~leman from Isabella, (Mr. ESTEE,) in lirelatioln to piank roads, gravel roadls,'agndla turn..pikes. I presume the,genteman from -St.- Clair, (M~r.CONGER,).weuld have no ,o bjections to con'sidering that amend ment this afternoon. -:Mr.-CONGER.'I:.renewmy~motion that the committee snow rise.,The Lameandents are fallingLhere like le'S vs a: n miV/ esaa ien:.]wevei, if there. -ire i:any~more:amendmets' I.will:'wa. i Mr. BLACKMAN. I desire to offer: an amendment as a'-Substitute for the amendment:of the gentleman ~from Is-: abella,.('~. ESTER.-:) Thnstead of insorting.the words:he. p'oposes, I move: to insetthe:word. "or-othe- internai 'n,rof'em ns."' : ~he CHAThCHAIRAN. That amendm~nient is not in order. It:will be held in abeyance' and printed' in the jou "Mr.;ILEACH. It seems to me that we shall'facilitate our business, if we refu'se:to consider am-tendments which -are notin:order. We shall be very li'keiyto:.have considerable confusion if we get -:a dozen or fifteen amend.meits.' onhand:atthe same:time..TheCHA,TRMAN The Chair under itod- the bject' 0to be to have these 'several -amedm:ents printed in the j'u'foar the i:formation of mem bers. The Chair has ruled out of oraerl the amendments not:nm order. But the Chair has received -them with that iinderstandinig, in order that they may :beprinted in;the: journal.' " i ':M E:T-iACOH. We may get into con:fsion, as we did the other day, when :the' geiitleman from St. Cla, (Mr. CO-aER,) was in'the chair. M Hr. C:ONGER. I:had equal eonfi dence at tiat time in the abiiity of the; O —Ciair to keep the committee clear of any trouble'or onfusion that I -have 'now. My confidence then I found was not misplaced,.ant I have Confidence : nQojw that the present chairman will be :'Able -to keep the' co-mmittee clear of ,:any such honfsion. I hope the gen atleman fom' Grand Traverse, (Mr. !LEiAcH,): himsself havin:g been free from a any con s0ion when -he, was chairman ! of th6e comniittee of'the whole, wil :tnotw c-iast reproach upon the pres! ent chairman, or-upon the old'one. * MIr. LONGOYEAR. I suppose the object of receiving these ]amendments at this time is simply that they may be L:-p'rinted in the jounal. When they are -taken u.p-to-morr'ow they will be taken up as fthey are in Qrder. M';lr. CONGER. I now renew my * motion that the- committee rise, report ; progress, a:nd ask leave: to sit again. I - shouild:suppose the views of gentlemen who wish to offer amendments:have been very.generaliy expressed.'In the morning we:will:'find all those amend' -ments in their -order in:the journal, so that we can understandathe different propositions and; know whiat to vote ,fr andawhat against,: in th/e order in :-which they may properly be taken up. I would,-request of the commaittee that ! they refrain from discussing any of , th'ese several propositions until -the morning, when some gentlemen who iwish to;be present then the discussion takes plae, will be here at the commencement of that discussion. Therefore, not for delay, for I think I can never be justly charged with any such intention, I move that the'committee rise, report progrei. and ask leave to sit again. Mr. STOUGHTON. I -desire to call the attention of the committee to a change which I think is necessary, in order-to perfect section twenty. The CHAIRAN. The pending question is upon the motion that the committee now rise. Mr. CONGER. I will withdraw my motion if it is desired to consider any other portion of this article. PASSAGE OF LAWS BY LEGISLATURE. Mr. STOUGHTON. I now ask the un:animious consent of the committee to move t:o'amend:seetion twenty, by inserting m ithe first sentence the word "SO general;" so tht it will-red,'"no law shall embra6e:more than one generail object, which shall-be expressed "in its:title.". The: HAIRMAN. The committee have already passed that section, and no amendment can be now entertainea to it, except'by unanimous consent. i',I there is no objection, -however, the aamendment will be received. ,No obje6tion being made, the amendment was entertained. Mr. ST,OUHTON. I desire to ex;plain briefly.my -purpose in offering -:that amendment. The word,objeCt," may have a general and also a'liited signification. Should we give -this' sec tion a strict c.onstruction as it now stands, there are many statutes now in force in this State whibh_ might be held to be unconstitutional. This section now reads: ",,No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be 'expressed in' its title." I will take a random one of the most important aets in our.general laws. It is entitled "a'n act to provide for assessin'g property at its true value, and for levying and col lectig axes. Now, by a strict con struction of,this:Constitutional provi sion, I think it very doubtful whether that law could be held.to be constitu tional. This question has been before our supreme' court, and has bee en con sidered by them. They uphold tlfie action of the Legislatnre,nily by pre suming that the framers of the Con stitution meant to iuse the word "object," in its most:general sense, and with its most general signification. That deeisioAn was: made in reference .to the police act of the city of Detroit. The court, after speci'ing the object for wvhich this provision was placed'in the Constitution, said: Mond4.yl, .12-2 123' DEB-ATES. A-i PR. j p "But this purpose is fully accomplished when the law has but one general object, which is fairly indicated b'y its:title. To require that every end and, means, necessary to the accomplishment of this' general object, should be'provided for by a separate act relating to that alone, would not only be senseless, but actually render legislation impos'sible.": Therefore, according. to this decision of the supreme court,; in order to make the Constitution express ciearly upon its facee what is meant, it would be.as well to make the amendment I hve submitted. The amnisdment oQf Mr. STOUGHTON was agreed to. The CHAIRM.- The Tquestion now reurs upon amendments to section twenty-seven. - Mr. CONGER~. Ivw thdr'ew my motion that the committee rise, merely to allow the consideration of other matters than those coninected with- section twenty-seven. Hr, BLACKMAN. I understood that the amendments offered here were ofered, not with regard to whether jhey would be regularly in order, but for the purpose of having them go on the journal, so that we may see them in print to-morrow moring. I offered my amendment with that view. As it was ruled out of order by.the Chair, I do not know whether it will be upon the journal or not. I rise merely to ascertain how that will be. The CHAIRMAN. The understanding of the Chair is, that all- these amendments will be printed in the journa l. Mr. BLACKMAN. That is all that I desire. Mr. CONGER. I now move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. 'The mtion.was agr-eed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the- PHESIDENT having resumed the ch fka..ir,..... - Mr. PRINGLE reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had ha4 under consideration the artiele entitled Legiaslative Department,:" had made some progress "therein, and had' i sticted him to ask leave to:sit agaln. L eave was accordingly grante:d. 'Mr. LAWREN:CE. I move that the Convention now adjourn.. The motioirwas agreed to; and ac- cordingly (at five minutes past 5 o'clock p. m.,) the Convention adjourned. FORTY-SEC,OND — DAY. TUESDAY, July 16, 1867. The Convention' met atnine o'clock a. m., and was called to:..oraer by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Re-. Mr. STEAU-B. The roll was call,ed and a quorumm.' ~wered to their names. LEAVE.OF, ABSENCE. Mr. T1U'R. -I. have received a elegraphic despatch which' rinders i't-' ecessary for me to go home:-th:s mr - ling. on important business. I: there'ore ask leave of absenc'e foi myself un ill next Friday morning.: Leave was accordingly granted. - ~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. NINDE resented the protest of Wm.: Cross and 53 other" citizens of 4 Ypsilanti, against licenste fo' the s- Ie of intoxicating liquors.. Also, the protest of D. B. Dodge and-,& 4 others, against'. license' for the s'ale o intoxicating liquors; which were referred to the: committee on intoxi-: cating liquors. Mr. HOWARD presented the petition of D. A. Huyck, E. B. Sparks, s Frederick Lousby and 22 others, legal voters of Vienna, Genesee county, fo r the retention of the principle of -section 47, article 4, of the present Constitution; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors'. M. McCONNE,LL:presented the petition of William War.e:, Natha C-. Tenney, J. B. Elsworth and l5. t, citizens of Athens, Calhoun couy. praying that section 47, artile: 4, of. the present Constiution,- be re ed in the naew one; which was refered'tothe; committee:on- intoxicating li-quors. MEtORIAL OF FRIENDS OF PROGRESS, ST. .......':S Y:........... JOSEPH COUNTY. Mr. FA RMER. I offe the following resolution: Resolved,, That a certain memo.rial prin6ted I: in the j0ournal of July" 15th, be omitted in printing the debates and proceedings." I offer this resolution, not from any a di'.respect-towards the in:mdividuals who signed it, or tow.ards the gentleman who presented it, (M. T. ER,) buty I i' 'find:that it'occupies — a large space:in our journal. It is" no more'norless: than a. petition, and I think. it should have taken the same course of all other petitions and have been referred to a Committee. We are not in the habit'; of:printing in our journals petitions on the matter towhich this one relates.- I do not see any propriety:in making thisl any exception to the general rule. I hope this resolution will'pass, andd that hereafter all similar memorials:will be" referred to committees without be'gi printed in the journals and in the de bates. I can myself see no propriety in printing in the journal a; petition, 'not from any large recognized body or association, but from a number ofindi viduals, like hundreds of other cases in which petitions have" been sent here Iancd referred.'''' - Mr, TYL1,ER.- -I suppose the gentle man from Berrien, (Mr. FARmR,) ha reference to. a memoril presente'.'y me on- yesterday.- Althou'g'h lh~re were but two names signe4 to that memorial, yet it purported to come rom a convention of a- number of pecpie, and was certifed to b the p'resiLent of that Convention and: by the ecretary'of the convention. I m not particular myself about'-hving any such 'aper presented by me pubii shed in he journ9l, unless it s a proper paper o be spread- upon-:our record. Out of courtesy to that co6vention, Iaskedthe privilege of having th' em6rial: rnted nm the journi, and that prnivieger was ganted to.me. I. it is now" leem.e to be improper, I have, no amiety to have any improper doc.unent placed upon the re'ods of ts Convention. I believe, h6wever,.h ihere was no wrong perpetrated Upon the Convention, or upon the people, by' such a course. I think it is a rigt -which shoul:d be accorded at $:Se wh,o purport to memoriaize thlS Conventi' in the petition referedito..- r D.A.IELLS,. s.As-i,s p'e,risin a-s already been puished i uo jourinal,n, it'i'se'eimts': toi meo'qth'at'we'e bete" t'er Iet:it go no:wi, anid loo o.ut" he-r'e"'amer in regard to what we oder prited- i:n the ejo'urna. I thXerefor move to l'ay the resolution onth ietabie The motion to lay on the':t'be w' not agreed "to. -- The q~uestton recre upon th, e;solution. Mr. STOUGHCTON. - In referenc''to the memorial presented'yesterdiby my coleague, (r. E,) I wold say, that on exsmirig"-it, I find a res olution attached containi:ng a requ.est that the memorial be pread'upon the journal of this Conventin. The or ganization, or association, or. connven-: -tion' which adopted this moal, Ibelieve- was a. ver,y respectablie ne, an':composed of many very e'xcelle'nt: people. I know personally, one gentl~ man who signed the memorial;- he is. man of high respectability, and an excel — ent citzen:. It seem's to me tha~..nl.es there is some.thing improper, in t,:the request -of these memoMalists'.should be granted. We -have im many. i'nta — ces spread upon the" journal of this .body, memorials of different organiza'tions. I see: no reason,'myself,- -why ;any exception should be.miade in thi's .case. We might perhaps not co-incde wi~th the pa~tular viet5, of thiose wh6; presented this memori~a But it is onee of the inherent rig'hts of' the pe'ople to present thei'r petit~in-s and meimori'als to bodies of this:kind,-and have theem treated alike in ial' cases with respect. Sinmce this:' petiion"has' a!ready b'een printed mi the jor] nal it'- ig.ht' be con strued into an undeserv.fep'dre.'oagc, if -,we now strike' it off. I; am' ifa'v'or.of lloWing it tO re main wher' it is. e e e. a J,.ul. 15. 1867. -Ii.1i. y - I - I 10 - CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. FARMER. I do not propose to strike it from the journal. I merely propose it shall be omitted from the debates. - -Mr. STOUGHTON. I think it should take the course of all other me morials of this kind; therefore I shall vote against the resolution. Mr. LARMB. I call for the yeas and nays upon the resolution. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I see no im propriety in adopting this resolution. This memorial will stand upon the journals of this Convention published with its proceedings. I see no neces sity for publishing it also in the jour nal of debates of this Convention. I think one publication, to go before the people for all time to come, will be suf ficient. I hope the resolution will be adopted. The question was then taken, and the resolution was agreed to; yeas 44, nays 36, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Brown, Brii, Burtenshaw, Cas,e; Chapin, Chapman, Cool idge, Corbin, Crocker, Divine, Duncan, El liott, Farmer, Germain Harris, Holt, Ingalls, Leach, Longyear, Luce, McConnell, McKer nan,:Miles, Miller,:Morton, Ninde, Pratt, Rafter, Richmond, Stockwell, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Van Riper, YVn Val kenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Withey, Woodhouse, Wright and Yeomans-44. NAYs —Messrs. Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Conger, Daniells, Estee, Giddings, Henderson, Hixson, Holmes, Howard, Kenney, Lamb, Lawrence, Lovell, McClelland, Mussey, Musgrave, Parsons Pringle, Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith,i W. A. Smith, Stoughton, Tyler, W. E. Warner, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Winsor, Williams and the President-36. Mr. MCCLELLAND not responding when his name was called, Mr. HIXSON moved that Mr. MCCLr,T.T,AND be excused from voting. Mr. McCLELLAND. I do not know anything about this memorial; I did not hear it read, and I have not read it myself. I do not know whether it should g6 upon the journal or not. In fact, we do so many foolish things here, tht I can see no particular ob. jection to this being printed in the proceedings ~alo. I shall therefore vote against the reslution. USE oF STATE Hovs GROUNDS. Mr. TURNER. Io following resolution: - t'" o Resolved, That the resolution heritqfore adopted granting to the messenger boyste use of the grounds in front of the Capitol, for the purpose of playing ball, &c., shall not be so construed as to interfere with the rights of the members and officers of the Convention to practice the like sports. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I move to add to the resolution the words "during the recess of the Convention." Mr. CONGER. I move to lay the resolution upon the table. Mr. TURNER. If the resolution is objected to, or likely to lead to debate, I will withdraw it. Mr. P. D. WARNER. Is it competent for the gentleman to withdraw his resolution after an amendment has been offered to it? The PRESIDENT. It is not competent for him to do so, without the consent of the mover of the amendment.', Mr. P. D. WARNER. I will not object. The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be considered as withdrawn. Mr. BARBER. Can the resolution be withdrawn pending the motion to lay it upon the table? The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that it is competent for the gentleman to withdraw it. The resolution was accordingly withdrawn. PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION TO BE SUBMITTED SEPARATELELY TO THE PEO PLE. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the question of electing or appointing the judges of courts of general jurisdiction, of prohibiting or granting licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors, of extending or withholding the right of suf frage in respect to women and negroes, and of annual or biennial sessions of the Legisla ture, shall be separately submitted to the peo ple; and to this end sections pro and con upon those subjects shall be settled by the Conven tion, and submitted as alternative, separately from the body of the Constitution. I have offered this resolution for the purpose of placing these questions in such a form as to enable members of the Convention, and the people generally, to exercise the widest range of choice in reference to these four or five propositions. There may be a disposition perhaps to submit only some of them separately; but it would be my desire to have them all, or the larger portion of them, submitted separately to the people, or to submit none of them. It is for the purpose of obtaining at this early day, the sense of the Convention upon this subject, that I have offered this resolution, in order that I may be able myself to decide how to vote on these questions. Mr. CONGER. I think perhaps it might be prudent for the Convention to wait untif we see which of these propositions are adopted, or in what form they are adopted, before we deie upon such a resolution as this. I shall%e very willing to take up this matter When the proper time comes, but I ani not willing to consider it at the present time. Therefore, in —order to have time to consider so important a proposition, I move that the resolution be laid upon the table for the present. The motion to lay the resolution upon the table was agreed to. RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE CONVENTION. Mr. BURTCH. I offer the following preamble and resolution: Whereas, The people of this State have called this Convention together for the purpose of reconstructing the fundamental law of the State; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this Convention will be more likely to preserve its dignity, maintain order, promote the honor and dignity of its members, secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the citizens of this commonwealth, by a just recognition of the sacred rights ot man, especially upon the floor of this House, which will be done by having a Just regard for that sacred aim of doing unto others as you would they should do unto you. Mr. GIDDINGS. I move to lay the preamble and resolution upon the table. Mr. HENDERSON. I move that they be indefinitely postponed. The PRESIDENT. The first question will be upon the motion to lay upon the table. Mr. BURTCH. Mr. President The PRESIDENT. The motion to to lay upon the table is not debatable. The preamble and — resolution were laid upon the table. STATE OFFICERS. The PRESIDENT. On the twenty eighth of June the Convention postponed the article entitled "State Officers," to this day, and made it the special order for to-day. The pending question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) to strike outsections one, four and five, of the article, and to insert in lieu of section one a substitute which he offered. The sections proposed to be stricken out are as follows: SECTION 1. There shall be elected a Secretary of State, a State Treasurer, a Commissioner of the State Land Office, a Superintendent of Public Instruction, an Auditor General and an Attorney General, tor the term of two years, each of whom shall keep his office at the seat of government, and shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by law. Sec. 4. The Secretary of State, State Treasurer and Commissioner of the State Land Office, shall constitute a board of State Auditors, to examine and adjust claims against the State, within such limits as shall be prescribed by law. They shall also constitute a board of State Canvassers, to determine the result of all elections for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, all State officers, and such other officers as shall by law be referred to them. Sec. 5 In case two or more persons have an equal and the highest number of votes tor any office, as canvassed by the board of State Canvassers, the Legislature, in joint convention, shall choose one ot said persons to fill such office. Whenever the determination of the board of State Canvassers is contested, the Legislature, in joint convention, shall decide which person is elected. The substitute for the first section is as follows: SECTION 1. There shall be elected in this State a Governor and Lieutenant Governor, and such other officers as the Legislature may determine, with such powers and duties as may be prescribed by law. 124 .T'uesday, Jul 16 187 EA]w ~ R)E]I~ 2 Mr. PRINGLE. I move to amend the' substitute by inserting the word "State treasurer," after the words "Lieutenant Governor," so that it will read, There shall be elected in this State a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State Treas urer, and such other officers as the Legislature may determine, with such powers and duties as may be prescribed by law." Mr. CONGER. I do not propose to occupy the time of the Convention by any debate upon this proposition. For myself, I am satisfied upon reflection, that this amendment is very unwise, and will be very fruitful of - difficulty. I am in favor of leaving section one of this article as it was reported by the committee. I desire to call the attention of the Convention to the fact that this proposition, as submitted by the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) would leave the question of salaries, undetermined. Any change in the law relating to these officers, even a change of name, would require a change running through the whole body of our laws, whenever there is any reference to the duties to be performed by these officers by name. It seems to me that a more indiscreet proposition could not be made in this Convention, and for no good purpose whatever. It will introduce inexplicable confusion and mischief. I do not wish to debate this subject any more than to simply express these views, and to call the attention of members to one or two injurious changes which this proposition would introduce. Mr. WALKERi. Tn addition to the remarks made by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGEaR,) that if this proposition should be adopted, the question of salaries could not be determined by this Convention, but would be left to the LegislatuLre, or' some other authority, I would remark further, that the matter of appointing or electing these officers would be left entirely to the Legislature. With this provision the Legislature might provide for the appointment of these officers, and not for their election by the people, which I suppose would not be in accordance with the genius of our instittttions or the wishes of the people of the State. Mr. BLACKMEN. I desire to say that I fully agree in the remarks'which have been made by the gentlemen who have preceded me upon this question. I rise for the purpose of asking if we can have a division of this question, and have the vote'taken upon striking out?. The PRESIDENT. That would be in order after the question is taken upon the amendment to the amenament. *i. PRINGLE. For the purpose of giving an opportunity to have the vote taken upon striking out, as desired by the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) I will withdraw my amend ment to the amendment. Mr. SUT H IERLAND. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. CONGER. I would inquire what will be the first question to be taken? The PRESIDENT. A division of the question has been demanded, and the first question will be upon striking out. Mr. BLACKMAN. I would also ask that a separate vote be taken upon striking out each section proposed to be stricken out. The PRESIDENT. The first question will then be upon striking out section one of this article. Mr. MUSSEY. Before the roll is called I desire to say one word in ex planation of myvote. I voted on a former occasion for this amendment; I do not'propose to vote for it now. I stated upon a former occasion, that, in my view, there should be in the fundamental law of the State a provision defining the policy of the government, and in doing so that there should be a designation of the State officers. Notwithstanding I have opposed everything of a legislative character, or did so until I saw the policy of the Convention was otherwise, still I think if this amendment should prevail, it would leave the matter so that the Legislature might provide for their appointment in some other way. I do not think it would look very well to strike out all State officers, and leave the Legislature to provide for their election, or appointment, as they might see fit; and at the same time provide in this Constitution for the election "of overseers of the highways, school inspectors and other officers, when it is very. doubtful whether we may need them, or whether we should make them constitutional officers. In order to maintain some appearance of consistency in the Constitution, I, think if we are t~dretain town officers we should retain the State officers. Therefore, I shall vote against the amendment, and in favor of at least the first section of this article. Mr. STOUGHTON. I do not intend to take up the time of the Convention with any extended remarks. The history of this proposition is probably still fresh in the recollections of all the members of this Convention. After going through this article in committee of the whole, and perfecting it, a motion was made in Convention to strike out three sections of the article. The only reason assigned for it then was that we were getting too much legisla tion in the Constitution. I greatly fear that the reform, if it were to commence here, would be in the wrong place. One great object of a Constitution is to have stability in our State government. If the appointment of State officers is left wholly to the Legislature, it seems to me it will destroy this great and very desirable consideration. Instead of having a stable government, we would have one which might be upset every time the'Legislature should be in'session; we would have nothing firmly established. Every time the Legislature met they might not only change any State office, but they might abolish it, and thereby thwart and defeat — the clear intention of the people. It seems to me that the wish of a great majority of the people is that all State offices should be provided for in the Constitution, so that the Legislature will not be continually importuned to change the State officers and create new ones. If this amendment should be adopted there would be no limit to the number of State officers which might be created by the Legislature. A number might be,created, of which we have no conception at this time; created for this purpose, and that purpose, until the organization of the State government would be entirely changed. It seems to me that this proposition is too radical'and dangerous. I think we ought to retain this article just as it stood in the Constitution of 1850, and as it was in the prior Constitution. No inconvenience has been felt in consequence of that article being in our Constitution; but I greatly fear that if this change is made we shall experience great inconvenience. ..Mr. HENDERSON. It will be recollected that the original motion to reconsider was offered by myself, as a substiute for the motion of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) to make this subject a special order. The motion to reconsider was not then entertained, as it was ruled out of order. During a temporary absence from my seat, the gentleman from'Kalamazoo withdrew his motion and renewed mine. I gave, at that time, in part, my reason for desiring to make such a motion. I will not now, however, take up the tine of the Convention to give my reasons in full. Although it may reflect unfavorably upon me, I willfrankly confess that I voted for the substitute, although I felt at the time that I did not agree with this provision. But thinking that we were drifting to one extreme, and that by the adoption of this substitute we would be brought to a stand-still, and would be led to review our action, I voted for it I 0 DEBATAS AND'PROCEEDINGS. 125 July - 16 1867. I i2a c()~~ON-ATu eX. then opposed putting off this question; and thought we were as well prepared to vote then as we ever would be. Had I anticipated a lengthy debate at this time, I would have given the subjet some attention. I hope, however, that we are now disposed to vot: upon it, dispose of it, and go on with the consideration of.other subjects. Mir. GIDDINGS. I moved to matke this subject the specil order for today, iiot with a view to brin ing on any discussion, because: I did not sUppose there would be any of consequence. I supposed that the time allowed us to reflect upon thiis matter would probably save the necessity of any discussion. I rise now more for the purpose of Sking the Chair what was the motion upon which the yeas and nays were or dered. I have understood it was upon the proposition to strike out the first section of this — article. The PRESIDE'NT. The' Chair un derstood the ordering of the yeas and nays to apply to the first division of the question, which -would be to strike out the first section of this article. Mr. PRATT. I would like to make an inquiry. I was not here when this discussion took place. I desire to in quire whether this section was amend ed at al1 by the committee? IMr. WILLARD. My impression is that the words," at eachi general bi ennial election," were stricken out. -Mtr. GIDDINGS. I think that was the fact; I think -they were strcken out on my motion. The PRESIDENT. OThe Chair is of the i'nmpression that there were several amendments made to this article; but they do not now appear upon the copy which the Chair has before him. The slips of paper containing the amend ments seem to have been taken off after the substitute for the three sections were adopted by the committee., - Mr. PRATT. I would inquire in re gard to the effeet of the motion now pending; whether ifwe refuse to strike out this first section, we would thereby be prevented from offering an:amend ment to-it? - - ThePRESIDENT. The Chair'would not consider this-the same as a simple motion to1:strike.out; it- i'sa motion to strike out and insert. -Af.ter the vote has been taken upon this question, in the opinion of the Cha'n; it will be within the province of the Convention to still amend this section. Mr. CASE. If I remember right, I think there was an amendment made to:this first section. I think there were inserted these words: "and: such other State officers as the Legislature sha direct.". Mr. CONGER. I:think the record will show that te proposition now pending, was offered by the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. TJAMB,) and- adopte by the -Convention. Sbsequently,; a 'motion was: ma e side t:recnterthat action, which prevailed; so that theoriginal question.is: now before the Convention. Before the - gentleman from Lapeer submitted his motion, Ithink the words, -a each generial bienni-el election," were: striciken out. Perhaps there had been some- other amendment adopted. - The PRtESIDENT. The question now is upon th6e proposition of' the: gentleman from Lapeer to strike out and insert. A division of the question has been called for, and the vote will be first taken upon striling outo section; one of this article. It is the: opinion of the Chair that a motion to strike out and insert, whether divided or not, is not the same. as a motion to strike out. The effect of asimple motion to strike out, if coaed, would be to'leave the ori -al text, subject to' noalteration or: amendment. But the Chair -is of the opinion that the same effect: does not follow a motion to strike out and insert, even though that be d'e;eated and the question be first taken U'po~n striking out. If this motion does inot-now prevail, the section -will then be before the Convention, as amende'd previous to the adoption of this sUb stitute. As the Chair understands, certain amendments made in commit [tee of- the whole were concurred in by tihe Conventiont. The Chair has not tliose amendments before him. fThey' will, however, be prepared by th Secretary, and at the- proper time -read to' the Convention. The vote first to be taken is upon stiking out the firsti~ section of: ths article; and upon that question the yeas and nays have been ordered. The section, as amended, is as follows: "There shall be elected a: Secretary.of State, a State Treasurer, a Commissioner of the State Land Office, a Superintendent of Public Instruction,: an Auditor General,' and an Attorney General; for the term of two. years, each of whom a1ll keep his omce at the seat of governmentt, and perfoir suc h duties as may be prescribed' by law." The question was then taen upon striking out section one, and it- was not agreed to; yeas 17, nays 62, as:0l.ows:... .YEAs-Messrs. Alexander, Burtch, Chapin, Elliott, Farmer, Eerris, Hixson, Huston, Lamb, Lawrence, McClelland,'cK,ernan, -Miller, Richmond, W. A. Smith, Sutheriand and W. E. Warner-17. -.NAYS-Me,ssrs:. Aldrich, Andrus, Barber, Bils, Blackman, Bradley, Brown,- -Burtenshaw, Case, Chapman, Coolidge, Coinger, Crocker, Daniells, Divine, Duncan, Estee, ermain, Giddings, Harris, Henderson, Hollmes, -Hot,'Howard, Ingalls, Keniey; :Leach,:: Lonvear,:Lovell, Luce,' McConnell, .:il.e.uy,e' Mu..ura.ve,:lindeo,.rao,ro Pratt, Pringle, R...er, Root Shawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, T. C.'Smith',-:Stockwieli, "oughton, Thompson,- Ty.ler, a,n Ripe.r,: Vany Valkenbugh, Walker, P. D. Warner',M. C.' Watkins, F.' C.,Watkins,. White Willard, Winso-r, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, Yeomans and ,th president-62. Mr. LOVTELL, when his name was called, said: I dsie to state that'I .voedt the other day fr- the'substitute. ME4r. FARMER-. I- all- the gentleman to order. I believe I was ruiled out of order a' few days ago, when I uingdertook to explain my:vote. The" PRESIDENT.- If the Chair rermembers corre'ctly, the r'uling was that it wa-snot i order for a mbnmber :to explain his vote upon a question Which was not of itself debaatble. Ti:his: question being a:- debatable'one, im the opinion f the OChar, it: is diffrent:from thi e question to: which the gentleman: from Berrien, (Mr. FDaM,c) pre'fers. Therefore, under the practice which has prevailed here, the gentlc:manfrom Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) will -be allowed to make hisi explanation. M: M LOV:ELL. I voted in favor of the' Substitute —the other- d- not be,eause I was endtiely satisfied with it but because I su pposed it might afterwards b'e amended so as to. embrace subotantially the first section of' this :article. I washy favor of the first sec tion.as it strand:s and therefore I vote now againtstri ing it out. The PRESIDENT. The next ques tion is upon st'rikig out section four of this article. The section was: as follows.: " The Secretary of State, State Treasurer, and Commissioner of the State Land Office -shall constitute a board of State Auditors, to examine and adjust claims. against theState, within such limits as shall' be DpresCribed bby law. -They shall:also constitute a- board of State canvassers, to determine the result of -all elections for Governor, Lieutenant Gover nor, all 9tate officer's,, and such other officers as shall by law be referred to them." The question was taken upon sti king out the section, andt was not agreed to..: The PR:;ESIDENT. The question nowWis upon:striking out section five of :this article. The section was as follows: 'In case two or more,persohs have an equal and the highest number of votes for any office, as canvassed by theboard of State canvasse'rs, the Legislature in joint onven tion, shall choose one of said persons to fill such office; whenever the' determiination o'f the board of State canvassers is conteteted;, the Legislature, in joint Convention, shall decide whichiperson is elected." Mr. LTUCE. Ivoted for the amendment of the gentleman from Lapeer, (M>r. LM,) thie other day, partly with the intention of Agetting rid of this sectioni. It seems to me that there is no use in keepings this section here, and that it may work injuriously if, it is retained. I.hope, therefore,-thgt. the section will-:be strilcken out. I think othose gentlemen who are opp.osed to legislating in the Constitution, .- -. -... I I -. I.1 ; Z-. I 1; n.-' I...........-' -'''" -' -,' "- "'''' - "'' "" -, -" -,-, -' .. I I....,. I -' - =......-i:.,....... - I.....:1 11 . I - I -.., ..- .. 11... I.- -, - -" -. ... - i-. "' I .'Ci' JL IQ6' Tiie-sd - i . a-yi : 3l 16, -.:E A~-, -R O QEi(i+S. -should vote for stri.ki-ng out thi.section. One objection I have to it is, in the case of a tie vote, there would be no way to provide for a new eection, except by calling the Legislature:to-' gether. I think some law can be passed to" provde for such.a case, better ihan i can be provided for bylkeepg this section. I hope, therefore, that the section will be stricken out. -. The question was.taken upon stri-i king out the section, and it was agreedi to.:'.The PRESIDENT. The Conventioni having refused to strike out the sfirt section of this article, that portion of the motion of the gentleman om Lapeer, (-r. LAMB,) which embraced a substitute for the first section necessarily falls. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I desire to state for the information of the Con vention that it will appear by reference to the journal, that seetion one of this article was amended upon the motion of the gentleman fro n Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) by Strik in'g.'ut the words "at each general biennial election." Section,four of this am,:e tqp n:m ro~: article was amended, upon motion of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr LOTHRoP, ). not now in his seat,, by: strik ming out the word "all,' before the ..word claims," and also -the words -"not otherwise provided by general lsw;" and inserting m lieu of.those wor'ds " within such']irmits as shall be prescribed by law." These, I think, :were- the ouly amendments made to the article by the Co nvention. Section ~four as it now stands would read:. "'The:Secretary of sattateate Trebasurer, and Commissioner of the State Land Office, sball'constitute a boar'd of State-'auditors, to exa'mine and djust tclaim ti:ganst the Satae, within:sichhlimits ashshall:be tprescribed by :law. They-shall:also constitute aboard of - State can(va)ssef to,dietermine the ressult of ali eiections for Goernor, Lieutenant Go.v ernor, all State officers, and such other:oi cers as shall by law be refered to them." Mr. MUSSEY. -I would inquire if there was:not a still further amend ~ ment to section four? If I am not mistaken, there was a proposition to make the Lieutenant Governor:amem:ber of the State board of ca nvss er. Mr. — HENDERSON. That se'nd ment did not prevail, Mr. MUSSEY. I only wish-to know how it. does stand; that is the A pul :thing with me.: The'PRESlBENT.:The' artiee -is :now, opento am,endment. -''' iNo am iendments were offered. 'The article, as. apiended, was,then .Queered to a.third aread.g, and re ferre-d to the.ommittee on. anange.ment and.iphr.aseology, for:cor-re[tion and'engrossment. --: - LEGISLATIVE,ILTmoeT.: Mr. MUJSS:EY.:I move that the Convention now resolve itself into:, committee of the whole on -the general order. The motion was' agreed to. T-he Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the-whole, (Mr. PE.INGLE in thechair,) and: resumeid the C ~~~rtQn of the aricle entitled .'Legislative Department.?'"..... MUNICIPAL AID TO R-AILROADS. The CHAIRM.AN. When the committee rose yesterday, it had under consideration section' twenty-seven -.of this article, which had been amended' to read as follows The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit for the purpos of aiding in the construction - of any ra-ilroad to an. extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall ox, ceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such city or township.. No county shall be authorized to pledge its credit for any such purpose." The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. M.' C. WATKINS,) moved to amend this sec tion by striaking out the word "ten," and -iserting the word five;" pend-ing which, the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HUSTON,) moved to amend: the amendmentby striking out: theword ":five,"-.and insertig the word "twenty," iso that the section would :read:,;"twenty per:ent. of the assess ed valuation of'such city, or town ship," etc. The gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIE,) a:Hlso moved, as a sub ~stitu.te for the entire section as -amended, the following: a " The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit or levy a tax, for the purpose of aiding in the construc tionU of any railroad, to an extent whereby the outstfanding indebtedness, exclusive-of inter est, on account o'f aid to any one railroad shall exceed five per cent. of the assessed -. valuation of. such city or township, and not to exceed ten per cent., for any two or more railroads. Thequestion of such aid must be subnmitted to' a tote of the fpeople, and no personhal be entitled to vote — at any sub mission of such question, unless he shall be 'bid bwner of property liable to taxation. No county shall be authorized to vote, such:tax :or aid." The gentleman from St. Joseph, ~(M.r. STOUGHTON,) moved as an amend ment to the substitute;t he following: ''T'he Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to raise money by taxation, or to pledge their credit for the purpose -of 'aidi.ng in the construction of any railroad, - to anoextent whereby the tax raised or to'be Vr'aised, or the indebtedness incurred, exclu.siveaof interest, on account of aid to any and ~.ai railroads, shall exceel in any five years, ~orat any one:time, ten per cent. of the as sessed valuation.of the taxable property of such city or township; nor shall the Legis latureiauthorize'any county to raise money, o-r to: pledge its Credit to' aid iu the construc - tion of any.railioad.", - The first question w'ill be upon the -amendment of t.he'gentleman from :Tuscola, (M.r.'HsTos;,)to the amend-. :iment of Athe -gentleman from Kent, (M., M. C. Wa.:f i st ) Mir. iCONGER. I call for a division, and ak that the vote be first taken upon striking out. The CEHAIRMAN.:The first ques tion will -then be upon striking out the word i"five," in the amendment of the gentleman -from Kent, (Mr. M. C. SWATHmS.) -M. CONGER. That is not the point I intended to reach. I supposed ,that I would obtain a separate vote upon striking out the word "ten," in the origin al section. The CHAIRMAN. The first question before the committee is upon the amendment to the amendment. M-r. CONGER. I then withdraw my eall for a division. The CHAIRMAN. T he question will then be upon the motion to strike out "five," and -insert "twenty," in the amendment -of the gentleman from Kent. Hr. HUSTON. I do not propose to.take up much of the time of the committee of the whole upon- -this question.' If I could:have- my way upon.this..subject, which, however, I -do not expect, I would have no restriction whatever upon the Legisla ture in this respect. In making this motion to substitute ,,twenty," in lieu of "five," I thought perhaps that would be as much as any township or city would want' to vote at any one'time. Still, it seems to me that there- can be no good reason for saying that:the people of a township shall:not have the rightto vote for the purpose mentioned in this section, any sum of money that they may deem proper. I doubt the propriety of -this Convention saying to the people of the :State, that they shall -appropriate only so much of their money for any par ticular purpose, especially when it is a l audable purpose, such as the building of railroads. Inlkow that there is a disposition on the part of many members of this Convention to restrain the Legislature from granting any more authority to townships and villages, and if they cannot succeed in prohibiting the Leg islature entirely, then they desire- to make the amount of aid aslow as possi ble. They put their objection on the ground thya the majority have no right to take the property of the individual jr minrtSy, against their ill. I do not believe that that is sound doctrine; I believe it is contrary to the principles of our government.: I believe that upon this question of:taxation, like everything;else, ithe minority have no rights that the majority are bound to respect, any futher than to give them the same privileges that they.claim for -themselves. En other w:rds,-I believe that if the majority concede to the ....... -1.... —.- I...".,.-..,- -.. - ..,.111. , I.., I -. - .,.- - -, I.,.".. -. :z ,!:: -. ., I I - I I --- -.-.. I I . I - I - I.., I - I. I.1 - I -; i I I I. I... I.1. - - I, -y -— I,6 1867. 1.2-7. e2 OOSIUI~L OV~I~Tedy minority the same rights and privileges and benefits under the government that they claim for themselves, that is all to which they are entitled.- They have no right to set up a claim that because they were in the minority they shall not be taxed even for building railroads. I believe that such a doctrine is not sound th'r,. as -.pv cal heresy. ibelieve that the true doctrine is that in republican governments the minority must always bow to the will of the majority. I believe the same doctrine applies in this case that applies in all other cases. Another reason urged is this-that all this aid -can be given in the form of subscription. Now, suppose that- a railroad was projected to run through the township or the city of Lansing; a great majority of-the people believe that railroad would be a benefit to them, and that by voting twenty per cent. upon the taxable property of this city they could secure the completion of that road. Now, there might be a person in this city worth a hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand dollars, and he might say: "I do not propose that you shall take my property for the purpose of building this road against my consent; you must not do it by taxation, because I have rights in reference to this matter; you cannot take my property without just compensation." Now, suppose you come to that same man, and ask him what he will subscribe towards the building of this railroad, and he declines to give anything. The result of the doctrine which is advocated here, would be, that-the public spirited citizens of the different localities, who are willing to aid in the building of these roads, must bear the entire burden upon themselves, although in many cases, those who refuse to subscribe anything possess the most property, and would reap the most benefit from the building of the road, even to the doubling of the value of their' property. Yet they hold back, and when approached on the subject will say: "What I have is mine, and I do not propose to give — it for this purpose." Now, it seems to-me that in that way, these persons can, by this very meanness, if I may use that term, preserve all their property, and at the same time reap all the benefits to be derived from the improvements carried on by the means of others. - Now, I am in favor of making these men bear their share of the burdens il all such cases. Gentlemen say that the same argument might be applied to building a grist-mill, or a saw-mill, for they are public benefits. Now, I regard them quite differently. The corporations engaged in building railroads are in one sense, of a public nature; -they -are different from those building mills, etc. However,-I do not propose to talk much longer on this proposition. I do not know that any gentlemen upon this floor will agree with me. I am in favor of allowing the townships to ap.proprio,tA.-Wlh.toorpropol~ iti.-of, thleir property they may see fit, for the pur-pose of building railroads. I believe if the citizens of any township see fit to give twenty or-twenty-five per cent. of their propbrty for the purpose of building a railroad, which might be projected to run through that town ship, that is a matter of their own, and it does not concern anybody else. It has no reference to anything outside of their immediate township; it is a domestic concern of their own, and they ought to have the right to control it as they please. I doubt the propriety of this Conven tion undertaking to limit the rights of the sovereign people in reference to those matters. We say that the peo ple are sovereign. Now, if there has been any one subject talked of more than any other subject since this Con vention met, it is the subject of the rights of the people. Every gentleman who has spoken on this floor has time and time again reiterated his great confidence in the people, and claimed that their rights should not be taken fiom them. Now, I claim of those gentlemen that they shall leave this matter entirely with the people. I think if we are to have such great confidence in-the people, in reference to other matters, we should also have equal confidence in them in reference to their money matters. I do not believe they are going to squander their money or vote it away for purposes that will not be for their benefit. The gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RiPER.,) in making his argument upon this question the other day, claimed, as one of the vital objections to this proposition, that:the voters in the townships who paid no taxes would vote to compel the property holders to appropriate their money against their will for this purpose. I do not believe that practically any such results would follow from this provision. All of these projects for building railroads, and for public improvements of this kind, are set on foot by men of wealth. They are the men who move in this matter; not the-laborers, miners, and other people of that class to whom the gentleinen referred. They are not the men who' propose to build railroads, or who move in these matters. If this proposition is adopted, you need never anticipate any danger that the poorer class of the people, who pay no taxes, will vote to compel the people of the townships who own property to pay taxes for any of these improvements. I do not think there is any danger in that direction. Now, suppose that we put the limi tation at five per cent., as is proposed bv -t'hA'ro. nm,- ~',aS.E(' C. WATmINS.) It is well known that the assessed valuation of property throughout the State is not over onethird of the cash value-of the property on -the average. And it is also true that in making those assessments not more than one-half of the property of the State is assessed. Therefore, you get but a very small proportion of the property returned for taxable purposes. And, with the limitation of five per cent., it is safe to say that-the amount that could be voted in such a case would not be over one per cent. upon the real taxable property of the township. Every one, who has had any experience in the matter of, assessments and taxes, knows this to be true. When you take -into consideration the low rate of assessment, and the large amount of property which is not assessed at all, the proposition of the gentleman from Kent will not give actually more than one or one and one-half per cent. If you make the limitation ten per cent., you would notget more than three per cent. of the actual valuation at most; and if you make the limit twenty per cent., as I propose to make it, you will not then get over six or seven per cent. at the most, of the actual property of the township,where it is proposed to levy this tax; and any gentleman who has had any experience in reference to assessments, who has made any effort to post himself on this question, will agree with me in this statement. I say, therefore, that if you make this limitation twenty per cent., you will not get more than six per cent. of the real valuation. We should recollect that these assessments are always made low, and that a large amount of property is not assessed at all... — If it is proper to incorporate in this Constitution any provision giving the Legislature the right to authorize townships to vote taxes for this purpose, we should put in a provision that will be worth something, not one which will never amount to anything; one which will never produce' any practical results, from the fact that the amount of money raised under it would not be sufficient to accomplish any good. I trust my amendment will be adopted. I offer it because-I believe it is right. As I said in the first place, if I could have my way in this matter, if I could have incorporated here what I think the people have a right to claim of this Convention, I 0 t e e a s e e CONSTI'TUTION AT., CONVENTION. 128 Tuesday,. -, 1. _ would have no provision at all in ref'erence to this matter; I would not put in any restriction whatever, but leave the people of the different townships to vote whatever in their judgment they might see fit. Mr. CONGER. I desire to say a word or two upon this portion of the proposition. I do not intend to speak now at length upon the principal question involved, but I desire to say that, for one, I am unwilling to leave out of the Constit-ition any section upon this subject. It is the desire of those who are most zealous to have a large amount of money raised in townships for railroad purposes not to have any restriction whatever upon the people of townships or cities to raise whatever they please. I do not agree with them in that. Neither do I agree with those who would make the limitation so low that the provision would be of no practical value for the purposes intended. There is a medium in this matter, if we can reach it, which will bring safety to the people, and also enable all these public improvements to be made which many portions of the State so much desire. Now, to have no section at all in this Constitution on this subject would be to leave the question an open one for the Legislature to provide for any amount to be raised in any township in the State. To put in an absolute restriction preventing the townships and cities from granting any aid at all, would, in my opinion, ultimately defeat this Constitution. It seems to me that: wisdom would prescribe that this committee should adopt some middle ground, restricting townships and cities from involving themselves in what might be a dangerous expenditure' on the one hand, and at the same time allowing reasonable aid to be given for such public improvements as they might desire. Having attended the Legislature during several of its sessions when this subject was under discussion, I came to the conclusion that some restriction in the Constitution would be desirable. I came to the conclusion that a limitation to ten per cent. would be a medium rate, which might with perfect safety be adopted for the benefit of those municipal corporations who might desire to lend their aid to these improvements; and that a less amount than that might not be a desirable restriction upon those towns and cities that wished to encourage particular public improvements which would be beneficial.to themselves. I, therefore, desire to say, that I do not agree with those who would leave out of the Constitution, any section upon this subject because I am in favor of a safe, -ol 2 —No. 17. well guarded restriction. I do not agree with those who would make the amount larger than is provided for in this section, that is ten per cent., because although I do not think it would.be dangerous, still I think the better policy for all concerned would be to put in a medium amount to be raised by these municipal corporations. Then, after having paid one amount of ten per cent., knowing-as the tax came round, exactly what they had to pay, if they desired to renew it, I would require them still to keep within this limnit of ten per cent. I am also of the opinion, from my knowledge of such matters, that in our new townships, where the valuation of property is small, five per cent. would not be sufficient to make it any desirable object, although in the rich and populous townships in the older portions of the State, that might perhaps be sufficient. This provision is not necessary for the old, populous and rich districts of the State. In those districts there is an accumulation of wealth and capital which will enable the people to aid these improvements much more than can be done in the northern and poorer portions of this State. I, therefore, submit to gentlemen of this committee that if we desire a provision which shall be fairly restrictive, and just to all, and yet one which will benefit all parts of the State, the amount originally prescribed by this section is as fair and safe as any amount that can be fixed. It will be well for the committee to remember, as has been suggested by the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HusToN,) that the valuation of property in this State is supposed to be not more than about one-quarter of its real cash value. As the State board of equalization will not meet again for the next five years, there will not be, during that time, any large increase in the valuation. During that time most of the townships proposing to aid railroads will have done so. They will have already commenced to pay taxes, which will in many cases not only pay the interest upon the credit which they pledge, but also reduce the principal. They will know at tha%:time whatever burdens they have assumed, and they will feel whatever weight is imposed upon them. Then this limitation will be a reasonable restriction upon any increased amount of aid that they may choqse to vote for this purpose. I submit to gentlemen of the committee that this proposition is a reasonable one, considering all the interests of the State. It is a reasonable one for the purposes intended; it restricts within reasonable and proper limits any city or township from incur ring indebtedness, or obligations which would be dangerous, or hazardous to its interests. I will take occasion here to say that'a very large portion of my constituents would prefer that there should be no restriction upon this subject in the Constitution; they would prefer that it should be left to the Legislature to grant to the people of a township such powers to raise money as they might desire in any particular case. Now, while I admit that that might be the feeling of a majority of those I represent, at least in the northern part of my county, I also say that I do not agree with them in the propriety of leaving the matter to the Legislature to authorize townships and cities to incur such an amount of indebtedness as they might see fit. Acting here, as I do, for the purpose of promoting the interests of the entire State, it is not proper that I should bring my own private wishes or views forward here, and endeavor to embody them in this Constitution for any local purpose of my own, even if I had the power. It seems to me that, acting 'for the whole State, we should lay aside all local partialities and preferences of our people and ourselves, and look to what will in the end be proper for the best interests of the State, and restrain those who might desire to go beyond us from incurring obligations that might be injurious to them hereafter. I submit, then to the gentleman of this committee, or at least to those who are in favor of allowing towns and cities to render aid to such improvements, that we should adopt a fair and safe rule, not place the limit too high, so as to endanger the welfare of cities and townships by throwing upon them too great a burden, and not place it so low as to render the provision useless for the purposes intended. I also wish to say here, in order-that I may not have occasion to refer to it again, that I see no propriety in the proposition to allow five per cent. to be voted to one railroad, and five per cent. to two or more other railroads, is proposed by the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIPER.) I see no reason why, in many portions of this State, if the people are willing to support the only road they desire to have, they should not be allowed to raise the whole amount for that road, instead of being restricted to one-half the amount. If the principle is right at all, it is right that each municipality should lend its aid to that road which will most pro — mote its interests, or to two, or'to help a dozen roads, which might be beneficial to them. There will, however, be but few, if any, cases where there would be two roads running parallel July 16) 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 129 130 CO':ST"ITUT':IO~3~ CO~V''E'~TI tou ach other -thiough the-town. There would be only one road'in a town, except perhaps in cases where two roads inter.sect or connect With each other If the: limnitation of five per cent. is adopted,- it would: in fact amount to only one ancld one-half per cent. of the real: valuation of the property of any loe'liity. s b I do not wish to dwell upon this subject, or to make remarks that will tire the committee. I'had desired to make a f/ ew remarks upon this question, because' I did not -wish to speak again up6n this particular branch of the subjeet. I desire to askbthose who are in favor'of allowing'any aid to be granted: by municipalities to railroads, to ""adopt that-" medium course which sha':'protect municipalities from dyanger, and: at'' the': same time permit them: to render efficient' aid. I would as'g'e'ntlemen on the'one hand not to str'ik'e'0out:this"'section,'and leave the Legslatre' -to do as they'choose,, under whatever influences' might be brought to' bear upon them; and on the other hand not: to' put'in'an absolute restriction::of' any such aid, because in my opinion'that: would be very injurious tothe- peeopleo of' the',:State, and in'my humble- j:udgment woUld endanger the adoption,:of-this Constitution. IMr. LONGYEAiR. The amendment' now under consiiderationproceeds upon the assumption, that some provision of this' kind, authorizing'the Legislature to:: make provision for townships and cities, to'' grant aid:to railroads, should' be imsert:ed'm:i-"the Constitution. I shall niiot, therefore, upon'the consideration of'this'amenddment,' m'ake' any remarks 'in'regard'to the question,- whether the're ought'be'such:a provision in the: Constitution. This provision- relates simply to the amount of aidto which cities and townships'shallbe restricted; and'I- shall,-: therefore, confine what few'remarks: I have to make to0"that question alone. I am not'in favor: of granting the LIegisiature-:-, unrestricted authority upon this':sUbject. I believe it should be restricted:to some fairi, and just amount.' I think this::restriction:is: due to minorities in those:' cities and' townships where this'aid: may be'de sired. There -is some -force' in the' objection which.has been: ma'de by ge'ntlemen of this committee here, and': by persons outside of it;:- that: this: authority to grant aid;; to railroads places the minority in the power of:the majority in cities and townships.' I say" there is force in that objection, if the';-authority is to be unrestricted. There is' no fore-, in it -as a principle, and'it only gains force when we'leave the power -unrestricted, when we leave the minority in the power of the ma jorityyto levy a burdensome tax upon - them. Therefore,'I say that, in justice s to minorities,''the amount should be restricted'within'proper and reasona ble bounds.' ); For one,'I am perfectly' content-with t the amount reported by the committee r that is, ten per cent. I think, however, that is the lowest possible point at which the aid would really: amount to - anything substantial. If any change is to be made in the report'of the com miftee upon this'subject, I am' in favor 'of -raising the amount. For that rea son, therefore, I -shall vote in favor of striking out " five," and inserting " twenty,": in the amendment -of ".the , gentleman from- ent, (Ir. M. C. WAT Hnes,) and then, whether -the amendment to the amendment shall be adopt-' ; ed or. not, I shall vote against the amendment and in'm favor of the section as it now stands. I believe that: ten per. cent. is as low'as any minority could ask, or as low': as any person in any city or township could ask to have their property taxed in aid of railroads. Ass has:been well remarked, the amount which will be fixed here, whether' it be ten per cent. or twenty per cent., or whatever it may be, will not be that amount of the real: valuation of the property.: Neither willitbe th'e' amount or the per cent.- upon the.'value of the .property -as it will be, when the money ~ has been' judiciouSly expended, and the improvement has been made.' The gentlemani from Cass, (Mr VAN RIPER,) made an —allusioii the other -day in his'argument'e: which I think was''a very un'rtuate one - for his case.' ie' alluded to:.the city of Lansing as being' already: pla'ced under obligations to the amount of twenty per cent. for the pur pose of. ailding in the construction of railroads. I do not now recollect —the exact amount for' which the'city of Lansing has issued -bonds.: I'think it was'ten per cent. for the Jackson, Lan sing- and Saginaw Railroad,'and I think it is liable also to a six per cent. county tax for the same object, making sixteen per'cent. This city has'also voted some ive:or ten per cent. for other objects, mak-ing altogether some thirty or forty: per cent.'mi all for such purposes. But' the bonds are not all yet out. Now, let: me'say to gentlemen of this Con vention that, so'far as the city of Lan sing is concerned, its bonds are, and have' been,. paid twice and thrice over by the increased value of the property: here. City lots:which, before this rail road project was'carried out, were seol ing here for two hundred dollars each, are now selling readily for:four, five and six'hundred dollars., This is' a' fact' whichiS:'is notorious:: to any gentlenian who understands:'the'value of prop-' erty here. To what can you at tribute the' increased hotel acecomo dationis' here, over that which Leg. islatures have had heretofore? To what can you attribute the mniagnificent blocks of buildings, which are second ' to none in.this State,' and hardly second to'those of any of the cities of , this Union? To what shall we at tribute' all these' thiings "but to'the building. of these "railroads? The' amount levied has been twice, yes, four and' five times,.. paid - back to the property-holders' of this city. We are entirely content with the investment which we have' made in this respect. And we say to all respectable projects, "Come.on; come! one, come all;, and we will make a new levy on our prop erty, and make money'by it. - And that will be the case also'- with the property-holders- of any other city-or township. - It is not- ten, fifteen, or twenty per cent. upon the present valuation of the property which the people- pay. -They pay so much; but they.pay it-just as' they would pay for'the purchase of ad ditional advantages for the improve ment'of'their'.property, in order to in crease'he', value of it. And they buy that improvement and that increase of vaue -at'' a very cheap rate; they buy it at::-less than fifty per cent. of its ac tual.worth'to them; and so itisthrough — out the State. Therefore, I say, in the first place, that ten' per cent. is a mere pittance of the present'valuation, when )you come'to' take into considerati6n the fact that -that present valuation is only' about one-quarter "of the- actual valuation': -of the property. And also, that by the expenditure' of this ten per cent. the actual'valuation is in its turn doubled, trebled, and quadrupled. It will be'seen that it is the merest pit' tance in the world, which'any man will have to pay upon his property. When ever it is within the reach of these pro jected "railroad improvements, he can afford to pay that amount, and not feel it at all, except, perhaps, in the en'hancement of the value of his proper ty.'! Therefore, if'there is any change 'at all made in this provision, I believe t -"should be made upwards and not downwards. - - Mr. VAN RIPER. When the com mittee of the whole had under consid eration the article entitled' "'finance 'and taxation," I offered a substitute for one of the sections, prohibiting townships from voting.aid for railroad purposes. In the argument I made at that time in' all the points which Ifen cdeavored to establish, and bywhtich I intended to present' to this Conven tion my views in relation to that matter; it was' myryobject: to show that"I' was utterly and totally opposed- a- to any" attempt to levy any tax for the purpose i t I I:': -4' ' ;.,,.' I. I; !''.1:... -1. -..- - .. -..: . I... .: -. Ii.! -,..... 'n-XT.s -W...-I U I v NTIOXI. T,U.Osd-la",Y 130 July 16, 1867. DEBATES AD PROGEEDI. 131 of building railroads. And [ stand to-day by what I then said.' believe to-day, just ass firmly as' I did then," :that'thie people'of no county, of -no township, have, the right to compel a minority by -:a.majority vote, to invest any of their property in these enterprises. '...:'.. ~ I have, however, offered a substitute here to restrict townships and cities, to -a tax of five per cent. for this purpose. I offered such a:substitute, because it. was very apparent to me that it was useless to enter into a'-'contest with gentlemen here'for a. clause' totally prohibiting townships and cities.'from voting this aid.' This Convention, it is clear to see, is in the railroad interest; and I am inclined - to believe that the people of this'State are carriedaway by the excitement. Therefore, I did' not feel disposed to offer a substitute for this section which woulId embody what was embodied.in the proposition' offered by me some time since. I'find. that'there are in this Convention men who are in,'favor of leaving this whole question to the Legislature, giving to that body' an' unlimited power o'" authorize townships and cities to vote taxes to any extent they please'for this:: purpose.'While I find Such'men here, I am not surprised that there'should be men who would vote to place this restriction at twenty per cent. I have no doubt that there are those here who would vote for thirty per cent. But it seems to me that the proposition'submitted by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. M. C. WATKERS,) is amply sufi-' cient for the purpose. In looking over the assessed valuation of property of the different town'ships, I find that the ten'per. cent. limitation. contained in the section, as reported by the committee on the legislative department,. would allow the townships in the county of Oakland to vote the modest sum of $1,235,000. It would allow the townships in Cass county to vote the sum'of $707,905; the townships in the county of Jackson to vote $1,2.17,857; anad. so on in other counties in this State.'Now, I submit that five per cent. is-sufficient to build any railroad, taking it. from one section of' the. State to another.. It is-sufficient to:, put it in that state of forwardness which the projectors of railroads last' winter proposed to put their several railroads in by the amounts then proposed. ' I am -opposed to anything more than five per cent. We. are told that property as now. assessed is assessed upon only one-half to one-quarter of its valuation. I have said that this State was apparently under the control"..of railroad interests, and carried away by the excitement of,the moment. I' i:alSo say -that, in order to carry out-their- plans, property will be assessed to its fuillcas1h value, thus:making'thisfive p:'erent. in fact ltweniity- per cent. of' the':pr'eseni valuation of the property. And if iyou put it at ten per cent.,'what can we expect? We might just as well give them unliTmited:sway, because if they can assess ten per cent. now, and property is hereafter assessed at its full'. cash .value,' then they may levy what would be equivalent to forty per cent. of the present valuation.'Now, this is a matter to be taken into consideration; although the five per'cent. now would be upon the "present assessed valuation, there' is no 6:question but what the valu'ation will be hereafter increased. This isL why I am- opposed to anything more than five per,:cent. -: The gentleman who first spoke upon this question (Mr. HUSTON) is opposed to rest'ricting the'people in their rights.' Now, this is not a. question of restricting the people in their rights; it,.is a question'of restricting them in their wrongs. It is proposed'to allow the .majority of the people, by ther votes, to take from'the'miority that which belongs to the minority, and to compel ;the"m'to' invest'their prop.ertyin objects which are outside of- proper governmental purposes. I'say, then, that if you propose to allow the majority to do this, which I consider a greatwrong,: then I ask you to restrict' them within proper limits, so that the people shall not be compelled to pay such enormous. amounts for this purpose. Whe6n' the people of' this State, and of all.the several counties, have -- once paid. five per cent., I'think they will be satisfied with railroad investments. There is no doubt that if a five per cent. tax was levied upon any township, when they have once paid that sum, they will not ask to have any greatertax imposede upon them.:. - ' As I said before, I am entirely opposed to this system' of taxation;'but I see it is useless to' enter into the contest here, and therefore I simply ask, 'that this matter may be restricted within'proper iimits. Then the people of this State will be in; a'measure, if not "altogether, protected in'their right to hold' their own property, and dispose of it in such manner.as to them may seem fit.''.:-. '' Mr. DANIELLS. I am glad to' acknowledge the Candor with which the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. V~A RiPER,) has said that he is opposed to thiswhole proposition; in that he undoubtedly acknowledges the design of. his' substitute to be'. to defeat this measure. He gets up'here'and says that this Convention is affected by a railroad mania. He may not have used'that word "mania;"..but that was the sub stance of what he said. Now, I..-am the" last manin the world to ask another.-,to.,sacrifice truth to politeness, in talking with.'me'. I'am- not so: very particular about my own manners that I ought to be very critical' in regard to the'. manners' of, others.: But I: am loth to sit' still here and hear a man.-of his age charge this Convention.: with be'ing over enthusiastic upon this". subject. Is he a. man of such an.:amount of -experience that he is'. authorized' to get up here and chide this'Convention with being carried away with enthusiasm?' I certainly do' not think it is proper for one of his age to get'up here and tell me that.' I have been here in this State'. Mr. BURTCH. I rise to a point of order. My point of order is, that age or experience has nothing to'do..with the matter; it is ideas that we: should notice. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Clinton- (Mr. DANIELLS) ill proceed in order.' -'' -' M r. DANIELLS. Sir, I was' here in: . this State long before- the gentleman from Cass was thought of. -:I have been in the woods almost all the. time since I have been in the State. I' am "so situated that one railroad will benefit the town that I represent, and alsoseveral other townships in my district,' perhaps fifty-per cent. -The situation of the gentleman'from Cass may be d'ifferent, perhaps, as I'illustrated by an anecdote the other'day, when he came out fairly and squarely against allowing towns'to vote any taxes at all for this purpose. It seems to me that it is not becom'ing a man of his age and situation to get up' here and charge this Convention with being enthusiastic, when he'himself lives near a railroad which gives him all the facilities he wants.:- he 'had -trav,eled' through this. Statei as much as I have; if he had gone all "over .the' northern portion of: this pe'ninsUla, '-I think he would believe as I do,'that 'the interests: of this State would be'advanced rapidly by permittingthe townships to vote a tax of at least:ten'per cent. upon their valuation.:' I th'ink' it would be better if they were permitted to vote twenty per cent.'''':'" - . r." PARSONS'"'."The gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIpER,) claims that the Convention is in the:i interest of railroads, and that the course which this Convention is.'about to' "take,'or which he believes it is destined to take, is one which is not wise,'nor proper, nior judicious. He claims that. the Constitution should restrict the Legislature in 'these respects.'to. as low' a poinmt''as five per cent.'And yet he says that il'his judgment the people should be 8so restricted' that they could'not, raise any aid at all for railroads.,He also DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 131 ,fuly 16, 1867. CONSTITUTIONATl, CONVENTION. says that five per cent. would be enough taking the whole. country together, to build all the railroads which are necessary, or which are required. That may be true. If you were to build a railroad through the southern portion of the State, the thickly settled portion, five per cent. would be all that would be required to build the road. I suppose that the people living near the proposed linre of road, in such a case, would be willing to pay whatever was required to insure the building of the road. But if you were to build a railroad through the northern portion of the State, then five per cent. would not be enough. And it is through the northern portion of the State, through the newer portions, that the railroads hereafter are mostly to be built. The more densely populated portions of the State have their railroads now; and if they should want more, then five per cent. would be enough for the purpose. But it is not enough for those who live in- the northern part of the State, and they ask for more. They are willing to- be restricted within proper limits and proper bounds. There has been a great deal said about the people of this State, and about the Legislature last winter being wild upon the subject of railroads. I believe that the people are competent to judge what they really want. But in order to do away with any objections which may be raised in the thickly settled portions of the State, that twenty per cent. or forty per cent., or any amount more than ten per cent., would be too large an amount; one which -would frighten the people into voting against the Constitution, I would be willing to limit the amount to ten per cent. I believe that is a reasonable amount; that no portion of the State can find any fault with limiting the amount to ten per cent. If we should limit it- to five per cent., I think we would be virtually depriving the peo ple in the northern part of the State of any benefit to be derived from any such provision as this. I am, therefore, in favor of increasing rather than re ducing the limit named here; but I will vote against booth the pending propositions, and adhere to the original section. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. This section, as it was to be expected, seems to elicit a great variety of opinion. There are extremes here; some are in favor of entire prohibition; others would leave the matter open to the Legislature as it is in our present Constitution; others woUld fix a very high limit, as high as twenty per cent.; others again would fix ten per cent., and some are in favor of five per cent. There is a question, and. it is rather an important one, whether majorities in towns and municipalities have or should have the right to vote away the.property of minorities, where a simple majority or bare majority are in favor of making appropriations for the benefit of some railroad, while almost as many -in the same locality are opposed to it. It is a question whether the majority should have the right to vote away the prop; erty of the minority for that purpose. I understand there are quite a number of gentlemen in this Convention who are opposed to the whole plan. It has been a question with me whether it was right. But under the circumstances, taking all things into consideration, I am in favor of allowing this to be done, but within a fixed limitation. Twenty per cent., I think, is altogether too high. I am inclined to think that ten per cent. is too high. I, therefore, have offered an amenhdment to reduce all aid to five per cent. It is argued thatfive per cent. will produce but a small sum, and that in the newer towns it will not be sufficient to enable them to secure the construction of these roads. Now, sir, I do not believe it will raise a sufficient amount to build railroads. I do not believe railroads are to be built through this State in all directions by the inhabitants along the line of the road. I suppose all that will be asked will be that they should be allowed to do something for the road, but it is not expected that -they will be able to build and equip the road entirely themselves. I am inclined to think that never will be done in this country; that railroads are always aided more or less by foreign or outside capital. The towns in the newer portions of the State, as a matter of course, cannot raise as much as the towns in the the older and richer portions of the State. But by fixing this limit at five per cent., will they not be allowed to raise all that they are really able to pay? There are many things that in themselves are very desirable. It is very desirable in the newer portions of the State that they should have good wagon roads. But they cannot get them in a day, or in a year; it takes time to make them. And it certainly cannot be expected that they can build railroads immediately through the newer portions of the State, unaided by foreign capital* B.ut they can do something, and five per cent. will allow them to do something. If the road is a meritorious one, and the prospect is that it will be a paying investment, capital from other places will come in, and the road will be built with but little aid from the towns along the route of the road. But it was said by the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HUSTON,) that property is not assessed to its, ull value. Wei all understand that I believ-e.; He says it is assessed at from one-half to one-quarter of its full value. And he also adds that only about one-half of the property of the State is assessed at all. Now, I disagree with him there. It may be that the property is not assessed at its full cash value; but I believe that most of the property is assessed. And this tax to be levied for railroad purposes will,. be assessed on the property which is assessed for other purposes. Now, take a community where they are anxious to vote the highest tax they can to aid these railroads, it is very possible that property there may be assessed at perhaps itfull value. Then, again, it is not probable that all the railroads now projected in this State will be built; it is very possible that many will be commenced and prove failures. Although there is a restriction as to the time when the bonds may be issue6-d,- still it is very possible that in some cases the aid which is voted to be paid by issuing bonds, when a certain amount of labor shallhave been performed on the road, will be used in order to grade the road; and that is the first thing that will be done on the road. I think contractors can take the contract of grading these roads, and agree to receive their pay in the bonds which are to be issued by the townships. For instance, suppose the bonds are to be issued when the road is graded, and the ties placed on the line of the road; a person may contract to grade the road and place the ties on the line of the road, and receive his pay in bonds which are to be issued when that is done. I think if we allow the power to be exercised by these municipalities on the line of these roads to vote aid, they should be restricted to a small amount. I agree with the gentleman from St. Clair, (Hr. CoNNER,) that we should adopt a medium in this matter. His medium is ten per cent.; I prefer five per cent, for I think five per cent. enough. I think the people will be satisfied with that amount, at all events when they come to pay the tax which will be necessary to enable them to pay their bonds and the interest on them. In view of what has transpired in this State during the past year, in view of what was done in the Legislature last winter, I think it is shown conclusively that the people in some communities are-I was going to say crazy, but perhaps that is not the proper term-nthey are certainly very anxious 4o build railroads. It is my opinion that, if the several bills passed by the Legislature p s t 132 Tuesda'y, 7July 1,16. DEAE i. PoE1I'~S last winter had not been vetoed by the Governor, the result would have been very disastrous to the people of this Stale. AndItin that talaarge majortity of the: people of this State'con, cur in the propriety of those vetoes, and now see that they were right. Mr. CHAPIN. I wish to make a remark or two on the proposition now before the committee. I shall vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Tuscola (Mr. HUSTON) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. M1. C. WATKINs;) not so much in the hope that the amendment will pass, as for the purpose of expressing my views in regard to what should be the limitation in this section. I apprehend the true question before the committee is merely the question as to the amount which thlese municipalities shall be permitted to vote for the- purpose of aiding railroads, plank roads, and other roads in their respective localities. The gentleman from Kent (Mr. M. C. WATKINs) has argued that five per cent. was sufficient for this purpose; that it would raise an amount amply sufficient. I have a very high respect for the opinions of that gentleman, but I must be permitted to differ from him now. I think five per cent. would be an entirely inadequate amount. I think that in our new counties that amount would be next to nothing; it would not be worth the trouble of voting it; it would do nothing toward the improvements which it is the object of this section to authorize townships and other municipalities to aid. I must say that I should be ashamed to go home to my constituents, and say that this Convention had restricted them in this respect to -the- paltry sum of five per cent. upon their assessed valuation. I believe that the adoption of a provision of that kind would do more to organize opposition to the new Constitution, and to defeat its adoption, than any other one provision we could insert in it. I should feel constrained myself to vote against it; and I believe my constituents would vote against it with such a provision. It would be unjust to us, who are laboring under every difficulty, to say that we shall raise only the paltry sum of five per cent. upon our assessed valuation, in order to secure the means of communication between our region and other portions of the State. When you look at the previous history of this State, you must see that-it would be unjust for gentleman to take that position in reference to us. Two great railroads were constructed, or partially constructed, by the means of the State. After a time these railroads were sold for much less tha'n their actual cost to compamnes who were, by that means, enabled. to go on and finish them. Through that loss on the part of the State, through the mean's w'hich we"re thus contributed indirectly by the State to construct these:roads for the be efit of the older counties of the State, those counties are to-day enjoying the blessings and the prosperity which is the result to them from those great means of communication. But we in the newer portions of the State are still in the woods; we have no such means of communication. Now, we do not ask you to do anything for us; we simply ask that you will allow us to do for ourselves. We ask that you will allow us to tax ourselves to a reasonable extent to promote our own improvement. - Is that unreasonable? I ask gentlemen if there is any danger to be apprehended to the rights of the older counties, or to the rights of anybody, if we are thus permitted to tax ourselves for our own benefit, and for our own improvement? I really hope that the committee of the whole will not adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. M. C. WATiINS.) The,five per cent. which his amendment would restrict us to, as I have already remarked, would not be worth the trouble it would take in our new counties to assemble together as township organizations and vote. The gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) in the very able argument which he made upon this subject, illustrated it in the proper way. He showed to my mind conclusively, and I apprehend to the minds of this Convention, that every aid that is voted for these improvements is paid back treble and quadruple into the pockets of those who vote. There can be no possible danger that we will be injuring ourselves by voting this aid. We will be enhancing th$ value of every man's property, besides obtaining for him and for ourselves the benefit of these improvements which we thus propose to aid. If you adopt the principle so ably argued by the the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIPER,) to which I cannot subscribe, in what position do you place the new counties? In those new counties from one-third to one-half of the real estate is to-day owned by speculators, men who are today holding possession of those lands, who stand there like dogs in the manger, and will neither sell nor permit anybody to occupy or improve those lands, nor do it themselves. And why do they follow this course? It is in the hope that-the public spirited citizens of the locality where their lands lie, will make these improvements which we now ask to be permitted to make, and thereby enhance the value of their lands, twenty-five, fifty, or one hundred per cent. Now, would it be unjust to make these persons pay their proportion'of the tax which will result in enhancing the value of their lands? Or if you adopt the principle of the gentleman from Cass, and say we have no right to impose this tax for this purpose, then what will be the result? The citizens residing there must take their last penny to make these improvements, and thus enhance the value of the lands held by these other persons, without any sort of remuneration from them for that benefit. There is where the injustice is; there is where the wrong exists. But adopt the principle recognized by the section as reported by the committee, to allow these townships and other municipalities to tax themselves, to impose this burden upon the taxable property of the townships, for-this purpose, and you will do justice to all. Every man's property will be enhanced in value, and every man will- contribute in proportion to the value of his property towards that which will enhance its value. No injustice is done, no injury is inflicted upon any class of citizens, but a great good is accomplished. I really hope this body will take no back action upon this subject. I feel a deep interest in this question; my constituents feel a deep interest in it. It is a matter of vital importance to all the new counties of the State. We are struggling there for existence; we have every obstacle to overcome. I ask in God's name that this Convention will not throw any additional obstacle in our way, will not hamper us by this kind of legislation, for it is legislation, and a kind of legislation that should not be permitted to go into the Constitution of this State. This Convention is asked to go aside from its proper course, for the purpose of hampering these new counties, and tying their hands, throwing obstacles in their way, to prevent their improvement and development. I ask you not to do this; if you cannot do anything for us, at least do not prevent us from doing something for ourselves. Mr. W. A. SMITH. If the principle is correct that the majority has the right to tax the minority to aid in the construction of railroads, then I hold that there should be no limit upon that power. If the principle be correct, then why not permit the townships and the municipalities to raise any amount that they may think necessary to aid the railroads which they need in their vicinity? The same amount that would be adequate for the wants of one section of the State, would not be suffi ' I. -.DEBATES AND PROCEED S. I - IY ".. -..JU 16)111867... - 1 -..:.. _.. ~....CON'..N.O. Tu.... ~ cient for another. In the counties of Oakland, Waye, Washtenaw, and other' old counties,'where there is three times the amount'of property that there is in any of the new counties there could be raised by'any percentage a much greater amount in the ag-' gregate than could be raised in the back counties and townships. But I do not hold that the principle is a correct one, that a bare majority in one of the towns or cities of this State has the right to bind the minority, and to take friom them their property for that purpose. -' But.we are told that there will be no rights taken from'. the minority in this'way. Now how would this proposition operate? A majority of but one in a township or city might control the entire property of'that township or city for this purpose.' But gentlemen claim that the - majority have the right to judge' for the minority in such a case. Do you not permit the minority to have any rights? Would you not permit the- minority to say whether 'they were ready to build a railroad or not, as much so as in relation to any other matter that pertains to their interest? Sir, the ideais an absurdity, that the majority can and should rule in all cases. We know that in our political affairs the majority do rule; but so'far as pertains to taking a man's private property for public use, I hold that the majority have no such rights. I presume I could get up a' petition, with a little manoeuvering, to have the gentleman hanged. Yet that gentleman, having committed no crime, I hold that in such a case the majority should not rule.' 'I know that'we are an excitable'people; sometimes we have a plank road fever; sometimes we are willing to in vest our all in shanghae chickens; some times-it is one thing, sometimes anoth,er. Now, therailroad fever rages; and when that fever is at its height, I 'know you might get a majorrityin a great many instances to vote away, not 'ofy the rights of the minority, but ''even their own rights. -'ow many plank roads built in this State when ' the" plank road fever rages,'have met the expectations o' those' who constructed them? Not more than one out of' three has done it.' And so it may be with railroads.: You may in this way encumber the property of persons' in the townships, so that they never can'rid themselves of the burden.'I hold,to the doctrine, that if men wish to invest all the property they have in railroads, they can do so. Let them subscribe all they please; let them aid and assist so far as they please. But d6 not compel anybody to do it, who, Ca~nnot see that it is going to be a benefit~::That is my doctrine. Mrk. BU~RT aH.:I propose t6 make a few remarks' upon the question before -the committee, and. I hope that the committee wll' indulge mne jUst a few minutes in some preliminary remarks.'iTlie CHAIRMAN.'The"-q estion is #Pon striking out " five," and inserting twenty," in the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. M.' C. WATKINs. ) Mr. BURTCH. Yes, sir; I know that. It has'been said by'some that I was a "come-by-chance,",'so far as being a member of this Convention is concerned. Now, -I hold that a "comeby-chance" is, just as good as a legitimate person, at least so far as he himself - is concerned.'. It was stated that I was opposed to0- railroad interests, and therefore a very scanty: vote was given to me. -Now I am in favor of railroads, and in favor of the right of the people to build railroads. I propose first, to speak of the right in its legal sense; the right of the majority of the people to tax the minority for that purpose. That question has been mooted here; and although I may not be regarded as speaking to the question now pending, I think it best to answer the objection, if I am able to do so. Now, the same arguments which have been used here to show that the majority have no right to control the property of the minority, apply to the building of highwys and bridges, and to the promotion ofthe educational interests of the community. My friend from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIPER,) said that it was for the purpose of saving the people from doing wrong' that he urged his proposition. As an individual, I have a right to save myself; and as an individual, I have no right to destroy myself, nor have I a right to destroy my neighbor. Where there is a train of circumstancw that renders it necessary in order to make public improvements, in order to save some' rusty: old fogy, and make him rich by thousands, when he is now only rich by hundreds, it is my right, in saving myself, to save him also.': Now, I am for the greatest possible latitude, so far as the' rights of communities are concerned. When you come to townships they are the smallest communities recognized as a poer tion of our government, under thel Constitution. A township is a /community of'so limited a character, that no great internal improvement can be performed in it without inuring largely to the benefit and interest of the entire township. My friend from Cass, would wind himself up of course, until he was satisfied that he had all the benefits and privileges of railroads that any man desires. His poli.tic,l in!fluence is, increased'by the advantages' that he now possesses. By means of preventing us from having similar advantages, he can'.always hold us- in his political grasp.}- By,cutting off the rfight of.the people to make these internal'im"provements, we would be left a sparsely settled-community,.and the southern portion of the State would always have control over the northern part. The interests of townshipsin connection with this matter are-varied, according to the circumstances which surround them.' Take for instance one township which has in itself resources which other townships have not. For the purpose'of developing those resources it maybe a very great advantage to that township to make large expenditures for' the' purpose, because it would by that means develop its hidden treasures, and it perhaps could develop them by no other means. The. town.ship where I reside is an illustration of that fact.'In it are hidden treasures; there is deposited there a large amount ',of building sandstone as good as any to be found in any other place. There are hundreds'and thousands of tons of good paint there; there are hundreds and thousands of tons of coal there, of a quality not surpassed anywhere, as far as I know, within the borders of the State of Michigan. Now, I hold that the interests of the township- of Oneida would be en'hanced, if a railroad could be brought there to develop these resources, short of an outlay of fifty per cent. of all its taxable property. It would even then be of great advantage to make such an investment., Afterwe had made that outlay- we would then be. richer by fifty per cent. than we now are. I find that, instead of the people being too lavish and free in opening their pursestrings for the public welfare, they are too parsimonious and penurious. I have; known'men im'a township. where it was- proposed to raise a sum by tax,'' merely'for the purpose of getting dockets for the justice of the peace, vote against it' year after year. I have seen them vote against a proposition to buy a chain which was necessary for the commissioners of highways to measure out the work which had- to be done. After having been driven out of the township where I formerly lived, because of the parsimony of those there, I now have an: utter abhorrence of this idea of tak ing away from the people the right 'to save themselves, and to build up and; promote -their own interests. I saw something of this during the war. The people had their hands tied, and if their throats were to be cut from ear to ear, they could not get their hands loose to prevent it. They could I i, RPTONAT, CONVENTI CON$, li-lu. ON. Tuesday' I _ Dl 1E,186. D:13'E~8 AX'D PROCEEDINGS. not raise a single dollar for the purpose of getting men for the army, only as they importuned the Legislature- to grant to them what they should have possessed of their own right. I do hope that the members of this Convention will take a more enlarged;.view of this subject, and leave the people more free; leave them to judge for themselves of their own interests.- Let us respect that great and fundamental principle, that a free people are capable of self-government. Mr. SHEARER. I have but one word to say in relation to this subject. I have heard it mentioned by severalgentlemen that it would be necessary to restrict the Legislature in its action hereafter, by naming in the Constitution a certain per centage,'beyond which the Legislature should not allow any township or city to -go, in levying taxes for this purpose. I believe that is wise. I know that during last winter, when the railroad interest came up in the Legislature, it made considerable difficulty and caused many vetoes. I am for restricting the Legislature hereafter in relation to this subject. That seems to be the main point; — to adopt: some principle in this Constitution,. whereby the Legislature hereafter shall not be allowed to run wild in' the railroad business; that is the- main.'point. I said the other day that -I -was willing to go as high as fiveper cent. But I am convinced that ifwe set the principlb at ten per cent. it would probably be all that is necessary. I would not be willing to vote for a proposition to-go as high as twenty per cent. Hence I will vote for the five per cent., and if the question should then come up on the ten per cent., I would be willing to go for that. I think there. should be something in' the Constitution to prevent the Legislature from going hereafter to extremes in railroading business. I think probably, as the gentleman from Gratiot (Mr..CaIN) has said, ten per cent. would be nothing more than right for the newer regions of the State, from the fact that the assessed valuation of property in- those; counties is not equal to that in'the older counties; hence, ten per cent. would probably not be: too much, especially as the most of the land in the new counties is held by speculators, and-this might induce them to allow: actual settlers to purchase their lands,' and go into that part'of the Stae. I know something about the trouble which our friends are in there. They are obliged to go into the woods, where they find themselves:surrounded by lands' owned by men' from:tihe east and, elsewhere, who will not sell any of the: lands, p ep them for the occupation of th [!be asts of the forest, while the frontiier. settlers are in a bad condition in that regard. Hence, I would go as high as ten per cent., although I said the other day that I would not go for more than five'per cent. I think that. probably, the people'in the new counties of the State would raise ten per cent., and a portion of.the tax would come from those who held.' these lands, and thereby they would. be made to assist in these improvements. I am willing to vote for any provision to restrict the Legislature hereafter from; going -'beyond certain bounds. I Iknow the difficulties which were experienced here last winter., — Millions and millions of dollars would have been thrown to the winds, if it had not been for the vetoes of our venerable and, excellent Governor. I hope that gentlemen of the:'committee, when they come to vote on this question, will restrict the Legislature hereafter to a -certainper centage,. I willgo as high as ten per cent; I. would not be willing to go any higher; I think twenty per cent. would be too much. I wish to be consistent; that is why I speak now. I thought the-other day that five per cent. would be enough., H'owever, I am impressed to -think that if these improvements should be made by the State itself, and bonds issued, iit would probably. be better. But that is not the subject under consideration. Mr. LAWRENCE. I do not expect to occupy much of the time of'this committee in this discussion, as" my sentiments have been placed before this Convention by others in a much better way-than I could do it myself. Did I not represent a portion of the people of this State who were looking with most intense'interest to see what disposition we will make of this matter, I would not now trouble this conrnittee of- the whole with a single word upon this subject. I must say that'I, cannot see the force of the argument made here, that the people of the State should not have the-right to impose 'burdens upon themselves, when they conceive it to be for their:'interest to do so. The strQngest argument that has:'been' adduced here on the other side, I conceive has been presented by the gentleman from Cass,. (Mr. VAN RIPER,) notwithstanding his youth. And this argument was presented in a very modest manner for the considera-t tion of this -(Convention, although I imay not view the subject in the light that he does." As the gentleman':from Gratiot, -(Mr. CHAPIN,) has stated, the people along the routes-of proposed railroads are surrounded by immense quantities of land owned by persons who do not re, "side there, and who perhaps are not residents of this State. They have no interest in the prosperity of the particular localities where these lands are, except in-the enhancement of the value of their lands., But the- people whoreside there are suffering for the want of proper communication between those localities and the markets -of- the State. The question arises whether there is any injustice-done-by levying a tax upon the property of the township,. consequently levying it upon thesep. landsi which will be enhanced'in.value by the imposition of this tax for this purpose. So' far as I am acquainted, the people of the State ask for this provision in the Constitution; or rather they ask that there shall be no provision inserted here in regard to the mat-" ter, because' they believe it can be properly left to the Legislature to say what shall be done in the premises. For my own.part, I -believe it could be safely left to the Legislature. If anyportion of the people of this State feel that it would enhance the value of'their property and be beneficial to them.- if, they are allowed to aid in the- construetion of railroads, then let the Legislature pass a special -.enactment for their special benefit. If you should carry out to its -legitimate consequences the principle which some gentlemen advocate here, then you would say to a man that he should not be allowed to change the business in which he is engaged.. F.or instance, a farmer looks over all his -affairs, and concludes that it would be better for him to change his business and go into the mercantile business. - But according to these gentlemen, this Constitutional Convention should say to him" My dear sir, you have not the qua.lification necessary for a man to go into the mercantile business; you,- are not acquainted with -that ki,nd of business, and if you, go into it you may lose all'the property yoU 'now have. You never could compete with the sharp business men of the State; you are not competent for it, :and you will find it to your.disadvantage. Therefore, we: will insert, a pro'vision in the' Constitution of the, State !prohibiting: you from obtaining per:mission to-go into such a business; you must remain a farmer all jthe days of your life; there is no choice lieft for you."- -And you might carry the principle still further, and say that the investment of money in railroad stoncks was a hazardous experiment:for any man to: m-ake, who was not a railroa~d man of long experience,'or a man,of capital. You might as well insert:Tin this Constitution' a provision prohibit-' 'ing any-individual, unless he had a certain amount'of property, from investing it in railroad stocks, for fear he - I - -...,., 1. I ... 1,35:" -1.11-,.... "I - -16,'1867. I.. 136 OOTITUTIOAL COVETIO Tuesday, would hazard his property for all future time. Why should a Constitutional Convention assume the guardianship of the citizens of this State, and dictate to them what kind of property they shall invest their money in? I do not pretend to deny but what sometimes the case might arise where some minority would be injured by allowing a tax of this kind to be imposed. But is there any general law upon the statute books which does not at some time or other give some persons reason to complain of its operation? I do not think any one will claim but that this is the case, and with these few remarks I will conclude what I have to say. Mr. LOTHROP. I do not feel very able to discuss this question this morning, not feeling at all well physically. But I desire to submit to this committee some few ideas on this subject. I am an earnest and sincere-friend of internal improvements in the form of railroads. If it rested at all with me, I would bring a railroad to every man's door. But there are very many blessings that I would be glad to enjoy myself, and there are many which I would be very glad to impart to others, which it would be perfectly utopian to expect that either I myself, or my neighbor should enjoy. This matter of building railroads is a matter of great interest, both to the public and to individuals. It is a matter of great financial concern, because no railroad can be either built or operated, unless it stands on a sound financial foundation. I do not suppose the question before this committee is at all whether railroads are desirable or undesirable. But the specific question is, what part shall the primal municipalities of this State take in them? I think there is a very profound fallacy in the assertion that the question is, whether individuals shall be permitted to invest their money as they may desire. I would allow men to invest their money just as they please, wherever they live, or whatever pursuits they follow. But the question here is, what is the proper office of townships in our political organization? Is it the proper office of our townships to build railroads? Is it the proper office of our townships, or of the electors in the townships, to vote at their pleasure, at the pleasure of the- majority, the property of those who own property in those townships for this purpose? If that is their function, then not only you and I, but every member of this Convention who has done one single thing towards framing the organization of a township, has entirely mistaken the nature of that township. If it be the office of the township to say that your property, or my property, or any other man's property shall take such a direction as the majority of the electors of that township shall determine, then I say that we have entirely mistaken the office of that township, when we have given it the general impress which has been put upon it here, or the general impress which it has received from the various statutes of the State. You might just as well assume that it is the office of the electors of the township to determine what particular business shall be done in the township. There are gentlemen upon this floor who, I have no sort of doubt, are exercising various functions in these townships. Why should not the electors of these townships determine just as well what part of their capital shall be devoted to farming in these townships? I take it there is no question that there is a great deal of bad farming, and if we could have all farming done well, it would improve the whole property of the town. What right has my neighbor to conduct his farming interest poorly? Do not my interests require that his farming shall be done well-? Will not gentlemen say that it is for the public interest that all the farming in any town should be done well? And, therefore, why should not a tax be levied to provide each farmer with capital, in order that he may do his farming well? For the reason that that is not the object of that municipal organization. I have a profound conviction that the financial and general well-being of a town depends largely upon institutions of a religious character. Yet, we all agree that it is no part of the object of a municipal organization to construct churches, or to aid in sustaining them. Yet, some of our friends have said upon this floor that a railroad is like a highway; and the construction and maintenance of highways and bridges are left in charge of the township authorities. Sir, a railway has no more relation to an ordinary highway than a banking institution has to the common conduct of a man's own private financial operations. A banking institution is a piece of private property, and, although it may have an influence upon the interest of townships, yet it is a matter of private concern, and must be so conducted. I have been interested for upward of twenty years in railway matters, and I agree most cordially in what has been said here in regard to the value of a railway to a township or city, when\ it can be properly constructed. Let me state the proposition in another form. Wherever the business interests of a locality require or justify the construction of a railroad, there a railroad, properly constructed, is a great public blessing to the community. But, where it is not authorized by the necessities of the community, then, like any other unfortunate adventure, it is not a blessing, but a curse. Now, how shall these railroads - be constructed? It is proposed by this section to let the credit of townships be pledged to aid in the construction of railways. This, in my judgment, means debt. It means debt with all its blessings and with all its curses. Now, I do not believe very much in the blessing of debt. It is the easiest thing in the world to run into debt; anybody can do it. I can do it myself; and I never saw a neighbor who could not do it; I never saw a community that could not do it. It is one of the most delightful operations in the world. A friend near me suggests that there are some men who cannot be trusted to any great extent; but I never saw a man in my -life who could not run into debt to a certain extent. There is not a township in this State that cannot run into debt to a certain extent. But you must recollect that when you run into debt, that debt means debt. I regard this matter of indebtedness, whether National, State, city or town, as one of the most serious questions that is likely to be pressed upon us now orhereafter. It is one of those great questions that are going to tax the master minds of the community. It will tax them to prevent that indebtedness, whether National, State or municipal, from bearing down the interests of the country. And he who shall solve that great problem which lies before us, he who will be able to bear our interest safely through the crushing weight of debt, will be the great statesman to whom the people should erect a column higher than any other that shall be erected to any other name. I look at this matter of the indebtedness of townships with still more anxiety, for this reason. A township in my judgment is a community the least well adapted to contract a debt wisely; the least well adapted to bear that indebtedness safely, and to discharge it honorably. A township is a small community made up of a limited number of persons. In order to have a township a safe political organization, its functions should be limited, and it should have but a few things in its charge. One of the last things that should be committed to it is the power of contracting debt for any purpose. The construction of highways, the building of school houses, and the administration of simple j -/hould I CONSTITUTION.AT4 CONVENTION. Tuesday, 136 Jul 1;4 187 DEAE P)POEDSS belong to a township. While it should be left free to pay anything that is really needed for that purpose, it should not be allowed to contract debt in those cases. Allow me to say that in my judgment, when you come to contract debt for a railway, there is not ordinarily in the townships the necessary information to determine whether that indebtedness can safely be contracted. How many men are there in any ordinary township who know anything about railways or the cost of their construction and maintenance, and the means of efficiently supporting them? The cost of building and maintaining a railway is very great indeed; and there are but few communities, and only limited lines of railway in any communities, in regard to which they will be enabled to build safely one of these great works of internal improvement. I undertake to say that I could go into almost any township in this State, and propose to the electors of that township to aid in the construction of a railway, however impracticable it might be in the eyes of a railway man, and obtain the votes of a town for fifteen or twenty per cent. of their property for it, when a railway man would repudiate it at once as a perfectly worthless scheme. A township is not constructed or organized for any such purpose as this. Why shall we clothe the township with authority to do this? - Remember,. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of this committee, I am not opposing railways; I am in favor of railways wherever they can be constructed and supported. Mr. BILLS. WVill the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. LOTHROP. Yes sir, with very great pleasure. r. BILLS. I desire to ask the gentleman whether he construes this section twenty-seven, as clothing a township with authority to raise this tax; or does he regard it as a pro vision to limit their authority in that respect? I ask the question for the purpose of obtaining the views of the gentleman on that point. Mr. LOTHROP. I have not scru tinized the language of this section in that respect with any particular care. But I have supposed that it might be open to the construction that the township itself, by virtue of this sec tion, would be deemed to have the authority to pledge its credit to the ex tent named in the section. There is a prohibition that the Legislature shall not authorize a township to go beyond that amount. As a legal ques tion, I will say that by a series of de cisons of perhaps sixteen or seventeen of the States-I once had occasion to Vol2-No. 18. investigate this matter-it has been declared that it-was competent for the Legislature to clothe any subordinate municipal organization with authority to pledge its credit, or become a stockholder in aid of any work of internal improvement. We must, therefore, recognize that as the law of the land. In my judgment, however, were the question to arise now, as a new question, it- would be decided directly- the other way. I think there is a very strong impression upon the judicial mind of the country, that those decisions received an erroneous impulse at the beginning, that it was overlooked that the organization of the town and of the county, was in its very nature, limited to other purposes, and not adapted to engaging in these works of internal improvements. This authority came originally from the Legislature. If there were no provision on the subject in our Constitution, then I'would be of the opinion that the townships and the counties would have no authority upon the subject, except by a grant of power from the Legislature. But by placing a provision in the Constitution declaring that the Legislature shall niot authorize cities and townships to go beyond a certain extent, I should fear that it would be implied that the Constitution gives them the authority to pledge their credit to the extent here named. I do not, however, give any positive opinion on that point. Now, I say that in my judgment the township is the last organization in the State that should be vested with this power. Its very organization is not financial in its nature, and, therefore, it is not qualified to enter into these schemes. If the organization of the township was financial in its nature, then it should be allowed to carry on banking. If it is industrial in its nature, then the township ought to be allowed to establish cotton, wool, silk and iron mills and manufactories of every description. There should be no limitation whatever upon the town ship; it should be left like. an individ ual to look over the field, and to em brace every invitation to become stock holders in railroads whether they run through the town, or city, or anywhere else in the Union. But the unanswerable objection to the whole scheme is that the township organization is not in its nature an or ganization fitted torenter into the busi ness of internal improvements. It cannot conduct such matters wisely and well.- The township ought to con fine its operations to schools and to highways over which its inhabitants carry, in their wagons, their wheat and corn and other produce to market. It ought to confine its attention to matters of strictly municipal concern. But in matters of railroading it can no more participate properly, or understand them, than it can understand the business of general banking or. general manufacturing. I repeat again, in order that gentlemen may be impressed with the assertion, if there is anything in it, that the ground of objection in all of these cases is, that the township organization is not fitted for this kind of business, and, therefore, it should not enter into it. The eccentric and very shrewd John Randolph once said, starting up one day in the House of Representatives, and pointing that finger of his from which the electricity seemed to stream, " I have found the philosopher's stone; pay as you go." And to the township I would say, "you have found the philosopher's stone, if in all these things you will pay as you go., Mr. DANIETTLS. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him a moment? - Mr. LOTHROP. Yes sir... Mr. DANIELLS. Does not the law now compel the townships to run into debt?' Mr. LOTHROP. I am but little familiar with the ordinary township organization; but my answer would be at once, if the law compels the town ship to run into debt, then it is an extremely bad law, and the Legislature that shall follow us would do the very best thing it can do to repeal such a law. And if instead of that it should compel all townships to pay as they go, it would lay down a good principle. There may be bad laws -upon the statute books. And that reminds me; allow me to say here, that this Conven tion and the people of Michigan, are extremely anxious to have railroads, and as I understand it, desire to possess such a system as will induce them to be built. Yet the law-making power of the State has, within the year, ac tually put upon the statute book such legislation on the subject that I do not believe there is a right judging rail road man in the United States, who understands his business, who would invest a dollar of his capital under those laws. There are certain railroad organizations in the State that cannot be reached by those laws. But I do not believe there is a sound judging railroad man, who would under those laws put a single dollar of his capital in future railroads, in this State. But these inconsistencies are not surpris ing, whether in public bodies or in in dividuals. Legislatures are liable to inconsistencies, and if there is such- a law as the- gentleman from Clinton, July 16, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDIN S. 137 ~,38.O~IUTOA.OV~O Tusa (Mr. )AXIELLS) speaks of, it is only another illustration of that fact. And let me go still further. I pro.test'most earnestly against the incurring of debt on the part of towns for internal improvements. I undertake to say this; and I say it without any sort of fear of contradiction from any man who can judge wisely and well .on this subject;. I assert that ninety per cent. of all the money that shall be raised by township bonds and devoted to railroad schemes which are now hatching in the State of Michigan, will be as absolutely lost as if it was taken and poured directly into the middle of Lake Michigan. It will be dall lostbefore the people who pay it have any means of telliiing anything about it. Now I may be told that these towns may not be called upon to pay this money until the roads are carried forward so far tbt their completion can be secured, andthe townships will suffer no loss. They will be told that their bonds will- not be required to be paid until the grading of the roads has been completed through the various towns. Now how is that done? It is done by the contractor running into debt, and your township bonds are given him to reimburse him. And then when the railroad has reached a point which willtest whether the project is a desirable one, that is, the point where ..the iron must be obtained to put upion it,. the bonds will have been used up, and the whole fabric will vanish like a dream. Township bonds are issued for five, ten, or fifteen per cent. of the valua tion of the township. What are they going to bring?. I wish gentlemen would consider this matter. Where are your township bonds to -find a market?:Take a small railway of fifteen or twenty miles long; Where are .the bonds of your railway goirg to find a market, much less the bonds of your townships'? You caunot go into -the -great market of the counttry, ,where bonds must have a valua rtion,:if they have any at all, ]in;:Wall street, in new York. What do your township bonds aamount to? They are paid over to the. railroad contractor, a'nd he takes them-forreally not more than thirty or for ty, or fifty per cent. of their face value. .They will not buy any iron or do anything of that kind. I humbly pray -gentlemen, here,. who are interested in the municipal organizations more directly, who with me are interested in the welfare and prosperity of this,:our beautiful - State,: where we hope our ashes may lie; where our children have been born, and where we hope they will live after us, I entreat them most earnestly, that they shall not invoke this matter of debt on -these municipa organizations. I wish gentlemen shoul not misunderstand me. I am not op posed to assisting that portion of th State, which is so ably and eloquent' represented here by members from th northern counties. They have sai that we of the southern counties wi act ungenerously if we refuse them these privileges. They say, " your rai roads are built by the aid of the Stat they were sold at great loss, and no you turn around and propose that shall receive no aid at all for this pu: pose." Let me say one word upon this sub ject. These railroads in the souther part of the State were built by the ai of:the State; they were originally pr jected and started by the aid of th public funds. They were roads po, sessing peculiar facilities, such as un fortunately are' not and cannot b possessed by railroads in the norther part qf this State. They were runnin on great lImesacross the continent, coU Inecting with the great west and lines o railroad there. And yet these roads, gentlemen coneede or urge, rather beyond the fact, however, were sold a loss, that is, on the whole. Th Michigan Central was sold for mor than. it cost; the Michigan Souther -for less, and -the northern lines wer entirely lost. These works thus resulte in a heavy loss to the community as whole. Now, I am willing to shoulde some loss m that regard. I say to m friends of the north and everywhere propose something which can be per formed by-the State in order to benefi them in this regard, and I will noc oppose incurring a debt to be expende wisely and judiciously upon bonds tha would have a cash value in the market I am not unwilling that such -a thin as that should be done. But I do no think it is wise and just to have thes bonds issued by municipal organiza Lions. It seems to me that the only form of municipal interference in this matter that is at all admissible is this: if you are going to aid a railway five per cent., ten per cent., or any other amount, aid it precisely asan individual would himself subscribe to the stock of a railway.. lie puts his hand in his pocket, takes the money out of it, and puts it in -the venture; if it succeeds, -well; if not, it is gone. If a township is to aid in the building of a railroad let it levy its tax; that will bring the matter directly to the judgment.of the man who votes for the tax. He must answer this question: "Axe you willing to p'ut your hand in your pocket, and take out this ten per cent. or any other sum, and put it in this venture?" I think that .-.....- is the only admissible form in which a township should be permitted to aid in the building of a railroad. Let it levy its tax, and then if the money is lost, it will not throw another dollar away on the adventure, or invoke the spirit of repudiation bye-and-bye, which will arlse by the community being called upon to provide for the payment of the debt. It will have paid its money, and ; if itis lost that is the end of the matter. Besides, that is the best form of aid - which a township can give. A dollar in cash from a township will buy iron - as well as a. dollar in cash. from any other source. But a dollar in bonds from a township for the purpose of aiding a railroad, does not represent a dollar in cash, because it cannot be - sold for a dollar in Wall Street. But - a dollar in cash from a tax payer actu ally represents a dollar, and will buy iron or pay for work, or anything else that is needed. ..Now, if I hold propertyin any town or city in the State, I pray you gentle men to-declare, that if that township or -city has so much confidence -in any : railroad scheme that is presented be 3fore it, that it is willing to invest its meaens in -that scheme, it shall be com p elled to levy its taxes and'pay'them . over for that purpose; that the town ship shall have,no responsibility except for the money it is to collect and:pay over. You will pay then as you go. But, I go Still further. I deprecate this idea of aid by townships for this purpose. It will go on untilthereis debt on the right hand.'and debt — on the left land, and- debt above and debt' below. I deprecate -any -such thing exceedingly.'If there are'any great lines of public improvement which will benefit the State, I am perfectly willing that the State should advance a million, or even - two millions,'of dollars to aid those works of public improvement. That would remove all the complaints that are continually made against the debt - which was incurred and expended upon lines of improvement in the southern part of the State. I amewil ling that that should be done for this reason; the bond of the State of Mikh igan is cash; a bond of the State of Michigan for one hundred dollars will sell for one hundred dollars, and that, too, just at the point when these rail roads must have assistance, or they die; that is, at the time when they must have the iron to be placed on the road. -Let the men in the towns who have money of their own go on and grade the roads, and get the ties for the roads; let -them do the work up to-that point. And then, if:the prOject is one which can command the confidence of -A.-''k.. .., I.38 CONSTITUTIONAL. CONVENLXJLO Tuesday Jul 16 187 DEAE A- LROEI~S thLe Legislature, let the Legislature of Michigan appropriate the money, or credit, or bonds of the State, to the proper extent to aid in the completion of the work. If it cannot command that confidence, then I say that no such aid should be given to it. I say, besides the land grant roads of this State, there is not one of these railroads, I do not care where it is, though it be brought to te condition of being graded, and its ties actually laid down on the road-there is not one of them, which on town bonds, or on any other municipal security which can be raised, will command the iron to finish the road, unless assistance comes froni some extraneous source, Take the road that runs through this place. I do not believe this road could have been constructed without the aid of one of those great corporations, whose bonds are equivalent to cash. There are meritorious works in the State of Michigan that can be constructed only in the same way. Perhaps they would be. paying investments if finally construected. But a large number of them would never be paying investments at all. If constructed, it must be with the distinct understanding that they will not make any returns to the stockholders. Therefore they must be constructed by the aid of those large corporations which already exist, and which will construct them as feeders to their roads, or they must be constructed by the united aid of the people of the State acting through the Legislature of the State. Now, do not let us cover up our townships with debt; let us protect them. And if aid must be given, (and I am not at all unwilling to give this aid,) let us provide that it shall be given in a wise and statesmanlike form. Let us give it by the aid of the only corporate body, the State itself, that can give it justly and adequately. I am perfectly well aware that this would lead in some respects to disappointment. It would be necessary for the State to find out the great routes in the State that would serve the interests of the largest number, and apply its aid to them. ]Every gentleman on this floor knows that in a wise system of internal improvements that must be done. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I would be giad to bring a railway to every man's door; but I said that that belonged to a class of blessings that are not admissible. You cannot bring a railroad to every man's door. You must construct your railways m reference to leading lines of communication, to carry out schemes that are really practicable. I am quite well aware that what I said about increasing the State debt may have taken gentlemen here by surprise. I am quite well aware that we are all reluctant to have our State debt increased, and none more than I am. I had occasion on another subject to express my earnest feelings about the matter of State indebtedness, and the great necessity of providing for its discharge when contracted. It is better at all times when you contract a debt, if it be a public debt to know-precisely what the debt is, its extent and amount. If you clothe these municipalities all over the State of Michigan, with the power to contract debts for the purpose of aiding railroads, who can tell what will be the amount of that indebtedness? It may suddenly swell up to ten rnillions of dollars. The power is unlimited and unrestrained. You can tell nothing about the amount which may arise from the exercise of such a power. It is better if debt is to be contracted, that one body should contract it and know the precise amount of that debt, because that is a matter of great importance. It must be paid by the taxpayer if paid at all; and it may.as well be paid through the agency of the State as through the agency-of these municipalities. It will be far better to know precisely the amount of the debt. Ithink itwould be better to have it in a form which will command money to the full value of the debt. in that way the money can be used to the full extent represented by the debt, and there wll be either no loss or as little as possible. I really hope that this Convention will not authorize this contracting of debts by townships, cities and counties for this purpose. I hope that if anything is done in that direction, it will simply be to authorize the imposition of a tax and to compel the money so appropriated to be paid over. Or still better; if the interests of bhe State require some lines of public improvements to be constructed for the opening of the vast domain of the north, then let the debt be contracted by the State itself, and its bonds be distributed to aid those works!that will actually promote the interests of the State. I do not propose to detain the Convention longer. I said at the outset that I was not properly prepared to speak upon this matter at this time; that I did not feel at all able to speak. But I felt unwilling to permit this section to pass without submitting the views I had upon this subject. Mr. DANIELLS. I move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion we agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the Chair, Mr. PRINGLE reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant-to the brder of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Legislative Department;" had made some progress therein, andlhad directed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. LONGYEAR. I move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion was agreed to; and the Convention accordingly, (at twenty-five nminutes past 12 o'clock p. m.,) took a recess until three o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at thiree o'clock, p. m., and was called to'order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a -quorum answered to their names. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. LUCE. I move that the Con vention now resolve itself into comL mittee of the whole, on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. PRINGLE in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Legislative Department." MUNICIPAL AMD TO RAILROADS. The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose this morning, it had under consideration section twenty-seven of this article, which had been amended to read as follows: The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad to an extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to pledge its credit for any such purpose." The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. M. C. WATEKINS, ) moved to amend this section by striking out the word "ten," before the words "per cent. of the assessed varuation," and to insert the word "five." Pending which, the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HusToN,) moved to amend the amendment by striking out the word "five," and inserting "twenty." The pending question is upon the amendment to the amendment. Mr. STOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, the decision of the Convention upon this question will, if the Constitution framed by us be adopted, exert a very great influence upon the future pro-s DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. Jul,.y 16, 1867. 139 14 CTIUIALCVETO.Tedy perity and improvement of the State. While the great lines of trade and commerce will doubtless continue to flow through Michigan, from east to west, affording valuable railroad facilities along these lines, it cannot be expected that north and south roads and intermediate 1lins necessary to secure the convenience and develop the resources of the Stae, will be constructed without public aid. It is our settled policy not to allow the State to engage in any public improvement, or the credit of the State to be pledged for that purpose. Such are the provisions of the present Constitution, and no one in this Convention has even suggested a departure from this settled rule. It is, therefore, very evident that the proposition of the gentlemen from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) to grant the money or credit of the State, in aid of railroads is wholly impracticable. It only remains for us to consider whether those municipalities which are most immediately interested..ought, under reasonable restrictions, to be allowed to grant such aid as they may deem proper; or whether, on the other hand, they ought to be prohibited, by an iron rule in the fundamental law of the State, from granting aid,lunder any circumstances whatever. Experience has so clearly demonstrated the necessity and importance of railroads, that it is no longer an open question. Although built by private corporations, they are necessarily designed for the public, and are great public improvements. They can be made profitable only by affording the most liberal accommodations to the whole community. They are great public thoroughfares devoted to the public use, open alike to all, and under the control of the government. They increase trade and commerce, afford easy and rapid transportation for persons and property, advance the value of land, and generally promote the welfare and prosperity of the country. They are something more than mere private enterprises, and are so treated by the courts -of every State in the Union. Their right to take property is the right of the State, the right of eminent domain; and can only be justified and sustained on the ground that the land so taken is for the public use. In the case of Swan vs. Williams, Michigan Reports, the Supreme Court of this State says: "That private property can be taken by the government from one person and bestowed upon another, for private use, will not for a moment be contended; and these corporations can only be sustained upon the assumption that the powers delegated are to a public agent to work out a public use." ,:Now, sir, where is the injustice in allowing a city or township to raise money by taxation, for the purpose of accomplishing by means of a public agent a public use and benefit? Would not the absolute denial of this privilege involve a still greater injustice? We talk largely of the right of the people for self-government. Let us look to it that, under the pretense of securing the Constitutional rights of the people, we do not deprive them of the power of governing themselves. Constitutional restrictions upon the power of the people to manage and control their own local affairs, are, to some extent at least, restrictions upon their rights and their liberty. In our government the sovereign power is vested in the people. A part of this power has been delegated to the general Government. All the rest is reserwed to the people. They cannot, however, directly exercise this reserved power. It can only be exercised through therepresentatives of the people in the State Legislature.' When, therefore, absolute and arbitrary restrictions are imposed upon the legislative department, it is a clear infringement upon the liberties of the people. Some gentlemen upon this floor seem to entertain the opinion that the rights of the people are secured in proportion to the number and stringency of our Constitutional restrictions.' There can be no greater fallacy. The liberties of the people may be as effectually destroyed by unjust and arbitrary restrictions as if an ambitious Napoleon of our day were, by some coup d'etat, to usurp despotic power. Constitutional restrictions are rendered necessary and proper, but such restrictions ought to be confined to those great fun damental, principles of government which are of universal application, and which protect, without destroying, the inherent rights of the people. In this way the minority may be protected from unwarrantable taxation, and the majority left to the exercise of neces sary pdwer, within reasonable limits. The majority, sir, have some rights. The argument of gentlemen that the property of the minority ought not to be taken without their consent, would place the masses of the people at the mercy of a few, so far as all great public improvements are concerned. My understanding is that there are two cases, and only two, in which the prop'erty of an individual may be taken without his consent. Private property may be taken for public use. In this case it is a wel established principle of constitutional law that full compensation shall be made to the owner. The only other case i; that of taxation; that rests upon a very different foundation. No compensation is or can be made. The taxing power is one of the inherent powers of government, and belongs appropriately to the legislative departmnent. And when not restrained by direct constitutional prohibition the legislative discussion is unlimited, as well as undefinable in its objects, uses and extent. In the case of Clark vs. the city of Rochester, the supreme court of the State of New York in discussing this question expressly declared: "That where a tax is imposed upon all persons alike, or upon all persons within prescribed limits, upon some common principle, and for some public purpose, there is no limit to the power of the Legislature to authorize taxation, and no appeal except through the ballot box." We find then, sir, that railroads exercise important public functions, that the Legislature may aid in their construction, or authorize municipalities to render such aid, unless restrained by direct constitutional. provisions. And, in conclusion, sir, I will only say, that in my opinion, the prosperity of the State requires that the privilege of aiding and encouraging these great works of public improvement should, under reasonable restrictions as to the amount of such aid, be left to the ac tion of the Legislature, and to the will of the people. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. HUSTON; to the amendment of Mr. M. C. WVTKINS, and it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amenement of Mr. M.. C. WATKiNS, to strike out "ten," before the words "per cent. of the assessed valuation," anid insert the word "five." M r. LONGYEAR. I call' for a di vision of the question, and ask that the vote be first taken on striking out the word "c ten." - The CHAIRMAN., The first question will be upon striking out the word "ten." Mr P. D. WARNER. While the article was under consideration before the committee on the legislative department, I proposed for the consideration of the committee a section in these words: "The Legislature shall not authorize any county, city, incorporated village, or township, by virtue of the vote of its citizens, or otherwlse, to become a stockholder in any company, association or corporation, or to obtain money tor, or loan its credit to, any such association or corporation." In presenting that proposition-to the committee for their consideration, I did so as representing and reflecting my own views upon this great question; and if others had entertained the views that I did, then, instead of the section which now stands as section twentyseven, the proposition which I have just read would have been reported in its place. But a majority of that corm CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Tuesday,. 140 July.. 16,1.......AE.... S'- K. v., mittee differed from me in regard to the propriety of adopting such a provision, and instead of the adoption of the proposition which I had the honor to present, another was offered as a substitute for it, and that substitute is embraced in this section twenty-seven, before the coltmittee of the whole. That substitute was adopted by the committee; it was adopted also by a large majority of that committee, and my only fear is'%hat it will be adopted by the committee of the whole. Now, in relation to this proposition, I do not occupy the position of my friend from Wayne, (Mr. SHEAIRER,) who has spoken upon this question, and who was satisfied with five per cent., but would vote for' ten per cent., and would not like to vote for twenty. I have a decided preference in relation to what shall be adopted as the result of our deliberation upon this question. I believe that in this question is embodied great and important interests of our State at large, and of all our people. I am afraid that we are labor ing just at this time under a moment ary excitement upon this question. I fear that on account of the excitement which has sprung up regarding this question, the judgment of this Con vention will be swerved from the con clusion to which it would otherwise be drawn. I think that the proposition offered by the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RiPER) is not only just, but it is a proper proposition to be adopted by this committee.. I believe that the principles embodied in that proposition are right. While I am in favor, and have been, of restraining the Legisla ture from conferring any power upon local municipalities to grant aid in the manner proposed, I am satisfied that it will be impossible to secure such a re sult as the judgment of this Conven tion. Therefore, I am'willing to adopt the proposition offered by the gentle man from Cass, restricting the powers to be conferred to a limit of five per cent. In reference to the principles embodied in this section, I can only say that I consider them of very doubtful propriety. It is a question that has not only agitated Legislatures, but it is a question that has divided courts. Those members of this Convention who had the honor of holding seats in the last Legislature, can readily recall to their minds the excitement that was experienced in the House and Senate, in reference to this question. And the proposition which I submitted for the consideration of the committee on the legislative department, was offered for the purpose of taking from the Legislature this vexed and exciting question. I will admit that, notwithstanding my conservatism, notwithstanding my ordinary coolness and lack of excitability, at one time during the last session of the House of Representatives I was almost frightened in consequence of the action of that House upon this question. Let me state a circumstance.- By the eleventh rule of the House the order of business brings motions and resolutions after the third reading of bills. The order 6f business was at one time suspended so that motions and resolutions might be in order. Previous to that the House had adopted a resolution that no bill appropriating the public money or public lands should be acted upon by the House, until it had been considered by, and passed in committee of the whole. Butiafter the order of business was suspended, and motions and resolutions were in order, then, by a single motion adopted by the House of Representatives, thirty bills, appropriating swamp lands for the construction of State roads, were taken from the gen eral order and placed on the order of third reading. By three other motions, I thiilnk, fifteen railroad bills were taken from the general order, and placed upon the order of third reading. We then passed from that to the order of third reading of bills, and the House was occupied during the entire day in the passage of those bills. I would inform the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) that those bills were passed upon separately, but not having been considered in committee of the whole, they were not allowed to be read through in the House. After the titles were read by the Chair they were passed to the clerk to be read the third time, when, by the vote of the House, the third reading was dis pensed with, and they were put upon their passage. I refer to this, not to call in question the action of the House, but to illustrate the excitement which this subject is calculated to bring into the halls of legislation. It is demoral izing in its tendency, corrupting in-its influence, and calculated to destroy the peace and harmony of any legislative body. - ~ As I have remarked, this is a ques tion upon which courts have been divided. While the courts of one State sustain a law of the Legislature authoiizing the granting of aid in the manner here proposed, the courts of other States decide such laws to be in valid. In those cases, however, there was no constitutional provision; it was only the statute law which governed the courts. But I understand the prop osition was decided by the court upon its merits as a general proposition. Now, I desire that members of this body will take into consideration the inconsistency of conferring upon the Legislature a power of such magnitude; a power tftat is calculated to disturb and destroy the harmony of every successive Legislature that will assemble in this State, during the continuence of this Constitution, if it shall be approved by the people. But theie are other considerations connected with this subject, which I consider of vastly greater importanc. In consequence of the excitement of the last few years, the tendency of the public mind has been to run largely in the direction of public debt. Calls were made; upon the people for men to fill the decimated ranks of our armies. Those calls were to be met, and nobly did the people of our State respond to them. 3But they entailed large expense upon the tax payer, and upon the individual They cost our people largely in money, and heavy debts have been accumulated in consequence of these operations. Many of those debts are yetresting upon the localities that. contracted them; so that all the localities of our State are not entirely free from indebtedness.: Many other localities, by the action of previous Lagislatures, had contract ed indebtedness for works of public im provement of the charactefof those now' under consideration. And, while those obligations have been incurred, the tendency of everything has been to inflation. If the amount of taxation called for was only two or three per cent., we did not consider it a heavy burden upon ourselves. Everythiig that was produced in the community brought exorbitant prices. Even within six months the staple product of this State, wheat, has brought from three and a hail to four dollars -per bushel a price unheard of before in the his tor of this nation. Another Staple product of this country, wool, has brought one dollar and one dollar and a quarter per pound. Wheat has depreciated one hundred and twenty per cent. in value, and wool one hundred and twenty-five per cent. This, I con sider, is but the beginning of the end. AlM the circumstances by which we are surrounded are changing. -Instead of flush and easy times, we will soon be called upon to experience such times as some of us who have long resided in the State of Michigan have before experienced. I think it would be un necessary for me to recall to the minds of the old residents of this State the experience of thirty years ago. I only recur to the fact to illustrate the idea that we may be upon, or near, -imes as destructive to the pecuniary interests of our people as were those times, in order to excite caution in the minds of I DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. July- 16) 1867. 141 142 COTITUTIOAL COVETIO Tueay, emr'bers of this Convention upon this question. I have referred to the loctl indebtedn.ess of this State. I desire to call the attention of gentlemen to one other consideration -in connection with this question of debt. Our own State debt amounts to a trifle less than four million of dollars. The proportion of the national debt belonging to the State of Michigan, according to population, is something less than eighty million of dollars. The interest upon these debts, State and national, must be met; for it is not unreasonable to suppose that the people of the State of Michigan will be called upon to pay their proportion of-the national debt. Taking onr proportion of the national debt, and requiring our people to provide for the payment of interest upon it, e have an annual expenditure upon the State, in the way of interest, estimated at six per cent., of something over five million of dollars. Gentlemen may perhaps not have taken into consideration these things. I will acknowledge that when they first presented themselves to my mind I was startled. It is now proposed, beyond all this, .to authorize municipalities and localities of the State, by a provision to be embraced i, this fundamental law of the State, to incur a further indebtedness, that may amount to some thirty millions more. I estimate the value of the property of the State as equalized by the State board of equalization. By this section, as it is proposed to be amended, by a limitation of five per cent., then a tax is authorized of over seen milion of dollars. Now, I desire that members of this Convention will hesitate, and ponder well the re.suit of their action, before they come to a determination that"'will be calculated to involve the pecuniary interests of the State to the extent I have mentioned. The gentleman from Wayne, (MHr. LOTHILOP,) who last addressed the comttmee, referred to the manner in which these municipal bonds were used for the purpose of constructing railroads. It is not needful that a further reference should be made to the extent of loss which is experienced by the localities in this form of indebtedness, or aid. But it is a fact well known to everybody who has had any recent experience in the manner of constructing railroads, that these municipal bonds are in many instances passed over at a very heavy depreciation from their par value.. Now, if the aid is to be granted in any mann,er whatever, I am with that gentleman in favor of :aUthoriziig the levying of -a tax, and the collection of the money, so that -ture generations shall not be embarrassed to liquidate the debt. The gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAn,) referred in glowing terms to the prosperity of the city of Lansing, attributing it to the advantages which this city has derived from railroad communications I am apprised that tax-payers in the city of Lansing have been burdened to a degree almost calculated to lead them, in some instances, to regret that they reside in this city, in consequence of this and other improvements that have been forced upon the city of Lansing. For myself, I have paid in the city of Lansing (and I consider myself very fortunate in being the owner of but a small amount of property here) taxes of from nine to eleven per cent. upon its valuation. - That is the way they tax property iu. the city of Lansing; that is the way these improvements are made, and the prosperity of the city is carried forward. Let me give a single instance: I have had property in the city of Lansing assessed for four-fifths of its value for public improvements, and I offered to sell it for the other fifth, and could not get an offer for it. But I do not refer to this for the purpose of detracting from the fair name and fame of this city. I respect the people of Lansing, and I am gratified at their prosperity; but I do believe there is a limit within which it becomes necessary and important for men acting in a public capacity to be governed by considerations of reason. Again, it is proposed that this aid by municipalities shall be authorized by the Legislature, or that the municipalities shall be authorized by the Legislature to grant aid to the amount of ten per cent. I have no doubt that by those legislative enactments it will be provided that the electors shall vote upon this question. And in consideration of that fact, it is urged that no injustice can possibly be done to the electors themselves, or to the tax payers and property holders. Now, I have had some experience in regard to this matter pf voting taxes. There has: been no time within the past six years,: or during the history of the rebellion, when a demand has been made for men, that our localities were not willing to vote the last dollar'they possessed, in order to raise the money to clear themselves from the draft.' It was reasonable, it was right, and I did: not object to it. But I consider that the excitement in regard to railroads is as great, or may be as great, in its influence upon local communities, as theX excitement in regard to any other question that can agitate the public. mind. I ira.ow that in many instances the excitement has been so great that the question of dollars and cents was not taken into consideration; the vote was given without thought. They con sidered only the railroad they were to have, and not the tax which they would have to pay. These votes will not, therefore, reflect the wishes or the in terests of the tax payers of the locality; they may be controlled by outside in fluences. In one instance, I know, in the county of Washtefiaw, a vote upon this subject was taken three times; twice the electors decided against granting aid; the third time they had become somewhat discouraged, those in the interest of the roads were out to vote, and those opposed, having be come tired of the pending contest, re mained at home,- and the proposition was carried. I refer to this only to il lustrate one of the ways in which such a proposition may be carried. In all that I have said, I do not de sire to be understood as being opposed in any manner or form to-internal im provements. I am as-much in favor of all the projected railroads within the limits of the State as any other man I am as ready to devote my own means to the construction of roads in Which I may be interested, as any other man in the State in proportion to the means I possess. I would not be unwilling, with the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTH RoP,) in view of the advancing con dition of the agricultural interests in the southern portion of the State, to appropriate from the State treasm-y an amount to aid the newer settlements in the development of those localities in the way of public improvements. I would not object to adopting a provision in this Constitution by which the localities themselves might be allowed toraise an amount,equalto ten per cent., or more if they desired, if they would only raise the money and pay it. But cI onceive there is no interest that requires the localities of the State to burden themselves with perpetual taxation and indebtedness, for the purpose of constructing works of imagLuary benefit to them. Again, I believe as a general principle, that the Legislature has no wore right to. authorize localities to raise money for the construction of private enterprises in the shape of railroads, than they have-for the construction of saw mills, or grist mills, or woolen factories, or any other class of improvements for private purposes. I believe the principle to be the same. There is no way in which I am able to dis'cover any difference, whethsr the money is appropriated for railroads, or for these other improvements which I .have mentioned. i 142 CONSTITUTION A Ti CONVIENTION. Tuesday, ~~~~~~~u~~~~~~~~~..........,6, 16.......... POCEDNG.. — _ I have already occupied more of the time of the committee than i intended when I arose. I regret that this question has come before us for consideration and determination, in the shape in which it is now presented. I would have been glad to sustain the proposition, as I offered it in the comm ittee on the legislative department. I would have been glad to have had the standing committee report that proposition to the Convention, and to have had it adopted by the Convention. And if such had been the actionof the committee and of the Convention, I-conceive that no interest of the State would have suffered by such action. I hope that if it shall be the determination of this body to authorize the Legislature, or to grant power to the Legislature to-authorize these municipalities, to lend their aid for this purpose, that in its wisdom and its judgment this Convention will limit the amount of aid to be so granted to at most five per cent. I this should be the action of the Convention, I shall be satisfied with the result, and I think it will not endanger the endorsement or approval of'the Constitution when submitted to the people. If a larger amount than-that is authorized to be raised and appropriated by the municipalities, I fear that, in the locality in which I reside, the Constitution will meet with but slight favor from the people, without regard to what may be its other provisions. Mr. WILLARD. I do not suppose any remarks I may make here, especially at this stage of the debate, will have any influence upon this committee, or will change a single vote. Yet I feel impelled to simply give some reasons why I am inclined to support this section as it was reported by the committee on the legislative department, with the slight amendment which has been made since it was reported to this body. And allow me to say that I make these remarks because I feelthat I shall be under the necessity of rendering a reason for the vote which I shall give upon a question of so much importance, a question which has agitated the people of the State for the past year. It seems to me that this question resolves itself into one simple inquiry; is it competent for a municipality, as a member of the great political community, to vote aid to xailroads? In other words, does a government,.or any sub-division of- a government, go out of the way of a proper exercise of; its functions, in giving aid to works of internal improvement'? That is a question'to which I have given considerable attention. The more I have reflected upon it, the more I have been led -to-. the conclusion, that it is within the province of government to render such aid. I regard works of internal improvement to be fundamental in their character, those upon which our social and national prosperity in a great measure rests. I believe that our intellectual and moral progress in a very great measure depends upon them. I think a careful study of the history of the world will show this; that those nations which have engaged in works of internal improvement, which have fostered the material prosperity of the country, have been those which have advanced the most in social and moral progress. I need not refer to those instances. We know that thoseStates of Greece which did the most towards fostering the material prosperity of their communities, were those that advanced the most in intellectual and moral prosperity. The intellectual and moral greatness of the Grecian States, I think in a very great measure depended upoi this spirit of fostering works of internal improvement. And the most palmy days of the Roman Em"pire were those days when its emperors were building their roads from the Indies to the Atlantic; from Great Britain to Egypt. They were those days which have been called the days of the good emperors; those days when there was peace and prosperity throughout that great empire; those days when works of internal improvement were carried on by Hadrian and the Antonines. We need simply to refer to the Netherlands, to see that where works of internal improvement were fostered, where agriculture and commerce were nourished, there was intellectual and moral progress, and liberty sprang forth like the rays of the morning sun. I say that I regard these works of internal improvement as fundamental in their character, relating to the very progress of mankind. If -they merely involved financial questions, if they did not reach up into questions of intellectual and moral advaqceT ment, if they,had nothing to do with our intellectual and moral character, then I should think it might be improper for political communities to render aid -to them; or at least that there would be less force in the argument in favor of their doing so. But if we refer to our own peninsula, I think we shall see that we have peculiar reasons for encouraging the specific work to which this section refers.:We have inscribed on our coat of arms "the beautiful peninsula." Gentlemen of the Convention, as they spread out the map before them, will see that this great peniisula, large enough in itself for an empire, is not traversed by navigable rivers; hena the necessity of some means of internal improvement. It seems to rest upon the people of Michigan to open up these channels of in'tercommunication, and bring one part of -this great empire in close connection with the other. It- mustl; be done; we have reached'that period in our history when this question presents itself to our minds. aspractical thinking men; what shall be done to open up this great empire, t stretch railroads from one end of thee State to the other, to reach forward in the far north of the State, and connect with the great Northern Pacific Railroad, which is to run through Pembina to the Russian Possessions? What has been done to bring us in connection with this great line of traffic, and those great means of commniication with the world? Can we render any aid to this work? If these roads are built, they will benefit every man's property alike. Have we any right to vote a tax upon this property to-carry on-this work of internal improvement?-; I have been studying to see whether in the past, or in the present, there:are' any examples to which we may refer as illustrations to show whether the functions of our government are such as to enable us to suppose thak we have any right to extend our power as a community in that direction. Since these works are not pu-blic property, when they are built; sinces they do not belong to the State; since they do not belong to any special division of the State, the question is, can we properly render them any aid? Do political bodies give aid to individual corporations when they have not the control, and have no management of the property therein:? T'hat is the question. Have we any exampl-s of this character in the ordinary working of our government? Those ex amples may not be numerous, but I think there are some of them. They rest upon the great principle that whatever is for the public benefit may be accomplished by the public. To be. sure, these works are not owned by the public, but they exist for the public, and the public may have an interest in them. Now, I think our churches are recognized as coming to some extent within this principle. In imost States of the Union, and in our own State, there is indirect aid given to every church organization existing in'the State, by exempting its property from taxation. If you exempt any property from taxation, you are, as it were, giving out of the public treasury just so "iuch to the corporations which own the property so exempted. I:think we find this ktind of property exempted - D —F,'RATES AND PROCEEDINGS. .July 16Y. 1867. 143 14 CO-IUI~LC~V~I~Tedy by most nations of Europe and in our own country. Whatever views men may have upon the question of tariff, even the most ultra free-trader (and I class myself among them) admits that there are instances in which manufactures may be fostered by means of a tariff. Even Stuart Mill says that in a new country, for the sake ofr fostering and planting great manufactures, it may be necessary sometimes to resort to a tariff. Now, if you protect manufactures by a tariff; if you make the people pay more for their goods, in order that these manufacturing establishments .may befostered, then you are taking so much from every individual in order that these manufactories may be reared in their midst. That, it seems to me, is an example in point. We do foster, and it has been the policy of the government to foster, those interests and institutions which promote the material nimprovement of humanity. It is done on the principlethat in fostering them we promote the public benefit, the intellectual and moral progress, and the welfare of mankind. The principle of specific taxes, it seems to me, is the same. A specific tax is laid upon certain manufactures, and upon mining for instance, for the purpose of fostering them, and giving them just so much as their tax is less than it would be if laid in the usual way. All the franchises given to cor porations come under the same prini.ple. Those corporations that exist for the public benefit have granted unto them certain franchises, which are of the nature of an exemption. By that means, we are granting, indirectly, aid to them, by the public community, for the actual good which they confer upon the community. As I have considered these instances, I have thought that I could see that this has been, and is, the policy of government, not only in our coun try, but in all other civilized lands. The policy of the government of the - different States and of our own State is to foster and encourage works of in:ternal improvement, to give aid to cor porations, and to give aid to individu als, who are engaged in those works of internal improvement, although the property belonging to those corpora tions isot vested in the State, nor in any subdivision of the State. But, as'I said, they exist for public good, and the public, in a political capacity, give them their encouragement. I believe that the works of internal improve ment which have been carried on bythie State, (although I would not declare that to be my policy, or a pol icy which I would advocate,) have beeha in most instwanes, in this coun try, shown to have been, in the end, a very great benefit. I know that when I was a boy every one spoke of Gov. Clinton of New York in the highest terms, and eulogized him as that great man who had conceived the noble project of the Erie canal, and had carried it on with State aid. Now, if you will go to that enterprising city on Lake Michigan, named after the lake, Michigan City, you will find there that the inhabitants are enthusiastically engaged in improving their harbor, in order to render their city one of the commercial emporiums of the west. Can any man say there is' any impropriety in their levying a tax upon the property of Michigan City, in order to carry on that great work of improvement, when every one is to be benefited by it? - Is it not a work that will be carried on for the public benefit, and is any man made poorer by it? Is not every man who pays the tax made richer by the tax? This will apply to debts which are incurred by communities. If the aggregate valuation - of the property of any commtlnity shall be increased by these works of improvement, then who is the poorer for it, or who can be the loser by it? For this simple reason, Ifeel inclined to support the provision in this section, which implies, at least, that municipalities may render aid to railroads. And I am inclined to think that I express the sentiments of the most judicious business men in my portion of the State, when I advocate the limiting this aid to ten per cent. That is the figure at which most of those men have placed this restriction. It seems to me, as has been said here frequently, that it is neither too large: nor,too small. It is just the restriction that should be placed upon this matter, one which I believe the people, when they look at it properly, will concede to be the right one. I believe if we go to the people with this provision in the Constitution, we shall not lose strength by it. I be lieve that, although it is said that the people at this time, are in a state of excitement, fit is an excitement that will exist for many years to come..I believe it is a state of excitement which should exist; I believe it is a spirit of enthusiasm which should pervade the people of this State, until it places the works of internal improvement in our State upon a level with similar works in other Western States. I do not like to see Indiana, and Illinois, and Wis consin, making such rapid strides ahead of us. I wish we might wheel into the line of progress and march with them as a member of the noble society of States in the great North west. I hope we shall wheel in and take rank with them, standing shoulder to shoulder in this important work of opening channels of intercommunication throughout the whole State. Mr. CONGER. I had not supposed that the discussion upon this- part of the proposition would open up the whole subject of adopting any provision in this Coustitution, in reference to the granting of aid by municipalities to railroads. I had supposed that we would first settle upon some amount to be incorporated in the provision, and afterwards discuss by itself the propriety or impropriety of inserting any provision at all upon the subject. But I cannot forbear making some allusion to some remarks which have been presented here, by those who are opposed to allowing municipalities to render any aid at all to railroads. I confess that I expected opposition to this plan from the quarter from which it has come; I expected that this proposition would be opposed by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LoTHROP.) His loclity, the — interests of those he represents, and- the continued pertinacity exhibited for a long series of years by the people of the place where he resides, against allowing other railroads to be built, might have led us to expect that we should receive no favor for this plan from that por tion of the State, or from its representatives. It was years before the people of the State were allowed even the poor privilege of building a railroad anywhere, even if they could overcome the combined opposition of the repre sentatives of the county of Wayne. It was years before a general rail road law authorizing railroads to be built by anybody, and in any manner, could become a law of the State.. I find no fault with the gentleman; I find no fault with his opposition; I find no fault with those who agree with him in opposing this provision in the Con stitution. It is the right and privilege of all to protect their own interests, and if the interests of other parts of the State conflict with theirs, to keep down these interests. But I regret that a gentleman who professes so sincere a desire for the ex tension of railroads all over the State should do so without showing some manner in which, at least, a helping hand could be given to them. The gentlemen tells us that the or ganization of townships and munici palities of that kind are not intended at all with reference to the building of railroads. That is a wise suggestion that might have escaped the Convention had it not been thus fortunately pro mulgated. Now, my recollection is that townships had their organization CONSrfi'.VUTIONAT4 CONVENTION. Tuesday,. .144 Jul 16 87 EAE XDPOED-S centuries ago. My recollection is that railroads are of modern date. It may not therefore have been in the minds of those who organized the "hundreds" and the townships in the old country, from which we derived the system-it may not possibly have been in their minds that railroads should be a part of the system. And yet our old forefathers were not so much to blame, for railroads were unknown in those days. Had they been known when townships were first organized, there is no question but what there would have been a provision for aiding railroads. It is then a reproach of our ancestors which is undeserved, that in the organization of townships they did not make any arrangement for the exercise of such powers as these. Again, the gentleman from Wayne informs us that this whole project leads to debt! debt! debt!-three times repeated and out. Well, in my modest way of looking at these subjects, I had understood that the very proposition was that there might be debt. I had supposed that the thing was so clear that, without the reiteration of this language, gentlemen might at least have suspected that the pledging of the credit of a town to aid railroads was the incurring of a debt. The repetition of the word "debt," therefore, does not frighten me from my propriety. But I will tell you what did frighten me. It was the bringing up of the long skinny finger of that old hermit of Roanoke; that was what startled my propriety; and the repetition of his language in regard to paying as you go; I tell you that startled me. [Laughter.] That old hermit lived on an island. I do not know whether it was a township or a village. He lived on the island of Roanoke; he was known as John Randolph, of Roanoke. He was a monster in this world; of sharp intellect, shrewd and keen, but a man whose hand was against every man; and every man's hand against him, he was the Ishmael of the United States. It is not to be wondered at, then, that he was unwilling that towns or nations should incur debt for any purpose whatever. He had his own views, of which I am not to-day the advocate. Why does the gentleman think it is wrong for townships to assist in building railroads? The argument is put as if it was supposed here that the town board understood the whole system of railroading, as well as the gentleman who has been the attorney of railroads for the last twenty years. There is no such principle involved in this proposition. It is not even supposed, by the terms of the proposition, that they know anything at all about Vol. 2 —No. 19. building railroads, or will'have anything to do with building railroads. It is supposed that they will lend aid to those who do know how to build railroads; that is all. It' requires no great financial skill for a man to take stock in a railroad company. If a man and his friends have confidence in a railroad project, and believe it will be a useful and a paying concern, he need know very little about railroading in order to subscribe to it, to take stock in it, and give it money for nothing, if he pleases. That is what is proposed for townships. AWhy, this last winter, I think the Legislature passed a law giving of the people's money a certain bounty for setting out shade trees along the highways of the State. Now, what business had they to appropriate other people's money to set out shade trees along the highways? That was the business of townships; the townships might provide for it, and townships might build bridges and erect school houses. And I submit that that very means of transportation and locomotion which has heretofore, through all ages of the world, been done on our -roads and highways, is now being done to a certain extent by our railroads, a new discovery and a new invention. But I do not see why, to accomplish the very same object, there should be any objection to townships aiding in promoting their prosperity in that particular way, any more than in any other. The argument to me does not seem to meet the proposition at all. I had hoped that when the gentleman did speak upon this subject, he would bring the vast resources of his intellect to bear upon the proposition, and show how it might be injurious, and why it would not be beneficial. I had hoped that he would at least tell us why it was bad to pledge the credit of a township to get a railroad through it, and thereby double the value of the property before we collect the tax, instead of doing as he says, collect the tax at once while the township is still poor. I had hoped that he would explain why it was better to pay the money at once, and let those who come after derive all the benefits, and pay none of the taxes. I had supposed that the other might be the preferable way. But the gentleman tells 1us that these township bonds would go into the market at not more than thirty cents on the dollar. I tell the gentleman that he cannot find such an instance in the State of Michigan. The system proposed here has been adopted in this State for two years past, and has worked well. Township bonds have been issued, redeemable in from one to six years, and from one to ten years, and the very first ytar the interest was raised and the tax' paid to meet one-tenth or one-sixth of the debt. The people have had the exam ple of these things; some have been for two years paying the money in this way. Are there any complaints? There may be no such bonds in Hamtramck, where the gentleman resides. In that delightful oasis of this world, there is no particular opportunity for a railroad that I know of, except it might be from Milk Point to Hudson's Point. There is no place where a railroad could pass through on any direct line, and no place in particular to which it might go. It is one of those delightful rural districts in which my friend resides, where the whistle of the locomotive is never heard. It is like Fort street, in the city of Detroit, where they do not wish even the rumble of the street cars to break the peaceful slumbers of its patrician inhabitants. But, through the northern part of the State, where there are active work — ing men, and industrious people depending upon their own efforts to improve the country, and to do so much of the work as shall induce capital to come in and complete the remainder of it, there they desire railroads. They have had laws authorizing them to raise taxes; they have issued their bonds, and they have sold them. They were not sold in Wall street; they are too good a class of bonds to go into the market as fancy stock. They are taken in this State by citizens who have no interest in Wall street operations. The lowest I ever heard of their being sold for was eighty-five cents on the dollar; and they have been sold as high as ninty-two cents on the dollar. That, certainly, is not a very extravagant loss on bonds of that description. They are as safe an investment as any bonds in the world, insofar as the purity and honesty of the small collection of the people in the township, pledging their faith in that small capacity, and having their responsibility well understood and known at the time, is greater than that of an irresponsible company. The system has been tried in this State for over two years, and it works well; to my own certain knowledge it works well. There are hundreds and thousands of people in this State to-day, deeply and vitally interested in the success of the workings of this system. They are laboring themselves with their own subscriptions, and with their own town's money, too%and with every effort that they can make, to so far advance the work that capitalists shall come in and lend them further aid to assist in completing their roads. That is what they desire; they are on the July 16, 1867. .DEBATES ANIJ PROCEEDINGS. 145 0 co iT:O: O RAL i. track of these roads and the are workig there. Aid I tell the gentleman' th'at the Whistle of the Michigan Central will not frighten them mom that track. o Aw, is.the objection of the gentle-. man -Rto this, that fit is too much? Certanly'not,"for he says that he is in faror'of votiang a direct tax and paying the money as you go. I take him upon that proposition the th that the tax may bae raised immediately; the credit may' :ie. but for a year. But the gentleman goes further; he says that he is willing teo raise one, tw6 or more mfllions of bdoll y taxing this State in order to aid roads in the northern part of the State.~ Is he, indeed? And will he garantee that that system'Will be adop.ted? Does he present a proposi't[:'i,n which can be carried out, and in whichn the State Will join with him in assiasting to build- these roads? I will cross' hands:with him on that proposition'ifhe' thinks'that he and'his friends have: Minerest enough to carryit out, ad' we will let the State build our roads,"':and relieve ourselves of this ..burrden."'Ah I but the gentleman knows that the whole policy of the S!tat'e is against having the State bec~o'"e minvolved again in this matter of railroad improvements. Sir, it is. a l-ire.. to withdraw attention from the of:.'y means which we have to assist ourselves. It -is an ignusfatuus to misead us by proposingb a remedy which the gentleman knows, as, well- as I kno:w,, is beyond all possible contin g'ency. Will the State assist? Will any considerable portion of the memb!ars of this Convention join with the geontle~man in such a thing as that? The gentlehan from Oakland, (Mr. P. D,.OWSARNER,) opposing this wholepropoSiti0n, s-ays that he will joi with him. Sir, the gentleman from Oakland, to whom.I wish to pay my respects for a'' momenit, says that ill the last Legisli:tfii're, or in the last but one, the actJ9-::of. the Legislature in regard to ,':o,tii'g aid to railroads and swamp land 'rads,: wa's such that he became startled in his seat'and frightened at the prospect. Is it possible that the gentiemanr, with all his conservatism, with all the co'i6eiss which he possesses and of w'hi'ch he' told us to-day, became so co'nfused, that during the w.hole time of. the passage of those- innumerable bills, he should have forgotten upon wAichL si:de of the question he was vqting?. Or is it possible that the 'clerk may have made a mistake, and pu't "',,dMr. Speaker.' down in the afilrmative:- on almost every one of those ra!ilroad bills? (Laughter.) Sir, I have the record before me; I have looked until I atmtire tie to find" a case in which the! " Speaker"'I did not -vote with the aflirmaiive i favor: of all these railroad bills. Those cases may be there; but I find -here the titles of bills for -railroatsl 'running all through the ountry; bills authorizing townships and'cities in the .counties of Ingam and Hillsdale, to pledge their credit to aid ii the construction of a railroad from the city of Lansing.to some other point,. and bills for roads from the Ohio and Indiaina State lines, going as far as they can go. I find,The Speaker" voting in the affirmative on all those bills. t find aniother bill to authorize any of thle townships, cities, or villages, of the counties of: Igham, Eaton, Jackson, Calbun, llsdal'e and Branch to pledge their credit in aid of the construction of the Northern Cen.tral Michigan -Central railroad. Among the yeas thliere who voted for' that bill was. -The Speaker,;" and there were only fourteen voting against it. I go on through the record and fied'bills onpages 1102, '~~~~~~ 11:03, 1006, 1005,.004, for all of which '"The Speaker" voted. On page 1006, I findcl three of these bills all voted for by the gentleman whose coolness -and whose- conservatism was startled by this running away of the body over which he presided, in favor of these measures. [Gtreat laughter.] Mr..BLACKMlA..'I!rise to a point of order. I raise the point of order that was ruled here the otlher day, that such arguments as these were argumentum ad hominem, and were out of order. Mr. FERRIS. That is Latin. Mr. DANIELLS. I: hope the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) will be compelled to speak in a kno wn tongue. Mr. CoNGER. I have:not the happy, graceful manner of the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN.) I believe, however, that I never rise to speak but what I make some kind of a point. howeverrough it may be. The committee has paid me, perhaps, the undeserved comphiment of listening to me while I have been speaking. If- the gentleman means that I am talking in a round-about way, which gentlemen do not lhke to hear, I lkow of n'o gentleman in the Convention who can more appropriate'ly call me to order. [Laughter.]. My argument, if, it can [be said to rise toethe dignity of an argument, has in it n'othihng personal to my friend from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) Lhe Speaker of the House of:Representatives of the Michigan Leglsla'ture, as -he-very well understands. Our relations happen to have been most cordial, intimate and friendly. Bu t inasmuch as his suggestions ~might mislead.this Convention, or inasmuch as from the remark he made, that eden he, with his conservatism and coolness, was startled and frightened out of his propriety by these railroad bills passing through the body over which he presides, I, in my feeble way, was'apologizig, as I best might, for his having voted for all these measures, by showing that at the very moment of his being so startled, in the height of the confusion, even his conservatism and his coolness showed that he was still human, and might be misled by confusion Votint g for things that he was violently opposed to. [Laughter.] The apology was not needed, perhaps, and yet I felt it was due to mS friend to, explain why this record happened to be so uniform in that respect. I wanted to explain why it happened that the gentleman should vote for all those bills for railroads from Lapland' to Terra del Fuiego0 [Laughter.] As a part of the pleasant study of human nature, I shall devote s'ome time hereafter, if I can, to try anid reason out why my- friend was so zealous for the passage bff —those bills then and why he is so:fearful about the matfer now. But I will not dwell upon it. at this time, for it is rather a matter"of personal. study to me to watch these vagaries of the human mind than to impose them on this Convention. In my opinion, the repetition of the argument of the gentleman onom Wayne, (Mr. LOTHaROP,) by the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr.' P. D. WARNER,) does not add force to it, though it may give momentum.- BUtwe poor northern townships are standing- here in- solid squares to resist that momentum, to resist this battle-cry against us that has been raised in other parts of the State, by railroad interests and'by some other interests, I do not know what, and the Lord only lknows-whence they spring andwhat their motives. are. They have been continually battling: against the interests of our northern towns. They would seem to think that the cry of debt! debt! debt!: was to stop us in our; advance, as if that rallying cry was to destroy our prosperity. -. : The gentleman seems to have been familiar with scripture in: olden times, and may: have read about some one who got a vast host of the Israelites to gather around a city with their ram's horns, and who blew from morning till night, in order to make that city Eperish: from the face of the earth. [Laughter,] But, Mr. Chairman, the little towns in the north are not Jerichos; and although we have ram's. horns winding up among us there; they are not the ram's horns; which will wipe us from the face of the earth, though gentlemen-blow them never so hard. These gentlemen, I apprehend, de .. i., t I 1. . .; Tued' — - - a:y) I JIl I.. 1867"I..-.-......BAT..ES.. --- I-.-. EED- - site no railroads. I apprehend that the places where thesegentlemen.live, — aa-has been suggested, are such out o the way places in God's universe, that no railroad ever could go through the town of Hamtramck with any benefit to its inhabitants. They can look out upon the pure waters of the Lake St. Clair, and in their skiffs in summer, and upon their sledges in the winter, thgy can go as they will, and as the French habitues have gone for the last hundred and twenty-five years. But our farmers want markets and means of reaching them. They are compelled now to carry their wheat twenty, thirty, forty and fifty miles in order to find a market; and the grosser products, like potatoes and hay, find no market at all. I know all the lines of communication are but feeders of the city of Detroit. Perhaps I should speak of the residence of the gentleman, (Mr. LOTHR0o,) as the city of Detroit. From the several parts of the State, these great thoroughfares and lines of road have built up that beautiful city, and made it the metropolis of the State. I know that most of these other projects do not terminate in the city of Detroit. But, if that be the reason why gentlemen in the southern part of the State-the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) and the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARIwEi) who are hemmed in by railroads -should oppose us in our desire for equal advantages, then I shall find myself astonished. Now. after these rambling remr.ks upon the subject, I come right back to the proposition which'is before the committee, which is to strike out ten per cent., and insert five per cent. I!submit that the arguments which have been adduced here-by those who are opposed to this provision in the Constitution, have not centered upon that subject. They have been rather for preventing any assistance whatever being given-by these townships, than in reference to the amount: which shall be fixed by this provision, as a-limit beyond which that'assistance should not go. I submit that the argument of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr..LoTIROP,) when he avowed himself ready to favor the loaning of the credit'of the Srate to the extent of two millions of dollars to build these northern railroads, defeats his consistency, .in opposing the municipality loaning its few hundreds. I submit that the moment the gentleman admits that he would favor the township voting toc impose taxes and pay over the money 'in aid-of railroads, he admits the whole principle that we ask here, varying it only as to the time. I thank him for that admnissions I thank~ himt tha~t I am permied to bring to the aid of this- system, his admission of its corFrectness, if only adopted in a form a little better suited to his taste. pon the question of the propriety of incorporatiig any such provision as this at all in the Constitution, I will not at this time co mment. The ques tion is upon the limit which shall be fixed in this provision. I have already expressed my conviction that the sum of ten per cent. is not large enough. to be dangerous; and that a smaller sum would be, in the newer counties of this State, where the valuation of the township is not great, too small to be of the material benefit we desire. And yet with the limit of ten per cent., confined as it is here to townships and cities, the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNE~,) assured this Convention that we were preparing for an mindebtedness of, I think he said,'fifty millionof dollars. Mr. P. D..,WARNER. Fifteen milhlions. Mr. CONGER. How -would that arise? On what basis does the gentleman says fifteen millions of indebtedness? I lie to have en who oppose any proposition I advocate, come up to the work with their slate and pencil and state facts, and when they make assertions, show how and where they derive the knowledge upon which they base their assertions One little town will give five hundred dollars, another' three hundred,'another two hundred. Aye, there are towns in the northern regions of our State that will be hardly able, upon their valuation, to give one hundred dollars to aid in such works of improvement. The fifteen-millionaires do not live in the wilderness; they may gather around Farmington and around,Detroit. We have towns, the largest, in the northern part of the State, where the highest amount they could vote would scarcely rise to the tens of thousands; from that it would dwindle down to less than a hundred dollars.' "', But the question is not the amount in the aggregate at all, when confined to single townships. It is a question as to what is for the interest of each tows~hip to do for its own benefit without injury to itself; thatis the question. I admit that to any one who sits in his office and looks over the vast complicated machinery of the railroad that stretches from Chicago to Detroit, and with its connections stretches through from Portland to Prarie Du Chien, to one watching all. its financial bearings, knowing the vast machinery: that moves that system of railroads; to one who has in his mind's eye all that great cumbersome machinery of the cof~icpat~d system, of railroads, it would seem that there never could be. a railroad built from one little tw' to another in the northern-part of this State. Why, sir, the pay of the em ployes of that great system of roads would build a little -railroad from onG village-to another. It is not that kind of railroads that we expect to ge's. I do not spekar unadvisedly; I know the cost of every part of a railroad,' from the grading and the bridges, and the culverts, every foot of iron and the rolling stock, with the mangement,; I know every dollar and cent of the cost of a railroad. I -know what it would cost to build otir railroad from Port Huron to the city of Flint; all that would be sufficient to meet the,e. mands of every one. There is nothing chimerical or visionary about it. The gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTHRlOP) has no higher or keener perceptions and powers than I have, if devoted -*tio the sane objet; no higher-than'other m en. W e. know it is a great undertaking to- build rairoads; but we have the determination of some men who are capitalists, and some men of moderate means, and th determination of cities and town, tha the little road commenced thirty years ago by the.'State of Michigan, and which was dropped at the behest of these southern counties, shall be begu again. We have bought the charter, we have bought the work of the Stat upon it; we have bought the work of Stewart & Co. upon it; we have paid for it, and- it is our property. W have graded the road with'n a few miles of its completion with our own means. We have, put the ties on th,t road with our own means. We are able to buy a part of the iron, and with the provision -here we will be able to get more. The prospect at last is fa, not to visionary men, but to men who understand''their'business, that we shall be able to build that" road with the assistance of such capital as wec can procure and may need- to assist us now. I speak of that as one of the few roads which are desirable in this State, and which must and will be built.' - - - -'": - -:-! - Capital does not come into the State of Michigan so readily as it does:into some of the other States. There are miles a:nd I might say thousands of miles, of railroad projected and built every five years in'this Union, and they find capital somewhere to build them. And is it alone in Michigan, with a11 the aid of its people, that foreign capital taunot be induced to come and as;sist us in this work'?' One would thik so; it would seem as if gentlemen would place the ban of excommunication upon all our future prospeets in this state. It would' wseem as -tlou Jul,v..16.:: I 1867,t DEBATES-.A-ND PR- OCIFT)INGS. 1,4,7 11 14 ^ COzTI UTI~~ L ON, T. gentlemen upon thi floor were ready to say that foreign capital shall never come to aid us here, and that we shall never be permitted to aid ourselves. I submit to gentlemen who live along the lines of those old thoroughfares, commenced by the State of Michigan, the indebtedness of which still remains a part of our State indebtedness the tax to pay the interest upon which falls equally upon the poor citizens of the north as upon the rich citizens of the south-I say to those gentleman that when we do not ask to be relieved from that tax, when we do not ask that the State shall incur any further indebtedness, shall do what it pledged itself to do, to build three -lines across the State, instead of two-I say to those gentlemen representing those beautiful and rich counties, made so by the facilities which those roads have given them, they should at least let us alone, and permit us in our struggles to help ourselves. They should not smother us, as it were in the cradle; they should let our energies find some means at least of attempting to provide ourselves with communica tion between our counties for the trans portation of our products, and for social intercourse. But if it cannot be, if the word has gone forth that either no help shall be permitted through this Constitution, or what is worse, that the majority of - this Convention shall say that instead of a safe and well pro tected system by which we may do some little for ourselves, they will put into the Constitution itself an eternal re striction, tying our hands and binding our energies, we can only submit to it as we have submitted to the decrees of fate which have kept-us in the wilder ness ever since the State began its existence. If there is no better idea of justice and of right for the people of the north than is proposed by the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIPER,) whose daily slumbers are disturbed by the continual shrieking of the whistles of their engines, we will still live on in our solitude. And in regard to that gentleman, who should be, with his youth and his energy, the very first to plant himself upon the principle in favor of the growth, progress and de velopment of this State, which for long years he may adorn, if in after years it shall be any cause of gratification to him, or to other gentlemen who have done their "clevel best" in this C~onven tion to stop the progress of the State, to check its advancement and cripple its energies, God knows I donot essa them their future prospects, or envy the feelings with which they will re gard their former action. * With me, as with many in this Con vention, although I have lived the best part of my life in this State, and in the region where I now reside, I have lived in hope. I have lived there when-there was no means of access or communication'in summer, and I had almost said there was none in winter, except as the ice bound our marshes between our county and Lapeer county, not even an ordinary wagon road. But although we can pass along there now by means of a wagon road from little island to great island in the marsh, yet there is no means of carrying the wool and wheat and oats to market, except by way of Pontiac, or double the distance around, in order to get our produce to a market; that which is not taken by the lumbermen, and carried off into the woods in the north. We live, two counties adjoining each other, almost as unknown to-day, so far as commu nications are concerned, as though we were,livlng at Sitka Sound. The rail road communications which we desire, are with Lapeer, Shiawassee, and with other parts of the State. I have said that I have lived there twenty years, with the hope that at some day, these means of communica tion would'be opened with -some other parts of the State. I have grown gray; my energies are passing away, the best part of my life is gone in that hopeless waiting. We have asked the Legisla ture to permit our townships to'aid in this matter; to a slight extent it has been granted, to another extent it has been denied. We ask this Convention with a reasonable restriction, with a proper restriction, be it what it may, to permit us to help ourselves in this struggle qf progress; and the'old and the young both cry out against the prop osition to permit us to do it. Sir, it will not sound well twenty years hence, that gentlemen of this Convention have refused us so slight a boon as that. What then will be the great and pre ponderating influence in ethis State, I leave to them to say. Those who are past the prime of life may not live to see the changes which will come. As I remarked the other day, doubtless there may be one, probably two gener ations of the people of Michigan pass away, before the necessity of develop ing the treasures of this State shall be come apparent, and the true interests of this State shall be protected by wise and judicious legislation. I have to say, however, in this mat ter, that if the proposition of the gen tleman from Cass (Mr. VAN RIPER) should be inserted in our Constitution, it will not receive one out of every twenty votes of the people of my county. I have to say that I believe it would be their duty and mine to defeat the adoption of the Constitution, if it is possible, simply because of ihat restriction To us this question is vital; it is pressing; it is urgent; it is important. So far as my people are concerned, it is a question of life or death to our advancement and our progress. I trust, then, that the proposition which I have made, which, as was stated fairly, was made as a compromise between the extreme views of either side, may at least meet with the respectful hearing and the respectful attention of this committee. If it cannot be adopted, if other gentlemen shall look upon it so differently from myself, I can yield to it as best I may, and regret it at my leisure. Mr. LOTHROP. I rise to make a personal explanation. Whether, at any time, I shall further discuss this question will depend entirely upon what shall seem to be the course before the Convention. I am well aware that I have already consumed more time on this subject than I intended to con sume, or than co6uld-be agreeable to this Convention. I riseemerely because of the personal reference made to my self by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoGER.) I think it will be un derstood by the remark of the gentleman, that I am in this Convention as a representative of the Michigan Central railroad.'Now, I do not suppose that my friend really thinks any such thing. hr. CONGER. Will the gentlegian allow me to interrupt him a moment? Mr. LOTHROP. Certainly. Mr. CONGER. If the gentleman understood it so, I did not mean to say that he was here in that capacity at all. I meant simply to say that his bown views of the interests of his con stituents, and of the necessities of his people, did not permit him to look with the same interest upon our efforts and upon our desires that he would if he lived with us. I; did mean to say that that company' heretofore had pre vented any railroad there by opposing a general railroad law. But I do not know that the gentleman was the attorney of the company at that time. Mr. LOTHROP. Let me say that I had not the slightest idea that the gentleman from St. Clair supposed that I was here as.the representative of: the Michigan Central railroad company. But the import of his remarks, as they will be understood here, and as they will go forth, will imply that such is the case. Now, I desire to say in the most positive terms, that I think no gentleman who knows me, will suppose that I would for a moment permit mya-' self to comer'into a deliberaive body of this kind, as the representative of that or any other company. I say in the next place, without any reservation, that I do not know, nor 148 CONS-LITUTIORNAL CONVENTION. T. -u e's, day,, July 16, 1867. DEBATES AD rROoEEDIGs. 149 have I ever heard any intimation frofn any quarter whatever, whether that company or the management of it even, know that this question is before the Convention, or if they do know it, what are their views upon it. Nor do I know that they have any reason to understand what are my views upon the subject. In no way or shape whatever do I represent the Michigan Central railroad company here, any more than I represent any other professional connection whatever. So far as having that professional connection which for a long time has existed, if that be a matter of any importance, it is certainly true. So far as my constituents are concerned, I will take care of that matter if I should speak upon the question hereafter. Now, as to the imputation that the Michigan Central Railroad Company, once opposed a general railroad law. I do not know that, except that they had a controversy with the Michigan Southern Railroad Company, upon the building of a railroad from Detroit to Monroe, which was built by the facilities which they afforded. I undertake to say that the Michigan Central Railroad Company is not opposed to any form of internal improvement in this State; they do not stand in the way of internal improvement of any kind. I believe that if the truth was known to day, they are aiding the matter of in ternal improvement as much as any other organization existing in the State, and giving as effectual and wholesome aid as any other. One word more of personalexplana tion before I sit down. My friend has spoken of the place where I live, of the township of Hamtramck. He has dis played rather a flighty knowledge of geography in his reference to Lapland and Terra del Fuego. But I will say to my excellent friend that if he will honor me with a visit to my summer home, (and I now give him a most pressing invitation to do so,) it will be a part of my office there to instruct him in that matter, and to tell him that although Hamtramck may be a-very enlightened place, there,is one other place still more enlightened, and in that place is my home, in Grosse Point, and not in Hamtramck. We have one railway there; it is not much of a rail way, it is true; the misfortune is that it ends at Port Huron. [Great laughter.] Mr. LOVELL. Considerable has been said in regard to the enormous debt of the country. Now, I desire to ask the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) how it is that he figures out that the share of the national debt which belongs to this State is $80,000,000? I have been figurington i t ever since he made his speech, and I cannot figure out any such sum, on any basis that I can get at. Mr. P. D. WARNER. If the gentleman will allow me, I will explain. Mr. LOVELL. Certainly; that is what I want. Mr. P. D. WARNER. Understanding the indebtedness of the United States to be something over $2,500,000,000, I divided that by thirty, estimating the population of the United States to be 30,000,000, and of the State of Michigan at 1,000,000, and that gave nme $83,000,000. The population of the United States exceeds 30,000,000, and the population of the State of Michigan does not equal one million; for that reason I deducted $3,000,000, which left $80,000,000. Mr. LOVELL. I find by the census of 1860, that the population of this country was in round numbers 31,000,000; that the" population of the State of Michigan was at that time 749,000. The population of the State of Michigan was a,little less than three-quarters of a million, and the population of the United States was a little over 30,000,000. If the State of Michigan has increased in population so that; it is now 1,000,000, (I am inclined to think that it is that very nearly,) is it unreasonable to suppose that the population of the United States has increased to 40,000,000? I know that it will be said that the war has decimated the population somewhat. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Will the Chair state what is the question before this Convention? The CHAIRMAN. It is upon strik ing out the word "ten." Mr. LOVELL. I am not to blame if the gentleman does not understand the question. I will not make any further allusions to that. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I call the gentleman to order; he is not speaking to the question. The CHAIRMAN. The question has taken a considerable range during this afternoon, and there has been no attempt to confine it within very strict limits. One portion of the discussion has related to the ability of the State of Michigan to sustain whatever indebt edness might be contracted under the policy which it is proposed to provide for in this section. The Chair under stands the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. LOvRLL) to be pursuing that line of argument, and will rule that he is in order. Mr. LOVELL. I did intend to pur sue that line of argument, and Ihad supposed that a man.in the ordinary vigor of manhood, and with ordinary capacity, would have been able to see that when the question was whether the people of Michigan were able to incur debt, that it was proper to consider the amount of its debt. I say, as I was about to say when I was interrupted, that if the population of this country has been decimated, I believe that Michigan has borne her full share in that decimation. Our soldiers have fought as bravely and fallen as frequently as the soldiers of the other States. It is not reasonable to suppose that the population of Michigan has increased any faster than the population of the remainder of the country, or that its wealth has increased to any greater extent. Then in making an estimate of this sort, if you propose to add onethird to the population of Michigan, why not add something like a third to the population of the country at large? If so, then the population of the United States will be 40,000,000. Now, divide - $2,500,000,000 by forty, and it will make, the share of this State $62,500,000, over $20,000,000 less than the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) estimated. Now, -the- matter of $20,000,000 is not much,- in all — these figures, but it is something to be considered when we go into this matter accurately. If we go into figures at all, do not make the fgures lie. It is said that our wealth, as equalized by the State board, is within a fraction of $308,000,000. Now, if the property of this State, as equalized, is assessed only at two-fifths of its actual value, (and I apprehend that no person would place it higher,) then the prop erty that goes upon the tax rolls of this State is really about $770,000,000, though represented by an equalization of $308,000,000. Now, add to that all that vast amount of property which is not entered upon the tax roll at all, personal property, and property which is exem.pt from taxation. If you do that, you will get up to over $1,000, 000,000 as the real value of property in this State to-day. The share of the national debt for this State is only about $62,000,000. In other words, it amounts to less than the lowest legal rate of annual interest allowed in this State; less than seven per cent. upon the actual value of the property of the State. Are we then swamped with debt? The debt is large, but the bonds of the UJnited States are above par, and that in itself is an indication that the nation is not near bankruptcy, that it has not taken the first step in that direction.. Now, one other poin'; it has been intimated that this section authorizes the raising of $15,000,000. Now, if the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) will figure upon the towns through which all the railroads would run, which we proposed last winter should be built, (and nobody has any DEBATES AND PRO -C,EEDINGS. . July 16, 1867. '149 150 COlTT/UTIO, -LCOl'ELNTI. Wednes:day, idea.that'the-half of them were any-thipg more than paper projects,) I aun.de.rtake.to say at a guess, that not more than one-quarter of all'the valu ation of the State would be:found -to lie in those towns. It is this.kind of figuring, in which the gentleman from Oakland:,and other gentlemen. -have *chosen to indulge, for.the purpose of frightening us from our propriety, showing that we are going to over.helm the State with debt. Sir, it "'is' not -.:worth.an argument.:If their proposition is worthy of argument, wthen why not argue it out straight and .square?. If. they -are opposed to grant ing-State aid, then why not come out square on that, instead of splitting the .matter up,:and dividing it so as to leave nothing worth.having:? If we :are to have loca aid for railroads, let us- have.that- which is worth something; if.ot,'then let us have none. -. r VAN VALKENBURGH..I canno let.tthe opportunity-.pass with-.out expressing:my gratitude to my learned-and astute friend from Gene.See, (MKr. LOVELL,) for reducing the debt of the State twenty millions.of dollars. I have no doubt the commit tee sympathize with me upon that subject. But I will not propose.a vote of .tha..ks to him. Mr. LONGYEAR. I desire to.make :.some remarks upon two or.three as.pects of this question.; but as it is now:quitelate, I will very. willigly yield to a:motion that the committee rise, .and.make my remarks in the morning. Mr._:WILARD. I move that the .eC'omit eenow rise, report progress, a..and.ak leave to sit again. The -motion.was..-agreed to. .The committee accordingly rose; and the -PRESmIENT having resumed the ehar,. Mr. PRINGLE reported -that the committee of the,whole, pursuant to ~ the order of the Convention, had had ~ under consideration the article entitled "' Legislative Department," had made -s.ome progress therein,.and -had di,ected him to:ask leave.to sit again. - Leave was accordingly:granted. Mr. ESTEE. I meove that:_the Con-' vention-now adjourn. .-The.motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at fifteen minutes past. o'clock p. m.,) the Con~vention: djoured. ~ -FORTY-THIRD DAY. WEPEspDAY, July 17, 1867. The Conentioc met.at n'ine o'clock a.m.,.:and wa"s called to.order by.the '- EN''rTt::Ye-. . Pb ly.R v. Xfr. V A~ R i s............: - PETITIQNS. Mr. W. E. WARNER presented the petition of Dwight A. Freeman. and 63 others, of Wayne county, for the omis:sion of section 47, article IV, of the old. Constitution, in the new, and in lieu thereof inserting a section authorizing a law granting of license. Also, the petition of A. Watson and 35 others, on the same subject. Also, the petition of J..E. Smith and 65 others, on the same subject. Also, the petition of J.:A. Smith and 49 others,.on the same subj.ect. Also, the petition.. of Norman Perry and.67.others, on the same subjeet; which. were.severally referred. to. the committee on intoxicating liquors.. Theroll was called and a -quorum- answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. ELLIOTT. I ask leave of absence for myself for the rest of this week. Leave was accordingly granted. HOUR OF MEETING FOR AFTERNOON SES SIONS. Mir. YEOMANS. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the daily afternoon sessions of this Convention shall commence at half past two o'clock p. n., until otherwise ordered. Mr.- LEACH. I move to. strike out the words " half-past," so as to provide for the'afternoon session to. commence -at two o'clock..I -have noticed, for some days past, that there is a quorum of the Convention here. as early as twoo'clock. I would like to test the sense of the Convention in regard to that amendment. Mr. YEOMANS.,I accept the amendment. The questio was upon the.resolution as modified. Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to say that I sit here.as may hours as I care to, and I am; perfectly willin.g to say to this.Convention now, as many hours.s I. am able to.attend to. the business properly. And.I am about as smart as most of you, as far as physical cpacity is concerned. Mr. BARBEER. I feel as anxious-as any..aerson can to get through with our business here as soon as we may, and return home. But I feel, as the gentleman. from Kalamazoo.(Mr. Gin,D DINGS) expresses. his. own case, that we now,.sittinag here five or six.hours: day; sit as long as we can, with.safety to ourselves and -the best interests of -.our-constituents. It seems to: me that we are much better prepared to investigate such.subjects'that.,come6 before us,.during the.first. hours of a.our sit.:tu g here., tlan we are during the last hours,.r ev.en with...thlength:eof.4 sesin that we.now have. I -am oppoped to extending the time -of our daily' ses sions. The question was taken upon the resolution as modified, and upoan' -a di vision, ayes 33:, noes 45, it was not .agreed.-to. Mr. THOMPSON. I offer the fol lowing resolution: R0esolved, That hereafter the afternoon ses sions of the Convention shall commence at half past twO o'clock. Mr.- GIDDINGS. I hope that reso lution will not prevail. I have the same objection to that resolution that I had to the other. I do not find as much time outside of the Convention as is necessary for me to look over these subjects; as much time as I,for one, really need for that purpose. It does not seem to me that all the business of the Convention is necessarily done while.we are here in session. We are, it is true, while sitting here, engaged in' the actual business oP the Convention; -but we cannot find -tiime for the proper examinationi. of - the different subjects upon which we are to aact, except outside of the Convention. There are a few men who spend.a ittle time in eXercise, which is just as necessary for their health here as it is at home. There are men who may desire to ex.amine works and authoritles connected with subjects upon which we are called to act. We do not have time outside Of the Convention now for that purpose. In my judgment we are now,occupying.as many hours in the.sessions of this Convention as we ought to occupy, consistently with our duties here.' - Mr.-BURTCH. I have noticed from what has transpired in this body, that a great deal of business is done out of it. I have never done such business myself; I prefer to do what I do in open daylight.- I would be glad to ~have the Conventionumeet and sit long enough so that when I rise to speak here, -I can have the pleasure of being heard, [Laughter.]. Mr. BRADLEY. I move to lay the resolution upon the table. M.Ir. INGALLS. I eal-lfor the yeas and nays upon that motion. The yeas:and nays were ordered. The question was then taken upon laying the resolution upon the table, and it was not agreed to; yeas 43, nays 4,, as folslow: "YEs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, AndrUs,-Barber, Bills, Bradley, Brown, Gase, ()hapin, -Conger, Corbin, Daniells, Divine, Elliott, -Estee, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, ~HiXSon,:Holmes, Holt, Howard,- Lawrence, Lothrop, Lovell,- Miles,:Miller, Morton Musgrove, Ninde, Norris,. Richmond, Root, Sheldon, W. A. Smith, Sutherland, Van Valkenburgh, W. B. Warner, Willard, - Winsor, Withey, Woodouse and Wright-43. -NAYs:-Messrs.,Birsney, Blackman, Burteb, 'Burtens.:.w,..Chlapm.n, Coolidge, Crocker, . 1 - -- - - -. -., ---... -.. --.- -- -.- .; -. 1. --- --- - - i, I.. , - I I - -- -.. i z'- -; I -- -. ". Z - 7.I - -. -- -. - -— : -. -.-.- - -... -.... I -, -1 ....u..... 17,..-I...........pI..". PR()0EED'-.,~ —'i.~,.'~"............ 151-. I.6.~.. 1-II...~.~ Duncan, Duncombe, Farmer, Harrisl Henderson, Huston, IngallS, Kenney,'. Lamb Leach, Longyear, Luce, MOClelland, Mcon-, nell, McKernan, — [ussey, Parsons, Pra-ttt; Pringle, Rafter, Sawyer, Shearer, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Thompson, Tyler, Van Riper, Walker, P. D. Warner, M.,C. Watkins, F.C. Watkins, White, Williams, Yeomans and the President —i. The question recurred' upon the resolution. Mr. STOCKWELL. I call for te yeas and nays upon the- resolution.: Mr. LOVELL. I desire before we. pass upon this resolution, to call the attention of this Convention to the fact that' meeting here at three o'clock we have always and invariabl-y a'djourned from five to half-past five o'clock. Now, if it is the desire eof members to sit here three hours- in theafternoon, we can just as well sit'un-til six o'clock as to adjourn earlier. But -the fact is, that the Convention- gets wearied before the hour of six o'clock arrives; ancl we adjourn because we are exhausted.'if. we listen for two or three hours to the speeches which are made here, and -.the most of us are Iisteners, we become so exh-austed-ner — vously, that we cannot continue it longer with any profit to our understanding, or with any comf ort to our selves. I think if we adopt this resolution, we will merely change the timeat which our adjournment takes place to an earlier hour in the afternoon. I submit that, at this season of the year, the heat of the middle of the day is much more unpleasant to be born'e than the heat at a little la-terhour. It is most surely much pleasanter to Sit here between the hours of half-past five and six o'clock, than between halfpast two- and three o'clock. Another thing; we have the right, and it is our duty, to care somewhat for our own health. Good digestion, I apprehend, at least so- the books and physicians tell us, is necessary to the enjoyment of good health. Those who engage in the kind of work that we have imposed upon us here, ought to have good digestion, ought to have a little rest after dinner,. and then we :shall come into the Convention With our stomachs in better condition, and by reason thereof, with our brains clearer. We shall save nothing by meeting at:half-past two o'cloc'k; we shall, in the matter of health, comfort, -and the" ability- to discharge faithfully our duties as delegates, gain much by meeting at three o'clock instead of half;[past two. At least so it seems; to-me, .and, therefore, I think the resolution 'should not be.adopted..' Mr. HENDERSON. I call for the previous question. ' The call for the previous qutestion was:sec0nded, there being aymes 2, a majority of all the members elected. Themain question wasthen ordered, whiceh was upon agreeing to the resoiution.. Mr. THOMPSON. hasmuch as I offered: tliis-resolution, perhaps I ought' to-say a word i'n justification of the vote I Shall give. T-he PRESIDENT. The previous :question having been seconded, and, the main question'having been ordered, no debate is in order. The- yeas and nays" upon this resolution have been called for by the gentleman from- Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL.) The yeas and nays were ordered. The; question ws taken upon the resolution, and it was agreed to; yeas .4-4, n'ays 43, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Birney, Blackman, Burtch,. Burtenshaw, Ch'apmran, Coolidge, Crocker, Duncan, Duncombe, Farmer, Harris, Hazen, -Henderson, HIuton, Ingalls,:.Kenney, Lamb, Leach, Longyear, Luce, McClelland, McConfinell, McKernan, Miller, Morton, Mussey, Pratt, Pringle, Rafter, Shearer,- T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Sutherland, Thompson, Tyler, Van Riper, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins,. F. C. Watkins, White, Woodhouse, Yeomans and the President-44. .NAYS —Messrs. Aldrich,: Alexander,Andrus, .Barber, Bills, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapin, Conger, -Corbin, Daniells, Divine, Elliott, -Estee, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, Hixson, Holmes, -Ho,lt, Howard, Lawrence, Lothrop, -Lovell, -Miles, Mus,grave, Ninde, Norris, Parsons, Richmond, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon, W. A. Smith, Stoughton, Van Val.kenburgb, W. E. Warner, Willard, Winsor, Withey, Williams and Wright-43. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH, when his name was callted, said: Iwish to say one word — m explanation of my vote, -lest it should be thought I shrink fr.om my duties here. I think the energies 'of the working men of this- Convention are sufficiently taxed by the time we.now occupy in our sessions, and -that nothing will-be gained by length;ening the sessions. I therefore. vote ino." LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. MIr. ANDRUS. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into-ecommittee of the whole, (Mr. PRINGLE in the Chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled Legislative Department." ~M-UNICIkAL.A'ID TO'RAILROADS.. The CHAIRHAN. When the committee rose on yesterday, it had under consid-eration section twenty-seven of this:article, which had been amended to read as follows: ciThe Legislature shall:not authorize a ny city or township to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad to an extent wherteby-the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of suCh city or townsehip. No county shall be authorized to pledge its credit for auy such purpose." The pending question is upon- the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kent,'(Mr. M. C. a WA S,) to strike out the word "ten," before tfe -words ", per cent. of the assesed valuation," and insert the word" five."' Mr. LONGYEAR. I have alreadymade what remarks I desire:to makoe upon the amendment now pendming. I had intended to make some remarks: to the- committee upon the main question, the meris of the section: involyved in some of the amendments which have been indicated by other members. I had. not intended to make- those rmarks upon this amendment; and if the vote can now be taken, without further'discussion, I will forbear whatever.remarks I have to make until the proper time and occasion shall arrive, if- I shall see fit to make them:- at all.:I make this suggestion with the more confidence, because during tile last-: few days' discussion, this question of the change from ten per cent. Oto five per cent. has scarcely been alluded to by any of those who have spoken; the discussion has been upon the general question. I hope, if there is no further discussion to be had upon this question of the change from ten per cent. to five per cent., that the vote will be taken -.now. If that can be done, I will forbear any further remarks at the present time. ~ - - The question was thein taken upon striking out" ten," and inserting-" five;" and upon a division, ayes 31, noes 46; it was not agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will say in regard to the various amendments offered on Monday, by unanimous consent, to be printed in the journal, that they will be held i.m abeyace, and presented in their.proper order. The next amendment- is the one- offered by the gentleman from Isabella, (Hr. ESTEE,) -to insert, after the words "construction of any railroad," the words "plank roads, gravel roads, and turnpikes." Mr. ESTEE. I withdraw that amendment. The CHATIRMA2N., There was another amendment -presented by the gentleman from Van...ur en, (Mr. BLAcKMAN,) to insert, after the words "construction of any railroad," the words "or'other internal. improvemient;' and'also to insert the same words after the wwo.rds " any and:all railroads." The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr.: BncKxMAs, and it was not agreed to. 'The CHAIR~MAN.:The gentleman :from Saginaw (Mr MILr).t prosed to amend this seetion by- striking out lb S-, AND-,'PR ",I 151 - i..1-7- 67. 15 OSIUI-LC~ETO.Wdedy all after the words "construction of any railroad;" so that the section will read: The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad." Mr. MILLER. In relation to that amendment, allow me to observe that I am in principle opposed to townships having anything to do with railroads, or with voting aid to railroads, or holding stock in railroads. I made this motion as expressing my own views on that subject. I wish now to make one other remark; it is this-that if such benefits are supposed to result from townships engaging in the construction of railroads, then this section should be stricken out from this article altogether. I do not know by what rule it is, that.members of this Convention are to be satisfied with ten per cent. of these blessings, when by striking out the entire section we may possibly have a hundred per cent. of them. Now, if so many benefits as is supposed would result from townships engaging in the construction of railroads or other internal improvements, then I would be for having them go into the business with all the means within their control. For, if you get a hundred per cent. of profit for your investment in these works, your property will be increased a hun dred per cent., and you can go on ad in,finitum, aiding railroads and other improvements, and prospering beyond anything this Convention can conceive of. Mr. FERRIS. I suppose that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Saginaw (Mr. MmLLER,) opened up this whole question upon its merits. I have.not a great deal.to say upon the question in view of the indication of the spirit of the majority here. But what I have to say I will say now. And here, once for all, in behalf of myself and those gentlemen who entertain similar opinions with me upon this question, I enter my solemn protest against the insinuations thrown out yesterday by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) that those of us who are opposed to the system of local taxation for building railroads are doing their "d level best" to prevent the improvement of this State. I want that gentleman, and others situated like him, and entertaining the same views, to understand, that we are acting conscientiously for the best interest of the State as we regard it. And we do not propose to stand here and be con demned by him, or any other man, because we differ in opinion from him, as to what is the best policy to be pur sued for the development of the State, and for the promotion of its good. In my opinion, of all the gentlemen who have spoken upon this floor, the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WILLARD,) has been the only one who has dared to meet openly, and fairly, and squarely, the question at issue between us. That question is not whether railroads are a blessing or not-; the question is not whether it is for the best interests of the State to engage in these schemes of public improvement. But the question is this: Is it within the proper field and scope of taxation to lay a tax upon a man's property against his will, in order to raise funds to carry on the private business of other men? That is the question. Now, my friend from Calhoun walked manfully up to that question, and he insisted that it was within the functions of government to resort to taxation to aid private enterprises for the public benefits that would accrue from them. And in support of that proposition, he cited us to instances both ancient and modern. But there was this great defect in the cases cited by him, in their applicability to the question under consideration; all these instances to which he referred were instances of public improvements carried on by the public. They were public enterprises, not private enterprises at all. That was the case in reference to the roads built during the period of the Roman Empire, and other improvements of a like character. Now, does the gentleman suppose that there is any one on this floor who doubts the legality or the propriety of the State doing public business of that kind, such as building roads and bridges, etc.? No one on this floor doubts the proposition that it is within the func tions of government to do such work. That is government work, and the work when done is government prop erty. Mr. WILLARD. Will the gentle man yield to me for a moment? Mr. FERRIS. Certainly. Mr. WILLARD. I desire to say that I referred to those works, as the gentleman will remember, if he reflects for a moment, to show the benefits conferred upon the people by all great works of internal improvement. Mr. FERRIS. I understood the gentleman also to refer to those works as going to show that taxation for the building of railroads and other roads, was within the scope of the powers of -the government, and could be properly exercised by the government. So far as those instances were referred to as illustrations of the benefits which re sult from great public works, all of us of course agree with the gentleman. But so far as they were referred to as -evidence of power existing in the goYv emmnent to lay taxes upon the people to assist.in private enterprises, then ,we say they fail altogether to establish any such proposition, by analogy or otherwise. Now, I ask the serious attention of this committee to the state of the case. If I understand it, it is this; companies are organized within this State for the purpose of building railroads. Now, those companies or corporations are local companies or corporations of private individuals. They are asking aid, not voluntary aid. To be sure they go round with their agents, and ask people to subscribe to their stock, to assist them to build their road; and that is all right and proper. But they are asking for aid in another way; they are asking that we shall elevate these private enterprises, these private corporations for the building of railroads, to the dignity of other State proceedings, that we shall no longer treat thef as private enterprises, but aR public enterprises;. that we shall no longer treat the persons composing those.corporations as private individuals, but as public individuals. In other words, we are to do our "level best," to use the classical language of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) to elevate these private corporations to the same dignity as corporations of the State, and to treat them as such. Now, I ask gentlemen of this committee, if it is true, as a, matter of fact, that these corporations are strictly private corporations? They are legally so, and they are so as a matter of fact. Whence this pretence that they should receive aid of a public character through the medium of taxation? It is, in the language of my friend from nlugham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) that great benefit arises therefrom; that cities are built up, and property doubled and trebled in value by means thereof, and that the country is opened up and de veloped. Now, I ask, if the primary object of these corporations is to open up the country to settlement, or to in crease other men's property in value? No such thing. It is to increase their own property; it is to build roads for their own benefit; it is that after they have got this property into theirhands, these lines of road established, they may charge rates of fare and rates of freight, and make it a paying business. That is their object. I admit that whenever one of these roads is built, the public do reap ad vantages. They reap these advantages in the facility of intercommunication; they can pass readily over these roads in person; they can send their goods over them. The public does reap a benefit in that way; and it reaps the 152 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. .WI T i, ed,nes,d.-ay, :-! —.. 1 D.. - same kind of benefit from all other kin'mds of intercommunication. It reaps the same. -kirlnd of benefit from our steamboat communication, and from every other means of travel or communication. Let a man of large means come into this place and erect buildings, or transact other kinds of business; it will add to the value of property here, and the -public will derive a benefit from it. But I submit unhesitatingly to this Convention, that the fact that property is increased in value along the line of these roads, does not constitute them public institutions; does not change their character at all. Now, then, the question at issue is, is it right and proper for the government, whether as a State, in counties, or in townships, to levy taxes upon the people against their will, for the aid of these private enterprises? That is the question. Now, I deny the proposition entirely; it is not right to do it. And here I ought to refer to a remark made by my friend from Tuscola, (Mr. HUSTON.) In his argument he put forth this appeal to us: Why not permit us to tax ourselves in aid of these roads? Now, I would say to the gentleman there is not the least objection to it. Men may tax themselves just as much as they have a mind to; those who are in favor of any line of road, may subscribe voluntarily whatever amount they please. Nobody interposes any objection to their dbing it. But I apprehend the difficulty with that gentleman, and all who take that view of the question is this, that they want not only to tax themselves, but they want to tax others. This is the trouble; they want to tax others, and compel them to unite in aiding these railroads. If it is confined to those alone who are in favor of raising money it can be done without any of these forcible proceedings. I believe that in regard to taxation, it is the duty of a' State to confine itself, and to confine its municipal organizations, to the strict legitimate objects of taxation, to works that are clearly and properly public, and exclusively so; to the building of highways, public bridges, and public buildings. Now, I object to the principle, not only on this ground,:but I object to its application likewise, because of its inequality. We propose to build a through line of road through this State. We are called upon to tax ourselves to a very large amount to build that road, -to lend aid to it, because it is a benefit to us.' -Now, the benefits to those -beyond the termini of the road are great:er than it is to the people within this 'State. There is not a road running through this State, that does not benefit the people east and west of-us, Vol 2 —No. 20. more than it does the people within i our borders. If assistance is to be rendered at all equal to the.benefits received, it should be rendered as much by the merchbants and manufacturers and shippers east, and by the farmers upon the prairies west, as by the people who happen to be located within the immediate vicinity of the line of road. Iobject tothis as a matter of policy, upon another ground. Once establish the proposition that railroads within this State are to be aided in this way, and can only.be set going by means of their local aid, and capitalists who usually enter into and form the co'tro!lliug element of these corporations, will not permit a single shovel to be put into the soil to build-one of your roads, until they have bled you of the last dollar they can get out of your pockets. They willhold back and wait, and wait, and wait, until they have axed you five per cent., and ten per cent., and then have raised by subscription all they can, before they will themselves do anything. The policy in the long run is a ruinous policy for. the State. It was said by my -fiend from Gratiot, (Mr. CHAPm,) that the non-residents. who own lands in his vicinity will do nothing to assist in opening up the country by the building of;these roads, and he is very anxious to get at those non-residents. Now, I want to ask my friend, for whose opinion I have the very greatest respect, who are the men who control these railroads? Where are the controlling interests in them? Are they not non-residents likewise? We have a spectacle that is worthy of the contemplation of this State, in that we have through -the action of Congress, had appropriated a very large amount of wild lands to aid in the construction of these railroads under foreign control. And it is now proposed that we shall encumber a large portion of our improved land for the same purpose. I do not wish to take up time on this question. I wish simply to say enough to justify my own vote, and my own position in regard to this amendment. It is not because I am opposed to the development of the State, or to the -building of railroads. But I am opposed on principle, and:as a -matter:of policy, to authorizing the majorityin. a township to tax the minority, not for public purposes, but to promote private enterprises. The C']HAIRMAN. Among-the numerous-amendments that were offered the other day, the Chair omitted to notice this morning - an amendm'ent proposed by the gentieman -from Me-' nominee, (;Mr. INGALLS,)' who proposed to amend this section -by-striking out the word "ten," and inserting the .word "fifteen;" and also to add to the section the words, " and no such aid -shall be granted, except -on a vote of :the majority of the property holders thereof." Mr. INGALLS. As this section stands, I can see no benefit which any interest which the Upper Pen'minsula, which I represent, will have min regard to -it. If the motion now before the committee should prevail, I propose to withdraw my amendment, and'offer another to come in at the end of the section. I ask leave to withdraw it .,now, and at the proper. time I will offer anQther amendment. -- The CHAIR3AN. The question then will be upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. MILLER,) to strike out all after the words "-construction of any railroad." Mr. LONGYEAR. The amendment proposed, and now pending, presents the main question. I do not, however, propose now to make any extended remarks- even upon the main question. I propose to confine what I shall have to say pretty much to reading om the decisions of our Supreme Court upon a single proposition, which has been stated here by legal gentlemen upon this floor-not by way, perhaps, of instructing them, because I cannot suppose they are, unaware of the existence -of:this decision'of the court. I shall do so for the purpose, more particularly, of showing to the non-professional reader and hearer, that certain propositions which have been stated here have been heretofore -discussed and settled by the court of last resort ine this State. The question involved is as to the public characters of these railroad corporations. It was stated by the gentleman from -Cass, (Mr. VAN RiPER,) that these corporations were private corporations; that taxing the people -in aid of them, was taxing the peopie for the benefit of private corporations. The gentleman from Wayne, ~(Mr.-LOTaROP,) declared that this authority has no.more relation to the authority employed for the cpnstruction of highways, than it does to the banking institutions in a town, or than ,it has to a mains private business. These railroad corporations, he says are striCtly private: concerns. -'How then is it, and, upon what ground, that the right of- eminent: domain is applied to railroads, if -they are- strictly private concerns? Upon- what ground has the- right been recognized 1from the commencement, not: only of:this;State, but of every otherr State of this:VUnion, sands by-: the Federal Government:to take private property for: the.uSe.of railroads upon making compensation, l . truly,. 17,1867. DEBA-TES AND -PROCEEDINGS., 1.53 p 154 COTITUTIONAL CONYETIO. Wedne8day, if they are strictly private concerns? It was upon that very question of right of eminent domain of railroad companies, that the Supreme Court of this State made the decision to which I propose to refer. It was in the case of Swan vs. Williams, and was decided in the January term of 1852. The question arose upon the right of the Pontiac Railroad Company to take private property for their use. The decision will be found in the 2d Michigan Reports. The question in that case was distinctly stated by the court as follows: - "It is contenOded that this provision of the act of incorporation, [authorizing the company to take private land,] is in violation of both the ordinance and the Constitution of the United States; 1st. Because the property is not taken for public use. 2d. Because the property, when taken, is not used by the public, but by the corporators for their own profit and advantage." That is exactly the same objection .,raised here by the gentlemen opposing this section. The court continues: 3d. Because the charter does not secure to the public any right to use the road,' or to require it to be used for its benefit. These objections cover the whole ground held by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIs,) the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIPER,) and the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) As to the objections of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) I leave them and him to the tender mercies of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) and the records and the journals of the Legislature of 1867. [Laughter.]. These were the points stated in that case. I will now read from the opinion of the court in that case upon page 434, Second Michigan Reports: "Most certain it is, that as to all their rights, powers and responsibilities, three grand classes of corporations exist. 1st. Political or municipal corporations, such as counties, towns, cities and villages, which, from their nature, are subject to the unlimited control of the Legislature; 2nd, Those associations which are created for public benefit, and to which the government delegates a portion of its sovereign power, to be exercised for public utility, such as turnpike, bridge, canal, and railroad companies; and 3d. Strictly private corporations, where'the private interest of the corporators is the primary object of the association, such as banking, insurance, manufacturing and trading companies; and in this class may also be included eleemosynary corporations generally. Chief Justice Marshall, in McCullough vs. the State of Maryland, (4 Wheaton, 316,) in indicating the power of Congress to charter a bank, says:' the power to create a corporation is never used for its own sake, but for the purpose of effecting something else.' The object defines the character of these associations, and by whatever name they may be styled, their rights and liabilities, and in many respects the terms'of their powers and franchises depend upon entirely different considerations, and are derived from an entirely different legislative source." Again, on page 436 I find the following: " Nor can it be said that property when taken is not used by the public, but by the corporators for their own profit and advantage. It is unquestionably true that these enterprises may be, and probably always are, undertaken with a view to private emolument on the part of the corporators; but it is none the less true that the object of the government in creating them is public utility, and that private benefit, instead ot being the occasion of the grant, is but the reward springing ftrom the service. If this be not the correct view, then we confess we are unable to find any authority in the government to accomplish any work of public utility through any private medium, or by delegated authority; yet all past history tells-us that governments have more frequently effected these purposes through the aid of companies and corporations, than by their immediate agents; and all experience tells us that this is the most wise and economical method of securing these improvements. The grant to the corporation is in no essential particular different from the employment of commissioners or agents. The difference is in degree rather than in principle, in compensation rather than in power. The fact that the company receives the toll or compensation, for transportation of persons and property over the road, is conceived to be a reason, and in fact,the prominent reason, why these associations should be considered as private corporations; but the purpose designed by the government, in the construction of these roads is tlie use of the public, the expedition of communication and transit from point to point, and not revenue. It would not be contended for a moment that private property could be taken to be used for the latter purpose. The appropriation of the tolls, therefore, can be regarded only as a compensation, and affords no basis upon which to construct an argument respecting the character of the company, or the validity of its charter." If here is not a full answer to the arguments of gentleman upon this question, then I do not know what can be. Mr. FERRIS. Was not that decision in relation to taking lands for the right of way? Mr. LONGYEAR. Certainly; I stated distinctly that this was a case in which that question was involved. The gentleman, perhaps, did not hear the remark I made in introducing this decision; which was, that if railroad companies were private corporations, then private property could not be taken for their use. But the fact that private property could be taken for their use proves that they are of a public character. I read further, on page 437: "It is true also, that the mode of conveyance and of travel is different upon this road from that upon turnpikes and common highways; but the difference springs from the character and construction of the road, and from the vehicles employed, and not in the use designed. The one is equally intended,,however, to open good'and easy communications, with the other; and so far as travel and the transportation of property is concerned, the public have the same rights in the one case as in the other, with this difference, that the means employed are varied with the mode of travel. The fact that upon railroads,' individuals do not travel or transport property in their own vehicles, furnishes no argument in this particular, from the fact that the nature of the road, as well as the personal safety of individuals renders it impossible that they should do so. If the right existed, it would not be exercised. Public security requires that the mode of travel, and the means employed, should be limited within, and subject to, the control of the company; and the Legislature would have but indifferently secured the public interest in extending the privilege to all. Were the road built by the State, and managed by its immediate agents, the same disability as to promiscuous use would exist; but would it be contended in such a case that the use was not public?" Now, this opinion of the supreme court states the matter so much more clearly, explicitly, and pointedly, than I could, in reply to the propositions made by gentlemen upon the other side of the question here, that I forbear any further reasoning or argument on the subject. Mr..FERRIS. Does the gentleman consider that opinion as applicable to the taxing of property for the building of these roads? I understand it to be a decision upon taking lands for the right of way. Mr. LONGYEAR.( I understood the objection of the-gentleman to taxing for this purpose, to be upon the ground that these were private corporations and for private,benefit. I have read from the decision of the supreme court of this State that such is not the case; that they are held and deemed to be public corporations. I read it in answer to the proposition of the gentleman, that it was not right to tax people to support or aid these railroads, because they were private concerns. Now I have a very few more words to say. This question has been discussed very fully; the debate has taken a very wide range. For my own part, I desire, and I apprehend this committee earnestly desire to arrive at what is really the precise question before the committee. I do not regard this question to be one of a grant of power to the Legislature, for that power is assumed to exist, to confer such authority upon townships and cities, by the section as reported by the committee on the legislative department. And by the amendment offered by the gentleman from Saginaw, (M/]r. MILLER,) if the power does not exist, then why the necessity of either prohibiting the exercise of it, or restricting it? I say that either proposition, that of the committee on the legislative department, or that of the gentleman from Saginaw, assumes the fact that the power already exists; and that if nothing was said in the Constitution, the Legislatureswould then possess the power unrestricted and uncontrolled. The question then, is not thatiof a'grant of power, although' it bas been: argued here by several gentlemen'in:that light. CO-WSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Wednesday, 154 July 17, 1867. DEBATES A~D PROGEEDI~GS. 155 That is not the question before the committee. The question is between the absolute prohibition of the exercise of that-power, or a restriction of the exercise of it; that is all. The proposition of the gentleman from Saginaw is to absolutely prohibit the exercise of the power. The other propositin is to permit the power to remain, but to restrict its exercise to ten per cent. That is the issue, and that is the question now before this committee, and that is the only question. I do not propose now to argue either of these propositions. I have already said, upon a former occasion, all I desire to say as to the extent of that restriction; that has already been settled by the committee at ten per cent. The simple question now is, whether we will prohibit the exercise hereafter of that power by the Legislature, or whether we will permit it to be exercised, and limit it to the amount settled by the committee, ten per cent.? I think, from the temper of the committee, that they are ready now to vote upon this question. And I will, therefore, forbear any further remarks at this time. - Mr. FARMER. Assuming the right which the gentleman from- Ingham, (Mr. Lo0GYEAR,) does,it places this matter upon the ground of a pure question of policy. And as the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. MILER,) brings up that question, I propose to treat this whole sabject as a question of policy. Sir, I consider this whole subject a question of policy. The right of society to tax itself and to prescribe the objects for which it will be taxed, and the manner in which it shall be done, will not be denied by any political economist. It has been recognized by our government from its first organization. The policy of taxing for purposes of the improvement of our internal communications, by the Federal government, and by the several States, has varied at different times and in the several States. While many of the States still act upon the policy of making great public works matters of State control, taxing the people for those purposes, the general tendency of the Federal and State governments has been in the opposite direction. This change in the general policy, I think, sir, has been caused more by our increase in wealth, as a people, and the increased tendency to form associations for all the various objects which, at an earlier period of our history, it required the credit of our government to carry forward. Our own State, sir, at an early period of its history, adopted the policy of taxing the people for the purpose of building railroads and carrying on other works of internal improvement. On the immediate results of that policy-it is not necessary for me to enlarge; it is a part of the history of our State, with which every member of this committee is familiar. It is also, sir, a part of that history that the people of our State saw fit to change that policy, and, in the Constitution of 1850 adopted by them, decided in favor of a different one. With the workings of that we are all familiar. I think, sir, I hazard nothing in saying that it has met the general approbation of our people. I might cite as an evidence of that approbation, the unanimity with which the same principle has been adopted here for the State, as a State. Now, sir, I think we should be guided by one great, general principle. We have decided by our action what shall. be the principle guiding the action of the State as a State. Now, sir, I ask that the same principle be carried out fin all the subdivisions of the State, to its legitimate results. I wish, sir, the prosperity of the entire State, the northern as well as the south ern part. The prosperity of the parts is essential t6 that of the whole. For myself, I know no particular localities, as separated from the rest, in my action here. I hope, sir, the committee will allow me to say, at this time, that I regret to hear gentlemen on this floor say inm substance that if their particular views are not carried out, they will feel under obligations to oppose the adoption of the Constitution we may form. Now, sir, for myself, I shall feel bound by the action of a majority of this Con vention, whether my particular views are carried out or not. I will say further, that as we have decided upon the policy of the State in thismatternottotax the people forthese improvements, I hope that the amend ment of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. MiLLER,) will prevail, and that we will carry out that policy in the separate divisions of-the State. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I desire to state that I did not suppose any mem ber of the committee would be misled by the humorous and somewhat satiri cal remarks of my genial friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) in his reference to me, either as a member of the Legislature, or as a member of this Convention. Buthaving been dis appointed in my expectation, I will take this opportunity to say, for the in formation of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) and the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) that by a careful examination of the journal of the last House of Representatives, they will discover that the Speaker voted " no," upon the final passage of a large majority of the bills which were acted upon byvthe last Legislature, proposing to authorize municipal aid for the construction of railroads Supposing that some of those bills possessed merit, I voted for them; if they did not, so much the worse for the principle involved. I referred to the action of the last Legislature, not so much for the 'purpose of calling in question the character of the legislation, as the manner in which it was sought to be accomplished; and I take the liberty of saying that it was disreputable to the character of any legislative body, and such as I presume my friend from St. Clair and the honorable gentleman from Ingham will not attempt to justify. Mr. HOWARD. I did not propose to speak upon this question, nor do I now propose to occupy a great deal oftime in what I have to say. In fact, after the rule applied by my venerable friend from Clinton, (Mr. DANrr.Ts,) to the remarks and opinions of my youth'ful friend from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIer,) yesterday, I have some hesitation in embarking in this discussion. Ithink it, however, my duty as a delegate on the floor of -this Convention, to say what I have to say, without fear of having my arguments, or whatever I may have to say, whether they deserve the name of arguments or not, approved or condemned, by the rule so unjustly applied to my friend from Cass. While I have been a member of this Convention I have been more frequently surprised that men of - age know so little, than I have thatyounger men knew so much. I am willing to say now that I believe the younger members of this Convention, while they should be modest in the expression of their views, have equal rights with those of more mature years. I opposed the principle of local aid to railroads by'municipal corporations, when the question was before under consideration in this body; I opposed it upon principle. I cannot discover that the question whether those railroads are public or private enterprises has much to do with the matter. I believe that all railroads and other internal improvements will go on and: prosper, wherever the projectors of these improvements can see that they will pay. I believe that wherever our waters are navigable, there our commerce will be carried on. I believe that wherever the interests of the State require them, and those projects can be made remunerative, private enter prises will push on the construction of railroads. I believe that wherever the capitalists, whose assistance is neces Sary to carry on those great works, can see that there is -a profit to be made by it, can see that it will pay to July 17, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 155 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.' aid in their construction, then they will give the assistance required. But when the sharp, shrewd capitalist cannot see that. they will pay him, and is not willing to invest his money in them, I can see great impropriety and danger -in allowing the voters of the vari;ous townships, unaccustomed to railroad matters, not posted in railroad projects, to be led on by the figurers and manipulators of these schemes to involve the credit of their, townships and municipalities in the constructing and carrying on of these projects. I can see a great difference betweer the principle spoken of here and taxing the citizen, by a majority vote of the inhabitants, for the maintenance or construction of internal improvements Every citizen under this republicar form of government, for the benefit he receives from that government, for the protection which it gives him in his rights of person and property, and al other rights, not only owes allegiance to the government, but, in considera tion of that protection, is liable to be called upon for taxes to support th government There is a difference be tween tax'ing a man for the support o government, to carry it on and defend it, and taxing a man for these projects which, while they are in a measu-r carried on for the public benefit, are still private scheemes, in every sense o the word. An individual who enjoy all the benefits which this governmen confers upon him, owes it to the gov ernment to pay taxes upon his prop erty, and to hold himself in readines to- defend the government. But deny that there is any principle estab lished by the courts, that there is an principle from which we can: addue the right of the government, the righ of the State, to tax the individual t carry on public conveniences and pub lic nimprovements which are intende to promote the welfare of individuals although they may yet be great publi conveniences. -Now, I-insist that there is a diffmer ence, which I believe every member o( this Convention, anid every man whoi in the enjoyment of-his senses,' ca understand, notwithstanding the de cision of the supreme court, and no withstanding the many decisions whic have been cited here to establish the principle, that so far as taking propert for the right of way for these'roads i incurred, the principle of eminen domain does apply, yet-there is a lim to the application of that principle. A I said before, I opposed this propo sition in the beginning. I-had hope that this Convention would not con mit themselves to the principle: allowing municipalities to aid in th construction of railroads. I shall now - *....., vote, as the last chance, as my only chance, to carry out what is nearest to my view of the right in this case, for the proposition lirniting the exercise of , this power to the smallest possible sum. I believe that we shall not re- - tard the progress of the State; I con - fidently believe that by prohibiting the [exercise of this right entirely, we t should promote the best interests of t the State. i Very much has been said here in re-. gardcl to the early political and legisla tive history of this State. I do not i propose to enter into that-branch of the discussion. I propose merely to say here that I believe a large majority of the people of the State of Michigan are . to-day opposed in the abstract to the application of this principle, or to the i incorporation in the Constitution of e any clause which will allow the appro priation of private property by the ma- jority of the voters of a township or e municipality to the construction of rail- ,- roads. The minorityhave rights; they: e have rights which should be protected. e And yet we ask you, Mr. Chairman,; :and gentlemen of this Convention, i where have the min'ority a better right to look for the bilwarks of their defen, ses against -the aggression of the ma e jority, than in the Constitution of the e State? It is here that we should erect f those:great bulwarks of defense, that s shall protect- minorities against the ag gression of majorities. -Now, while I havethe greatest con?-fidence in the intelligence of the peo s ple -of the State of Michigan, I believe that the past history of the railroad ischemes in this State —must satisfy ev ~Y ery member of this Convention, that ,ethe people have not, in every instance,. t exercised an intelligent, cool, deliberate o- action in the matter of voting aid to - railroads. I know of one instance wd Where- the endeavor was made twice, is, and even thrice, to secure-this aid from i'!toWnships, and it failed. Then, by the action of-those having charge of the road r- the engineerers and schemers, a fourth of effort-was m'ade'in; which they finally is succeeded- m getting a very small mam jority in favor of this aid. -While I e- have the utmost confidence in the' t-!statement of the gentleman' from St. i h'(Clair, (Mr. C:CONGER,) that he bele Sieves that road in which I am inty irerested, to which my private funds, is'both by tax and-voluntary contribution, t' ihave been given, will be built, yet I li' canr see in that very project the danger *s which we are incurring. When - I o' iwas- at home during the last week, we 'd;were called upon, as members of the a- council of the city in which I reside, to ofi issue our bonds for the first five -per e: Cnt. and I willingly —voted for it, bew icause the credit of,the.city had been ledged for that purpose. But what ave we to show for that to-day? Ad the same principle will apply all ver the State. We have a pile of irt, it is true, thrown up in the ity, but not a tie, nor a rail,. ave we yet, and we have no assurance hat the road will ever be built, except he assurance of the manipulators of he road, and of course I would not ipugn them. The history of the past, o far as that road is concerned, teaches me that therb is danger that all the right prospects may fail, and that all ur bonds may be thrown out into the market, and;we will not derive that enefit which we have so long expected o derive. I believe if the Port Huron & Lake Michigan railroad was a paymg project, capitalists would give their id to it. Railroads are certainly private proects, so far as the building of them is oncermed. Although they are public conveniences, and in many cases publicH necessities, yet they are not public works to such an extent asto give them he character entirely of public improvements. Without occupying the attention of this committee longer, I wil close by expressing the hope that f we are to have anything in the Constitution which we are here. to frame, recognizing the right of municipal cororations to lend their aid to railroads it will be limited to a very small amoun6t indeed. Mr. BUIRTOCH. Mr. Chairman The CHAIRMAN., -It may be -well for the Chair to state that he notices there has been a little. neglecton- the art of some of the speakers, in regard to the precise question before the conmittee. It is upon the motion of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. MILLER,) to strike out all of section twenty-seven afterthe words "construction of any railroad," so that the section -will read; "The Legislature'shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad." The Chair makes this statement not with reference to the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BURTCH,) but with reference to other gentlemen who have spoken, -in order that the committee may understand it is the question before them. Mr. BURTCH. Now, Mr. Chairman, .and gentlemen of the Convention, you have been so kind to me heretofore, that I bespeak your kindness now. I hope that quiet will be preserved, and that no man's nerves will be set on edge. Mine are strung up very feebly this morning; I am hardly able to: rise in my place. But while I am able to stand up and perform my duty to my Qo.untry and my God, I shall always do Wed.t,esd'-. .. "ay) 1.56 eJu — ly 17 1867 DEAE AhD P0OEI(S it. I have cleared my way in.the wilderness in this; country; I have taken the axe and attacked the smaller trees.' Now, after I have done that in connection with the remarks made here-I speak without any disrespect to any gentleman, for all upon this floor have, .n my opinion, equal rights and equal privileges, and so far as other persons are concerned, I would not harm a hair of their heads. But so far as their ideas are concerned, and are advanced in this Convention, they are public propperty, they are your property and my property, and they are the property of the world. With that property I propose to deal. Gentlemen have argued zealously here, and I like to see their zeal in behalf of what they deem to'be right, just, and equitable, so far as the rights of man are concerned. But, to my own mind this question has greater proportions than any man has yet suggested in this Convention. In looking back to the rock from whence we were hewn, I see that at the time.of the Declaration of Independence there was a great declaration there, which was that these: truths were' self-evident; that a1l men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "The pursuit of happiness;" aye, sir, there is a power in that, in:. connection with gov ernment. I find'in the Constitution of the United States, if I have made no mistake in my reading, that all- the powers not delegated to the national government are reserved to the States, or to the people thereof. When the national government.. was organized, we surrendered. what? We surren dered no power that we had not power to surrender- We had not therpower to surrender any of- the'ini alienable rights. of man.: We sur rendered only such powers as were necessary.to secure those.rights. The rest of the powers are reserved to the States, and to the people; they are- the "eminent domain" which I will never agree to surrender. I will never sur render them, because'I believe as: the fathers of the Declaration of Indepen dence believed, that the people are ca pable of self-government. And let me say to those gentlemen who: have argued.and reasoned here with.11 the force of their power; who have expended-their energies for the promotion of. good, as they understand it, and I respeet thkem' for it, they fail in an important point..hIn. connection with human society is~ the' right to save that society. It is a right of the intel ligent asses, those who have become intelligent through education,.', and through Christianity, to save those who are ignorant and vicious from destruction. The man who would deprive-I speak with all due deference to every man on this' floor-the man who would deprive me of the rights in which I have an eminent domain, would strike at the very foundation of the government. -Mr. GIDDINGS. I call the gentleman to order; the question of eminent domain is not before the coemmitee. The CHAIRMAN. That is true; the Chair understands the gentleman fi-om Eaton to be endeavoring to get at the .question before the committee.- He commenced with the Declaration of Independence, and has proceeded fourteen years, to the time of the adoption of the federal constitution. Mr. BUJRTCH. Just as quick as the underbrush is all cleared out, Mr. Chairman, I will get to the question. I am, in my way, clearing' it off as I best can. iWhen Ifirst went into the woods, I was called rather a foolish man, because I did not pursue the course which other men did in the woods. I. may'be viewed by this Con'vention in'the. same. light. I do not want to take up the time of the Con vention. here with foolish speaking. I think the people of the State would be glad to pay me for speaking here, if I do not occupy over an hour. As I remarked, there is a principle which underlies this whole maser. It has been claimed that they'have been set uip and established for the purpose of protecting the people, but in fact they have been used for the purpose of robbing the people. And some of those institutions of robbery have come down from the older form of governments, and are in use in this country. I do not wish that any more of those old forms of robbery shall be inserted in our form of government, so'that the people shall:.be plundered. of their rights. I say that great principle unlerlies this question. The CHAIRMAN. It appears to the Chair that the remarks of the gen tleman from:Eaton have but a distant connection with the question before the committee. Br. BURTTCH. That may be true; but that connection is near at hand. It is said that the fool's heart is on his righit-hand, and the wise man's heart is on his left hand. I do not suppose the members of this Convention can explain why this is so. I suppose it is in order that he can use it better. I say that we can form our Constitution with all the necessary powers to let the people do their business as they see fit in these minor corporations. A town isa' corporation, and as such. it:has the power to sue and be suede It is a mu nicipal corporation, and more imme diately connected with the people than any other corporation in the State. The right of the people to take into possession that corporation, and control it for their benefit, is a sovereign right; and by the infringement of that sovereignty, they have suffered enormous evils. We have been paralyzed; we could not possibly move hand or foot without appealing to the Legislature,of the State. I say that we should be relieved of that paralysis; we should be suffered to let our blood flow freely, so as to promote the best good of our system, so as to secure the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuits of happiness. Yes, sir, the pursuit of happiness. And here is my friend now, (Mr. LOTHROP,) an honest man, the noblest work of God, a stalwart man,- but he stands in my way. Mr. FARMER. I rise to a point of order; the gentleman is not- confining himself to the subject. The CHAIRMAN. It is almost impossible for the Chair to see that the remarks of the gentleman from Eaton haveany relation to the subject now pending. The question is upon strik ing out a portion of this section. The gentleman has now spent some ten minutes without the committee being able to see, and the chairman is cer tainly unable to see, any direct connec tion between his remarks and the sub ject. Mr. BURTCH. If the Chair will bear with me for a few minutes, he will see the point. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will confine his remarks to the ques tion at issue, that is, striking out the latter part of this section. Mr. BURTCH. I am for striking it out. Now, with regard to my friend from Wayne, he has my respect; he is a very tall man who has come in-my way here. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can review any remarks made by the gentleman from Wayne. Mr. BURTCH. I propose to. The CHAIRMAN. But the gentle man from Wayne is not the subject under discussion. Mr. BURTCH. I propose to review the remarks of the gentleman from Wayne. I have a few lines to read here, as follows: "Standing on the oeean shore of God's eternal truth, Let us kneel and sip from the crystal fount That thirsty we no more shall be,' For power to drive the tyrant out, That freedom's banner may float over the land of the free." - My friend here I have no doubt is really democratic, but we have had a tremendous gale sweeping over the land, and a paralysis has come over that noble man. Mr. WOODHOUSE. I i'nsist that DEB T,,ES —.&-ND- PR C-EEDIN-,G ,.1.. , I...11 S. ,T-ul 1 -7 1$67 157 158 CO-STITUTIO~AL COfE~TIO-, g entleman shall speak to the ques n. Mr., GIDDINGS. I think the gen man from Eaton is in order. His Poetic effusion was intended to connect the gentleman from Wayne with the eminent domain. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Eaton has been several times called to order. It is evident that the committee has been unable, equally with the chairman, to see the con nection of his- remarks with the subject. The'gentleman has been so fre quently called to order, and has been reminded by the Chair of his duty to connect his remarks with the subject, that the Chair will now rule that he is not entitled to proceed further without the consent of the committee. Mr. FERRIS.' I move that the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BURTCH,) have leave to proceed. Mr. MILLER. I move to amend the motion by adding the words, "without interruption until he gets through." The question was taken upon the amendment to the motion of Mr. FERmis; and upon a division, ayes 34, noes not counted, it was agreed to. The question — was upon the motion as amended; to allow Mr. BURTCH to -proceed without interruption until he had concluded his remarks. Mr. CASE. Is it proper, at this time, for the committee of the whole to amend the rules of this Convention? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not deem, it proper to do so. Should the committee of the whole attempt to amend any rule of the Convention, the Chair would not himself raise the question as to its being an amendment of the rules. Mr. CASE.. It seems to me that the motion of the gentlemen from Kent, as amended, would be an amendment to rule twenty of the Convention, which is as follows: , A member called to order by the Chair, shall immediately take his seat unless permitted to explain, and the Convention, if appealed to, shall decide the-case. If there be no appeal, the decision of the Chair shall be submitted to. On an appeal, no member shall speak more than once without leave of the Convention, and when a member is called to order bor offensive language, there shall be no debate."' - I believe it is the right of any member to call another member to order. The CHAIRMAN. This motien, if adopted, will not have the -effect of amending the rule of the Convention; it will only be an expression of the sense of the committee. Mr. GIDDINGS. I hope we will not vote to allow the gentleman to proceed without interruption for an indefinite time. Mr. BIRNEY. While I-am in favor of the widest latitude of debate; while I am in favor of allowing to the gentleman from Eaton all the privileges accorded to any other member; still, when I arise to address this body, and speak irrelevantly, I expect to be called to order. I think we ought to retain in our control the power of arresting any member in his remarks, if he is not occupying the time ofthe committee with relevant remarks. Mr. WALKER. I hope the gentleman from Eaton will be allowed sufficient time to enable this committee to understand on which side he proposes to make his speech. [Laughter.]. Mr. FERRIS. I made the motion not because I was dissatisfied at all with the ruling of the Chair. -I voted also for the amendment of the gentleman from'Saginaw, (Mr. MMLER,) in order to make it still stronger, for the purpose of enabling this committee to express their dissatisfaction with the course pursued by the gentleman from Eaton, if they saw fit to do so. Mr. LEACH. I hope this motionin its present form will not prevail. Even if it shall prevail, I shall claim my right as a member of this Convention, if the gentleman from Eaton:does not confine himself to the question under consideration, to call -himn to order. I have that right under the rules, and I do not think this committee has the right to deprive me or any other member of that privilege. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already stated that he'would so rule; but at the same time he would not himself raise the question in regard to the character of the motion now pending. Mr. BURTCH. Mr. Chairma — The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Eaton -wish to speak upon the question now pending? Mr. BURTCH. He does, a little. Mr. BIRNEY. If the gentleman has been called to -order, I hold that under the rules he must take his seat until the question of order has been disposed of. The CHAIRMgAN. Under the circumstances the Chair will rule that the gentleman from Eaton is not in order in discussing the question whether he shall-be allowed to proceed. The question was then. taken upon the motion of Mr. FERRIs, as amended, to allow Mr. BURTCH to proceed without interruption, and it was not agreed to. 'Mr. BURTCH. Thank God, for the little privilege I' have-had. The question recurred upon the motion of- Mr.. MILLER to amend section twenty-seven by striking out- all after the words "aiding in the construction of any railroad,," so that the section will read: - The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township- to -pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad." i - - i The amendment was not agreed cto. Mr. M.. WATKINS. I move to amend this section by inserting before the words' pledge its credit,"'the words "raise by tax or,"' so that the section will read: " The Legislature shall not authorize any City or township to raise by tax, or pledge its credit,'forthe purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad," etc. It seems to me that towns or municipalities;might be trusted to raise money by tax and pay it over, when they should not "be allowed to pledge the credit of the town afterwards because that would give them a double chance. I think this amendment is proper, in -order to regulate this matter. Mr. T. G. SMITH. I do not think that would make good sense in that place, "Ito raise by tax -or to pledge its credit for the'purpose of aidinLg in the construction of anyrailioad- to an extent whereby the outsdng. indebtedness," etc. The question here is simply in regard to the amcunt of indebtedness for which a township can pledge: its creit. The raising of a tax has no reation to credit or indebtedness. The amendment ofMir. M.- C. WATrINs was not agreed to.:> Mr. INGALLS. I move to amend the section by adding to it the following: -Provided,. That the counties. townships, and cities in'the Upper Peninsula may pledge their credit to an amount not exceeding twenty per cent. of the assessed value of the property in such county, city or township." I desire ito make a few remarks in relation to this subject. We, in the Upper Peninsula, want railroads; we need railroads. We have -a large- territory of country there, nearly twothirds as large as the Lower Peninsula, and a territory which - is almost en — tirely undeveloped. Our settlements are scattered around the lake:and bay shores, but the interior is a vast wilderness. That interior is filled with wealth almost equal to the famous Golconda. We have there mountains ,of iron and mountains of copper; we have there silver and lead and'marble, and also vast forests of pine. We have there -also an almost unlimited. water power, which we wish to see devoted to purposes of machinery and manufacturing.: We have no: means of getting into that country, and can have none, except by railroads; that is we have no means adequate -to the development of the wealth inthe interior of that country.: This section, as it now stands, would be wholly inadequate to enable us to 158 'CONSTITUTIONAT, CON'VENTION. Wednesday, Jiuly I7 187 I EAE -. I o I.I I I give that encouragement - for the construction of railroads, which is neeessary in a country like the Upper Peninsula. In the first place the word S county" has been stricken out of the section. For our towns in the UpperPeninsula to issue bonds, would be rank -foolishness; we could never realize anything from -town bonds. But it would be otherwise with regard to county bonds; our county bonds are perhaps as good as the State bonds. All our counties in the Upper Peninsula are out of debt, and known by the financial world to be out of deb t. There would, therefore, be no difficulty in raising money on county bonds. This section is defective in. that respect. For that reason I have taken no particular part in the discussion. Gentlemen of this Convention will notice that I include the word "county" in my amendment, for the amendment applies to the Upper Peninsula. That is one point in regard to this subject. Another point is this; if we undertake to build railroads in the Upper .Peninsula, we must show capitalists outside that we have faith in out own projects; that the wealth to be developed is worth an effort of our own. If we wish to induce a person in New York, for instance, to advance us one hundred thousand dollars, or any other sum, we must show him that we are willing to take the same burden upon ourselves, and thereby give him faith in the enterprprise. And we are able to do it to a much greater extent than would appear from the assessed valuation of property in the Upper Peninsula. Take the county I represent, for instance; with the limitation in this section, we could issue our bonds only to the extent of about thirty thousand. dollars, Suppose we issue those bonds, and make them payable, as we probably would, in ten or; twenty years. In ten or twenty years from this time our assessed valuation would probably amount to ten or twenty times as much as it is to-day. Consequently, were we permitted now to pledge our credit for ouly i,ten, per: cent., of the present valuation of our property,:we would in fact advance but two or one per. cent. upon the valuation of our property when the bonds, becameg'due. But we want to use those bonds today,: not ten or twenty years' hence. We want to encourage the construction of railroads in that: country now. We know that by advancing the requisite amount now we-, may accomplish that object, and when the bonds be come due we shall have ten or twenty times the assessed valuation of property in our county to pay those;bonds. This is not a mere fancy statement; it is a matter of fact.:My county has doubled its assessments of property in three: years past, and I have no doubt that-in three years more the present valuation will be doubled; and at that rate -the valuations of ten or twenty years hence would give us thirty or forty:times the amount of assessable property, there is there to-day. What I ask is that we shall not be limited, so that we cannot make any available effort for a project of this kind. If the counties of the Lower Peninsula prefer to limit themselves to a small amount, I have no objection. A very small part of the assessable property in the lower counties of this State would be, sufficient for all such purposes. But not so with us in the Upper Peninsula. It is with this view that I ask the committee to give us the benefit of the amendment I have moved. There is nothing unjust in it, and it will enable us to hold out such en-' couragement for the construction of railroads, some of which are already planned, as will -enable us to get capitalists to invest in them. The mere construction of a railroad will of itself double and quadruple the amount of assessable property.in the county through which it passes, by opening up its wilderness to settlement, research and development. We would, therefore, be benefited if we could give the whole amount necessary for the construction of a railroad. If we were able to do so, it would all be paid back to us twice over in the development of the country. I do not design to take up the time of this committee in arguing this mat ter..,I wish merely to submit my views briefly to the members of this Conven tion. I think the good sense of the members will see that these views are correct, and that it will be proper for them to give us what we ask for the upper part of the State. I know that it is difficult for many from the south ern peninsula to realize our position in the northern peninsula. It is impos sible to tell.people just how we are sit uated there. We might talk all day to a man of the rarest intelligence, and explain' everything.to him; and he would look at the matter as through a glass darkly, and not. fully understand the position we are in. But ther.e are members here who have been through the Upper Peninsula, and who have a more just appreciation of our condition. And, of those mem bers, and of others here who' are influenced-by a spirit of liberality, I would ask that they yield us the benefit of this amendment. Mr' Hr."WILLI MS*'' I would.call the attention of the mover'of this amend~ ment (Mr. IshALLs) to the fact, whether his amendment is intended to go as far as it might be construed to go. The section which it is proposed to amend simply restricts the power of the Legislature in its action to ten per cent. This amendment is an express authority given to counties, cities and townships without any legislative action; there would be no power of the Legislature over the matter. Mr., INGALLS. As I understand it, the proviso I have offered would be construed together with the body of the section. If the Legislature has the right without any section at all to grant this power, it would have that right none the less with the section. If there is any restrictiction in the body of the section, it would be considered as applicable to the proviso. As I understand the law of construction, the whole section must be construed together, and the restriction would apply to the proviso as well as to the body of the section. I am not particular as to the express wording of'my proviso. I did not design particularly to give an express grant of power any more than the Legislature had before. What I wished was to extend the limitation to twenty per cent. for the Upper Peninsula. Mr. BIRNEY. I understand, that the word " county" has been stricken out of the body of -the section. Does the gentleman design to give this right to counties in the Upper Peninsula, when it is withheld from the counties in the Lower Peninsula? Mr. INGALLS. I did design that the word "county" should be in the proviso. I will reiterate my reason for that. It was this; we might go into the market with the bonds of any' of our towns, with the exception of two or three, such as Marquette, Houghton, and perhaps two or three others, and we could-not sell them for more than twenty-five cents on the dollar, because they are unknown. But we could go into any of the western markets and into some of the eastern markets with our county bonds, and get as much for them as State bonds would bring, from the fact that our counties are out of debt and have always kept so. If the members of this Convention, members from the Lower Peninsula, believe that it is not advisable to allow their counties to pledge their credit for this purpose, I do not think this Convention should prohibit our counties in the Upper Peninsula from doing so. We want that which is valuable to us, not that which is worthless; and our county bonds are the only ones we would deem valuable. Mr. WILLIA/MS. I was~ about to suggest that with the construction which the mover of this amendment '159. ,DF,'RATES:AWD PROcEp4DINGS. Jul -17, lt867. 1, _,-y, CONS -TUOAL Co VETI!ON. seeks to attach to his proviso, a proviso that the provisions of this section shall not apply to:the Ulpper Peninsula, would, I think, answer his purpose. But, according to his proviso, it would seem that the townships or counties in the Upper Peninsula might issue their bonds without any legislative action, upon their own action alone. Mr. McKERNAN. I desire to move an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Menominee, (Mr. INGALLs.) I move to -amend it by striking out " twenty," and inserting ten." I agree with the argument of the gentleman -from Menominee in regard to the necessity and importance of a railroad in the Upper Peninsula, and the propriety of permitting the counties there to grant this aid. But I am entirely unwilling to give them permission to grant aid to the extent of twenty per cent., thoiugh they might be able to do so. I think it would be better to allow us-to raise ten per cent. upon the credit of a county or township, and make up the balance by subscriptions. It is a question with me whether our people would be satisfied with this - twenty per cent. arrangement; consequently I cannot agree with the gentleman from Menominee upon that point. I do not wish to discuss this question, though there is much which could be said upon it. The gentleman has said that our county bonds would be worth more than our township bonds. Our interests, however, are so identical that when you affect the county you affect the township. With the amendment I have offered, I would be satisfied with this proviso. Mr. MUSSEY. I hope the Convention will grant to the Upper Peninsula just such provisions in this regard as they may wish. So far as the Lower Peninsula is concerned I am in favor of the section as it now stands, without any alteration. But I apprehend that it will not apply with equal force and effect to the Upper Peninsula. An additional reason to those stated by the gentleman who moved this provision (Mr. INGALLS,) for having an increased amount for the Upper Peninsula, is the fact that very much of their property pays a specific tax, and never is assessed. Hence the necessity or propriety of allowing a larger per centage for this purpose. I would submit to those gentlemen who represent on this floor the Upper Peninsula, whether the end they desire to reach by the amendment now pending would not be accomplished by simply saying: "Provided that this section shall not apply to -the -Upper: Peninsula." That -would leave the matter so that the Legislature might grant them just such provsions as they might desire. I apprehend that the Legislature never would-refuse any request which they would make, pro. vided they were unanirnous on the subject. I can hardlythink that tliis Convention would refuse to allow an amendment to be made to this section of the kind I have suggested, provided the gentlemen representing that por tion of our State would agree upon-it. However, I shall be decidedly in'favor of whatever they may agree upon, and I hope this Convention will be. Mr. INGALLS. In relation towhat the gentleman from Houghton, (Mr. McKERNAN,) has said, I desire to-say, 'that we have not previously consulted together upon this matter. I do not think he really understands what -I am seeking to accomplish in this amendment. It provides only that not exceeding twenty per cent. shall be levied for this purpose; it does not provide that any counties shall levy twenty per cent.; the people are left free to determine what is necessary. If the people of his county do not desire to go beyond five or ten per cent. they can govern that matter for themselves. I only desire to give to those counties that wish to do so, the right to pledge their credit for twenty per cent. I do not propose to -make it imperative upon any county to pledge its credit to any amount. Tho proposition suggested by the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MusSEY,) would be satisfactory enough to me. I would be perfectly wilimng to have an amendment made to -this sec-tion, which would leave this subject entirely to the Legislature, to make such laws and regulations as we may desire. There is another reason why the gentleman from Houghton (Mr. McKE'RAN) may not fully understand my proposition. -I have understood outside of this Convention that there will be a proposition for another amendment to this section, to provide that this question of granting aid shall be submitted to the property holders in each township or county. I should have added that to my amendment had I not understood such to be the fact. For one I hope -that:such a proposition. will be made and be adopted. If it shall carry, then the property holders will be the people to determine to what amount a county or a town shall pledge its- credit, Therefore,- I see no'isk in' passing upon my amendment as it is. - I have great objection to- reducing the amount in the Upper'Peninsula to ten per cent. Although that might answer for some one or more -of-the: counties there, it- will not answer for them -all. The newer counties caunnot render the aid which would be necessary to en courage. the building of those roads which are absolutely needed for the good of the country, if they are restric ted to hat amount. For that reason I hope the amendment to the amend ment will not prevai. -Mr. PARSONS. I cannot favor either the amendment or the amendment to the amendment, although I am willing that the Upper Peninsula should have greater rights in this respect than the Lower Peninsula has; that it should have all the rights which it would be just and proper to confer upon them. But I am certainly unwilling to confer upon the counties and townships of the Upper Peninsula the right to vote such aid to railroads as they may see fit, without aiy action on the part-of the Legislature, wich the amendment -now pending would allot. This amendment provides that they may grant this aid at once, to an ~amount not exceeding twenty per cent., or as is proposed by the- amendment to the amendment, >not exceeding ten per cent. I do not believe that either of these gentlemen desire to have in'corporated in the Constitution:a provision which would give the- counties and towns of the Upper Peninsula the right to do this without any action or provision by the Legislature. If'- it is acceptable or desirable to them, I would be in favor of amending this section so as to provide'that the restrictions in it should not apply to the Upper Peninsula. Mr. GIDDINGS. I do not expect to make any argument on this general subject. I desire to say but a few words on- the proposition last presented to this committee. As I understand it, the proposition is that the townships and counties in the Upper Peninsula sh all have a different rule, so far as the amount is concerned, in raising taxes for these railroads,/from the rule in -force in the Lower Peninsula. If the gentlemen from the Upper Peninsula desire that their counties shall have this power, I will say that it seems to me :that they have it without any amendment at a11. The view taken by this -committee all-the way through, is :that without any restriction the Legislature can confer this power upon the counties. We have stricken out the word- county" from this section and left it to apply only to -cities and townships. - ~ - The CH- AiMAn. The -committee 'have also added- to the section the words, "no county shall be authorized to pledge its credit for any such purpose." ::Mr; GIDDINGS. I had:forgotten that- -clause, I was going on to say :that in the southern portion Of:this I... I. I - I. -........... -1... - % —,,-E.--,. 160 -,Wedn'egda'y, July 17, 1867. D)EB3AT14 A1ND PROCEEhDINGS. 161 State five per cent, is probably as much as we would ever want to raise for this purpose; that is my im-n pression., And when this subject first came up I felt that if I voted in favor of it at all, I would not vote for more than five per cent. But the earnest presentation of this subject and the feeling manifested by gentlemen living further north, the certainty that was evinced that ten per cent. would aot be too much, and that five per cent. would be too little, induced me to vote for the amount contained in the section. But I want some general rule adopted. I dislike very much to establish one rule of taxation in one part of the State, and another rule in another part of the State. I suppose that most of the people in the Upper Peninsula are no more able to pay a tax under a ten or twenty per cent. rtle, than would be the people in the southern tier of counties in this StatQ. I have thought that, consider ing the peculiar interests that have been spoken of here, the mining inter est in the Upper Peninsula, in which but few individuals have a heavy inter est,- if we tax the people there ten per cent., they might secure all the balance which was desired by subscriptions to the stock of the road. If those mining corporations, or the individuals inter ested in them, desire a railroad, they can subscribe largely to the stock. But I suppose the mass of the people of the Upper Peninsula are no better able to pay taxes than we are in the southern part of the State. I suppose there is no more wealth among the great mass of the people there, in pro portion, than there is in the southern part of the State. I hav6 a dislike to making two br three or four different rules in the Constitution. I would be inclined to voteagainst the whole proposition, if these different rules are established in this connection. I think we should have some general rule in the Consti tution, sufficiently broad.to cover all contingencies and localities. I do not think we should make provisions to be adapted' to this locality and to that. If ten per cent. is not enough, then if we vote any at all, we ought to raise it. I can very readily see that the townships in the Upper Peninsula will not be able to vote enough to carry on the road. It would be the same in the southern peninsula, perhaps, in some of the counties where, as was suggested by the gentleman from St. Clair, (M]r. Coosa,) the towns would not pay more than one or two hundred dollars each. They would pay according to their ability. I want some general rule which shall apply to the whole ? State; the Upper Peninsul~ and ally I "VoL2 —No. 21. want to have some general rule, so that we may not name the Upper Peninsula in our Constitution at- all. It has always been treated as if it was a separate colony, which must be provided for differently from the rest of the State. Now, I do not think that is necessary. Let us have some general rules in our Constitution, and not divide up the State into sections to which different rules are applied. I have a strong dislike to that mode of" making a Constitution. Mr. MORTON. We say in this Convention, as we always have said in the Legislature, that the southern counties do not require what,the northern counties of the State may require; hence the difference of opinion as to what is necessary. I think, as has been remarked by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) that we should make a Constitution which shall apply uniformly throughout the State. At least I hope that if this amendment shall prevail, allowing the Upper Peninsula the right to tax itself for this purpose to a greater extent than is permitted to the Lower Peninsula, that that privilege will be allowed to extend south to all the counties north of Saginaw. I desire that for this reason; the amendment offered by the gentleman from Menominee, (Mr. ISGALLS,) has reference to a railroad from Gieen Bay to Escanaba, to connect at Green Bay with the Chicago ~dad Northwestern road, and at Eseasrab with the Marquette and Ontonagon road, thus forming a perfect connection between Chicago and the mining regions. Now, we desire to have a railroad connectipn from Saginaw up through the northern part of the Lower Peninsula to these mlining regions. Therefore, I hope that if this amendment shall prevail, the same privilege willbe extended to the counties of the Lower Peninsula north of Saginaw. I imagine it will be necessary if we want to control for any length of time any portion of this trade in the Upper Peninsula, that we shall push this great enterprise ahead. And I want the counties of the Lower Peninsula to have the privilege of voting just as much aid as the counties in the Upper Peninsula maybe willingto vote for a railroad from.Escanaba to Chicago. I do not want the people there to get in the habit of going to Chicago ff we can get them to come this way. I think we should have as much regard for our own interests as we do for the interests of some place outside of this State. 'Mr. LOVET,. I offer the follow ing as a substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Menominee, (M[r. INGAL,n.) Foo That none of the restrictlons of this section shall apply to the Upper Penin.-; sula. The C.AIRMAN. The -substitute will be held in abeyance until action is had upon the amendment of the gentlemanfrom~Houghton, (Mr. McKE A.) Mr. CONGER. I had prepared an amendment which I wish to offer; but I think it will not be in order. I wills however, read my amendment, andit may perhaps modify the vote upon this question. My proposition would be to insert, after the word. "county," in this section as it stands, the words '" except in the Upper Peninsula; so that it will read: "No county, except in the Upper Peninsula, shall be authorized to pledge its credit for any such purpose." That wi leave thei restriction of ten per cent. to apply to those counties, as well as to cities and townships of the Lower Peninsula. The CHAIRMWAN. That amend-' ment would not be in order at the present time. Mr. MoKERNAN. I would inquire of the gentleman from Menominee (Mr. INGALLS) if the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CoX,ER)) would not be better than his amend ment? I would be satisfied with either the substitute offered by the gentlemau from Genesee, (Mr. LOVEL,) or the amendment suggested by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGE,.) The amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair would. allow us to raise a tax by counties.. Mr. IGAT,LS. I have no particular objection to the substitute. The question recurred upon:the amendment of r. MrKE.SAi to strike out the word "twenty," and insert the word " ten," in the amendment of Mir. INGALLS. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The question recurred upon- the amendment of Mr. INGaALLS. Mr.' INGALLS. At the time I drew my amendment I understood that the provision in regard to counties in c'onnection with this section had not been passed upon. It having been pased upon, I would prefer the amendment suggested by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoRGER,) to my amendment.' i -- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LovEL;i;L,),has moved a substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Menominee, (Mr. IGALLS.) If the gentleman from Genesee will consent, the gentleman from Henominee can have leave to withdraw his amendment. Mr. LOVETLL. I will withdraw my substitute. Mr. INGALLS. I will withdraw niy amendment., . I'Al, I i4 osTIUtoA C O j E \ /dne das, Mr. CONGER. I now move to amend this seetion by inserting after the word ",:cOuntyi" the words "except in the Upper Penisula," so that that portion of the- section will mad;" no coiy e~xcept n t.-he Upper -Peninsula "Staillbe-authorized to pledge its credit for any such purpose." -The amnendment of Mr. CosGER was .geed to. - The question then recurred upon the Subtitute of Mr. VA RIPER for the sectio, which substitute was as follows: ~ -" The Tog'lature shall not authorize any city -or to*nship to pledge-its credit or levy a ta, for the purpose of aiding in the con'auction- ot any: -railroad, to an extent w*hereby the outstanding indebtedness, ex6usive of interest, on account of aid to any one railroad, shall exceed flve per cent- of the sessed valuation of such city or township, and not to exceed ten per cent. for any two or more railroads. The question of such aid must be sumbitted to:a vote of the people, and no person shall be entitled to vote at any siibmissionlof such question, unless he shall be the owner of property liable to taxation. No county shall be authorized to vote such ta.or aid." HMr. VAN RIPER. Before the question is taken upon the substitute, I move to amend the section by adding to it the following: " The question of such aid shall be submit tedto a vbte of the city or township to be affected thereby, and no person shall be en titled to a vote at any submission of such question, unless he shall be the owner of property liable to taxation."' Mr. GIDDINGS. It seems to me that that matter should be left to the Legislature. The last claune of the amendment of the gentlemna' from Cass, (Mr. A RIPER,) will be of no earthly effect. If a man owns a dog, ho will say-that he owns property, and Will go up to the polls and vote. This is worse than the ten-cent " clause. It is a useless provision, and shouldnot Be put i'm here. Mr. VAN RIPER. It is with con jiderable hesitanc after the ungentle manly, unprovoked, and uncalled for stt/ k made upon me yesterday, and For having been advised this morning that I had better pack Up and leave this Convention-I say that after this un coaled for attack upon me by the gen tleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) who appears upon this floor in so dig tified a character,.it i~ with some hesi tation that I-speak upon this question. But allow me to say just here, that I am the peer in this Convention of the gentleman:from C'litn, (Hr. 'D xT,;) and in one respect at least, Ia-m the equal of any other member of this Convention. I represent a con stituency as he does, and one just as intelligent. The crime imputed to me is that of being a young man; that is tall. Now the fact of my being a young man Should not be regarded as a crime; it should not debar me from exercising the right~ ad privileges of ~ member of this Convention. That crime was imputed to another'n the British Pirliament, and I suggest to the gentleman that he read thaat debate for his benefit..: Mr. DANIELLS. I read it When I was a boy, and I liked it then. Mr. VAN RIPER.'I hope. the gentleman has not forgotten it, and awill profit by it. That is all I have to say upon'this subject.. The amendment I have offered proposes to submit this question of grantinrg aid to railroads to a vote of the people. I think this is a-point:whih was overlooked in the article which was reported by the committee on the legislative department. There is no provision. in that requ ng -that this question of aid should be submitted to the people. Under the section as it now stands, the Legislature may authorize the authorities of a cite or of a town ship, to issue the bonds of that city or township for railroad purposes, without giving to the people any right or -voice in the matter. I think the com mittee will have no objection to the in sertion of my amendment in this sec tion. It properly belongs' there; it should be inserted as a just restriction, because no tax or credit of the City or township should ever be allowed or permitted, except by a vote of the people. WrTith regard'to the latter part of my amendment, requiring the voters upon such submission to be Property hol ders, it seems to me that is quite im portant. It is important for-.various reasons. In the first place, those who are interested in the -measure, those who are to be benefited- by it, a>: the persons who should be permtied to vote upon the question. -,We are told here that we should not prohibit the people from saying whether theywotfld levy a tax upon themselves or not; that they should be permitted to do this, and the voice Of this Convention is to that effect; that the people of the town ship or the city shall be permitted to levy this tax. Now, we have a provs ion in the Constitution of this State that a man must be a resident of the State for three months, and of the dis trictin which he proposes to vote for ten days, in order to be entitled ito vote. One object of my amendment, is the protection of the ballot box. Another object is, that persons not affected by the result of the election shall not be permitted to participate in it. People outside the State might be permitted to vote for officers in the State, under proper restrictions, and in such away as to protect the ballot box. But they are not allowed to participate inthe eleetio'n, because ~they) are not inter-; ested il it; and the people of one coun ty are not allowed to vote for the ofilicers of another county. Yet the laws of this State might be so made asto protect the purity of the ballot box, and allow the people of the several counties to vote for the officers of each :countym. But that is not done, because the people of other counties are not-interested. Interest- is at the bottom of 'the..e whole of it. The-policy of: the law is, that those who are affected:by the vote ast, are the only persons who should be allowed to vote. Now, it may strike some gentlemen with a -sorf of holy horror that a man should not be allowed to vote unless he is a property-holder.' But I would refer gentlemen to the school laws of this State.: A man cannot vote under those laws upon the question of raising five dollars for repairs on a school house unless he is a property-holder. And yet members of this Convention have not seen fit to adopt ay.g whereby that rule shiould be changed. That has been the-pohlcy of this State for years-a policy which ha-s-not been questioned. I say that my amend ment should be adopted, in orde to allow only those who are interested in this question to vote upon it. It should also be adopted for the protection of the township. I submitted-to this Convention, sometime sAmce, some renimarks in regard to the con struction of a road. Where a road is projected and a charter granted, and men are sent out to build ix mniles of road m each township, those men, un der the laws of this State, can take up their residence there, and after ten days they will be allowed. to ontrol and sway the vote of that township; and say whether the property holders of that township, shall or shall not pay out their money for purposes of internal improvement. I say that my amendment is necessary in order to protect the property holders. I hold that' only the property holders, only the tax-payers, should say wbether they ~ should pay this tax or not.' It seems to me that there can be no valid objection to that. It seems to me that justice demands that,'inasmuch as you claim this to be for the benefit of the property, the propert~yholders should not be cut off from their right to vote these taxes. —. Even'm regard to the Upper Peninsula the gentleman from Menorninee, I(Mr. ILeLs,) who offered an amendment a while ago, fully agrees with me 'in this respect. There the property is owned by the few;- by the men who have invested their thousands and millions there, and have broughit that gouht*, to its present condition, beeause' of tieirindustr. But.'.uiessyo pam su ch a restrietion I I hiy pro' STIIX CO-N,. . -A I- - - .162 - -6d-'ne-sd y 8DEBATES:b D PROCEE,DINGS. posed, they will' be at the mercy of'.the miners there, many of -whom do not own a soblita cent of property, ad many of whom-I say it in regard to them the more freely,.because the same .remark will apply to other sections of the country-can be bought for one or, two dollars to vote' for or against any, measure. There is not a city or vilage in the State where there is not a floatig population, almnost sufficient- to Cointrol the vote of that township or c:ity. I say. that it is necessary that thiere, should'be some restriction of this idnd. I' the amendment which I have offered is not sufficient, if as the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GrDmGs,) says,:. a man who owns a dog can go X the polls and vote,: then let us make the restriction stonng enough to be a safeguard. That is what I-want.: I do not.wish to take up the-time of the- commi.ttee-in discussing this ques tion. I leave: this matter in the hands of the majority of this Convention, they .can do'with it'asthey,please. I submhit that it is a simple matter of protection and jiustice to those who.are- to pay these taxes, that- your should amend thii Section by some such restriction a this. If it is a question'of property,' then let property holders settle that question, and- not others. MI. GIDD.GS. I.desire to answer one or two things said by the gen tleman from Cass, (Mr. sVAN RIPER,) order to show that his proposition is not practicable. As-I have before re marked,' this matter should be left to be settled by the Legislature. The fiarst portion of the gentleman's amend -ment is, that this question of granting aid to- railroads shall- be submitted to a vote of the people.- The Legislature may deem that some' other rule would be better. I will suggest- one which is used in- Indiana, and which I think is better -than the one. proposed by the gentleman. The law in Indiana re quires that before the township author ities shall have the right to issue bonds for'any such purpose, there- shall be a: petition for that purpose signed by two thirds of the taxable inhabitants of the township.. Now, I will mention a sin gle case in -which this: q.uestion was submitted to the people- Ihn the; towm *where. Ilive we had quite an animated contest ax few days ago, over thei ques tion of raising one hundred thousand dollars for the purpose of aiding a rail road; yet- there -was not one-half of.the :vote of the town brought out -on that; occasion. I; think the Indiana rule would be deemed by'the Legislatre a safer one. It would require ~you to get the taxable inhabitants of the town to sign.- their names in advanc2 o a pe tition; in favor o0f the proposition to — pu Ad: Ted-.-< ->X:WP, ] the kind- has. scarcely ever secured- a -vote of,all the.-tax-paying inhabitants I would leave this whole matter to th-e Legislature, so that if they deem it right, -they Bay provide that none but the property.holder of the townsip or city shall vote upon such questions as these.. If that is found not to be practicable, then the - Legislature can determine upon some other rule. They did- provide in the law under which we voted the other day,. thata person to be entitled to vote upon.a question should be a' holder of taxable property. How would such. a rule work?-. John Doe comes up. to the .polls and is aisked these questions: A e you the- holder of taxable prop' erty-?" "'Yes sim."',Did you ever pay3a tax.? "o sir; but you can tax me, for I have the property. What property?"' "-Well, I have a dog." ",Well, we will take your vote." Another main comes:up; the question is asked' him: "H ave you any property?" He:!answers, "Yes, I have ten; dollars" in: my pocket." His vote is taken. You cannot adopt any rule that will apply nsuch cases. Yo:u cannoti say.-that —,none but land owners Shall vote, because.those who -.do no own land may have property of other kinds which will be taxed. Or ff you do establish such a rule a man may say: "I" have not the right kind of property under the law- to entitle me to vote; but why should I-not exercise some potwer in voting taxes?" Or you may say that if a person has five hun dred dollar-s worth of personals prop erty, or some other lkind of property, he may: vote.'If; you do that a man may say:. ",It is itrue that I do not have ,five hundcred dolls personal property, but it is as difficult' for-me to pay what {ta.is levied.u-on,me, asit is for others to:-pay heir itaes."' I say,that this whole mater should be-left to the Leg islaturea.'They -have undertaken to designate'in some laws that a man sh'allbe a property holder in order to :be entitle0d to vote on these questions. Bout I have ttold: you of:the practica. effect of such a ru'le as that. You do -not:get:-as so'is d a rule to-day, -and tiever did have as sound a rule, aS they sa,ve "/in.: *the- State of* Indian, Where there is noo voting at al ru'pon the ques tion; but the law requires tlhat-'a certain proportion:of the.tax payers. of the ;town,shall si -a pretitin before any dach ction.is taken by thee town as horities. I say, at..allev'ts, let' us leave this matter to-: the:Legislature. UI think we',had better n:-iot adopt any portion: of the. ic.:..:'_it now pro posede....'..:' o. Mr.. ALTDRICH.. I move to amends ~.h:amendment " of my colleague, (Mr. ''0-,B)',.k., fit~vg cu.' words: "-and no person -sall be entitled to a vote at- any submissO of such question, unless:h shallbe fie owner of- property: liable'to' taxaton:." If my amendment.is ado pted,.thenA it will read:: -. 'The question of. such aid shall -be subm.itted to a vote of the city or. township tObe affected thereby.", - Mr. FERRIS. This is one of;. th0e matters, in regard tow w.ch, w inc.ined to act too hastiy I de'/-'eOto c.all the attention:,Of thlisO cQitt to -some of the features of,thsproppsition.' Here' is a propositoient' s money by taxation toO pay" the enter and principal,-of bonds... Now, I: I gentlemen, do they think that txs should be imposed without s:k;ttfg the question to the peple ha' a to pay the taxes? If the question ought not to be submitted to the pe.ope,i:all other questions. in-regard. t.o taxe are submitted to tihem, then th:nment proposed by the genlema' fom Cass,: (r. VAx R,+) hol::' adopted.. I am in favor. of the a:umen:e'.t.to [the amendment; I am opposed' "together to.that part of -the amen,dment which proposes to confi-e. the election to the property holders. I am0 po6ed to it because the principleof a proa rty -qualification is u,sound,X and wasiong ago. repudiated. it is proposed:that 'no man shall be allowed to.ote. on Ti]s question unless he ows aXable property. - That is a beautiful ideato.tro- duce into'our Constitution: in thi.age of the world. Just see the effectl' it in a township. You.have.:o classes of voters, one who-ca' vote im reard to all general questio and in eference- to all- other: taxes but this one. And. then you have 7this:.litle select aristocratic class. of voters.who alone can vote on. his. qe,'on t. Mr -AN RIPl,.. Wijl.the- ge~n. .manfrom Kent, (M...:'.!) B w me to ask him one question. - -: Mr. FERRIS. Certiny..:. Mr. VAN: I wd my, of tme gentleman whther a ma. nde ourt present school laws, a mant ca. vote at ,a. school- meeting unless; h~e! -pays a school tax?.:.. -:-..: -Mr. FERRIS:. I can fonly a.:Swrer that- question by answering that;I ado not know how that is.. But if t,at is sO, it does not jnSuti thisprop0 "'tio .A wrong im that' case; does Pnot. ako this wrong right'. ] -.;.! —. Mr CONG-ER: -, I. wil answe'r::the gentleman' from Hiss., (Mr:.:V, R'i-,"",) in regard to his. last. inkquiry.Iu. this State certain: persons are'tax;ed' in school districts who are not allowed t0 vote, add yet they are entitled to1 the privileges of the schools.:- DTin,,g y I;a .7-1 867. I 1 164 COtIT~O C~TI Wdedy tion; the: people rather expect there will be. If so, it is a provision extend - the right of voting, not restricting i,: It is a provision that all taxable inhabitants in a school district might vote, which has been construed to mean women as well as men, negroes as well as white persons. That is the only object of the law, not to restrict, but to extend the right of voting. Now, in regard to incorporating into the Constitution a provision by which property shall vote,- I have only to say, that my vote will never be found recorded inm favor of it. I am one of -those who believe that it is not the gold -that makes a: man, or the want of gold that renders him less than a man;," a man's a man for a' that." I have been ;during my life, and am still poor; and yet I claim to exercise the rights of my manhood as much as the child of wealth, who without effort of his own -iniherited a fortune. And when it shall come to that, that property- in -the State of Michigan shall control the will of the people, if the man who to day owns property may vote the credit of his township for a purpose in which the poor man is equally interested with the rich, and yet cannot vote, although -he -' iy be laboring industriously to 'acquire property, and.will be called :uponn to pay a portion of that indebt edness when it shall become due, when such a principle shall be incorporated into the Constitution of the State of Michigan, it would be well- for the pole of this State to look elsewhere for-a home. I think the quaint illustration at tribqted tor Frankli, almrost a century ago, has had its weight everywhere in this great Republic. He argued 4this v very proposition in this way; said he: "If a man, in order to vote, must have fift dollars' worth of property, I would 'like to make this inquiry: Suppose a man to-day owns a jackass worth fifty dollars, he is a voter. Th- jackass dies to-night, and to-morrow that-man is not a voter.,-' I would ask whether it was the man or the jackass that voted?" ;~uher.] — Mr. BURTCH. I would inquire whether a jackass is under consideration now?.. - -- - Mr.; CONGER. I do- not yield; I : e-way only to gentlemen; not to the bi ass alluded to.- [Great laughter.] Toe principle embodied in the last :i clause, of the amendment offered by the :gentlean'friom Cass, (Mr. VAN RIbJ,)rngs us back to those old times when property ruled, and when the i!man was ignore& To that period of the dark ages I have no desire to re :? iir'ega:d to the other portion of lthis proposition, I have this to say;. there is no power in a city or township to pledge thd creditof ttt city or town ship without a vote of its citizens. The town board, or the commoncouncil of a city can never be presumed to exer cise any such power. The whole course of legislation in this State fol lows the exact plan proposed to be placed in the, Constitution, of submit tingthis question to the citizens, and ~that is already in it and will be with out the amendment. There is no ob jection to the general principle'of his proposition; of course we all expect that will be done. If there is a serious doubtin the mind of any gentleman that that will not hereafter be done, I would be in favor of that portion of the amendment. But I know of no possible way in which that aid may be rendered, except by an expression of the will of the people. Besides, were there any other'issue of bonds, or the pledge of? any other credit, by the town board or the com -mon council of a city, except author ized by a vote of the citizens, those bonds would be soworthless that capi talists would not buy them, and practi cally they would be of no value or use. That was the reason why such a clau'se was not inserted by the committee that reported this article.. The question was canvassed by the committee care fully, and we were unable to see any other mode by which it could be at tained, and therefore thought that- it was unnecessary to cumber this see tion with any Such provision'The principle of the provision is correct; if it is desired that it shall be inmcorpora ted in this section, I personally have no objection tio it., If any gentlemanhere desires that it shall be incorporated into' this section, or tbinks that it "is necessary, I think there'is.no particu lar objection to it; I myself havenone. But in relation to the latter clause of his amendment, if I deemed it possible that it. could'prevail'in' this Conven tion, I must say'that I should:have a very different opinion: of myself, without being disrespectful to any otlier gentleman, from what/I now have.': ~-':' Er. BLACKMAN. I desire to ask the gentleman from St. Clair a question. I refrained from asking it till he got through, for the reason that he says that it confuses him to be interrupted. Mr. DANIELLS. Will the gentleman ;rom Van Buren, (Mr. BLa,cKA,) yield for a motion that the committee rise.' ' Mr. BLACKMAN. In one moment. Does the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGsR,) lay it down as a- proposition, that the Legislature unrestricted,a would not have the same power to authorize the town board to decide this question, that it would have to author. ize the eleotors to decide it by a vote, that is to authorize the town board to issue bonds, the same -as they could authorize the electors to vote in favor of bonds being issued'? Mr. CONGER.- In answer- to the gentleman, I will say that I thought I was careful to remark that the whole course of legislation:upon that subject, and there has been much of it, has been in favor-of a distinct -submission to-the people of the township in'every case heretofore. I know of no other way under the legislation of this State, where there has been any attempt to issue bonds. I said still- further, in connection with thi su'ubject, that even if the town board, without the approval of the majority of the citizens; of that town, did issue such bonds, capitalists would be unwiUing to take them until they had received the sanction of - the ma jority of the citizens. I did not think I could be misunderstood- i what'I said. It is possible that the Legisla ture might authorize' an- i:ndividual to issue bonds for a town.....But the Leg islature could not compel capitalists to buy'those bonds, or make those bonds of any particular value'min the market. Mr. V-AN RIPER. I am suprised that the gentleman from:- St.- Clair, (Mr. CoNGe=,) with all his ability, should have evaded the practical ques tion, as to the right of property holders to say:what should be done'with their own property. Instead- of that he went off on a general principle-of re quiring a property restriction.: I can say to this Convention, that there is no member here who will go fEther"than I will, towards enforcing the principle of universal suffrage At every election. never have approved of a property qualification; I never shall approve of it, only im such cases as this, where: a vote is taken upon apropositionthat.is outside of all questions pertaining to government; a proposition that has;as I understand, nothing to do with:.the government or the control Of oacity 6r a township. It is a question relating exclusively to property, and I contend that property -owners; and proper holders should- say what tax should be levied upon their: property in such cases. But in all cases relating to Hte government,-I will go in favor!of universal sfrage as far' as the~gentleman dare go. - -v -M::Mr"ILOVELL., I would say to':the gentleman from Cass~,, (Mr.: VAi:Rn'~) that this section does snot provide alone for the levying of a tax, but it provides slso for pledgimg the credit of a township or:city. It- is just possible: that men may have credit who do not ow n property. Indeed we al Fknowl men who chaved no property tof- dconsyqth'n. whose credit is better to~day, than that CONSTITUTIONAT'I CONVPJNTION. -1 '16t Wedne.sday, IJuly 17, 1867. DEIBATES AND ROCEEDiNGS. 165 of many who have' even a large amount of property. Their integrity and Mknown energy are firm assurances that they -will soon have property and pay taxes. A man may have credit and no property, and yet in ten years from now he may have a great deal of property.: This case applies to our city. We voted there, all of us, without restriction of property, to loan the credit of the city of Flint to the extent of five per cent. to aid-the' Port Huron railroad, to be paid nine or ten years hence, at a time whien half the property holders of that city will probably be among us no more; and men now with little or no property will then be property holders. If property'is to control this matter, then why not let-the tax-roll vote?' -Mr. INGALLS. I desire to say a few words more upon this subject. — As it-is now near the usual time for our recess, I move that the committee now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. The motion was- agreed-to. The committee'accordinglyrose; and the PREsmIDENT having resumed the Chair, Mr. PRINGLE reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had.had under consideration the article entitled "Legislative Department;" had made some progress therein, and had directed himn to ask leave for the commnittee to sit again. Leave'was accordingly granted. Mr.- McKERNAN. I move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion'was agreed to; and accordingly,' (at- fifteen minutes past 12 o'clock p. m.,) the Convention took a recess until hlf-past two o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at halfpast two o'clock p- m., and was called to order by the-PRESIDENT... The roll was'called, and a quorum answered to their names. - ;: e THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMET. Mr. BARBER. I move thatthe Convention now resolve itself into com mittee of: the whole, on. the, general order.. -. The motion was Agreed to.;: The Conventionaccordingly resolved itself into- committee of the - whole, (Mr. P,RINLE in the chr,) and resumed the consideration of the, article entitled..,, Legislative Department." - MUNIOCIPAL AID TO RAILROADS-. — The' CHAIRIAN. Wheni the committee rose this morning, it'had under consideration section twenty-seven -of !this article, which- had' been; amended 'to read as follows: "The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit for the purposeof aidingin the construction of any railroad to an extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, exclusives'o interest, on account of aid- to any and -all railroads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county, except in the Upperv,eninsula, shall be authorized to pledge-its credit for any such purpose." The gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIP.ER,) moved to amend the section by adding thereto the following: The question of such aid shall be submitted to a vote ot the city or township to be affected thereby; and no person shall be entitled to a vote at any submission of such question, unless he shall be the owner of property liable to taxation"." Pending which, the other gentleman, from Cass, (M. ALDRICH,) moved to amend the amendment, by striking out all after the word "thereby," so- that the amendment would read: "'The question of such Aid shall be submit-' ted to a vote of the city or township to be affected tihereby." The first question will be upon the amendment to the amendment. Mr. INGALLS. I remarked, before the committee rose this forenoon, that I wished to say a few words further in relation to this matter before it was submitted to a vote. I'really think the amendment of the -gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIPER,) as originally offered, embodies a principle which will very materially affect the future inter ests of the State, and of different localities in the State. I propose to mention some facts in relation to this matter. I do not pr6pose here to discuss an. abstract -question without having some facts to support my arguments. I do not believe it is worth the time of this Convention to discuss abstract questions, when they can be of no possible benefit. The'facts I Wish to mention are these, and to mention them,. I Kshall have' to refer to my own portion of the State, as I did this forenoon on another subject. About three-fourths or seven-eighths of the voters of the Upper Peninsula are composed of the temporary resi dents there. -I am told also that a large portion of the voters of the counties in the upper part of the Lower Peninsula are of the same class. They become voters under that clause of'the COonstitution, which allows a man who Jhas been a resident of the State for three months-to-vote, (which by the way I hope to see changed by this Conven tion,) ~and they are voters to ail intents and purposes the same as any others. They can'control -the actual residents and property owners of those localities. They are men of a class who can be easily controlledi: by infiuences which may be -broug~ht to bear upon them. Therefore any power of this kind which may be exercised by the people can, in fact, be exercised by those who are merely n6minal residents. -I desire to bring this fact to the notice of this Convention. I'will go as far asth'e gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGIR) in regard to the abstract right of persons to vote. I will in no case seek to refuse any person the right to vote on any subject which is connected with his own personal or political rights But this questi9n goes further'than that. As. I view it, the right to authorize a'county, township, or city to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad is a right to authorize that town to put a mortgage upon all the property of the town, city, or county. Now, although the owners of that property, as. I view it, have an undoubted right to mortgage that property themselves, it does not follow that every other man, who lias no property, has the right to vote to put a mortgage upon property belonging to others. It. does not follow that -my- hired tme, John Smith and George Brown, have the right to come up and vote to put a mortgage on my propety. Yet they are voters, and if this question is submitted to the same' lectors who are entitled to vote on all other subjects, then they may vote to encumber my property for this purpose. I may choose to do it or not to do it; I may choose to do it for a given amount. But it does not follow that a man who has no interest in my property shall have' the right to place that encumbraiice upon it. That is an abstract proposition.: There is no doubt in my mind but what the people of this State, acting through'this Convention in forming a Constitution, have an undoubted right to authorize any portion of the people acting in a corporate capacity to do .any such act as this. There is no doubt in my mind, but what"they may authorize the actual property owners of a town to vote this credit, the same as they could authorize it to be done by the electors of the towi. They do in fact exercise that right under the old Constitution. As was suggested by gentlemen on this floor this forenoon, it is well known that the law regulating the right to vote on questions in connection with schools, is not the same as the law regulating the rigt to vote on these matters. Not ony are persons debarred frdm voting upon school "matters,'. who are "alowed to vote upon other ma:tters, but persons who are not voters at all for- other p*ir poses,;" can vote in relation to school matters. Any person, who is an owner of property in a school district, may vote upon questions reting to tht school, although he may be a foreigne I ........:-_i)~COV~IO enedy and not naturalized'. And in certain cases, the county boards are authorized to do certain acts without consultmg the people at all, whereby they may affect the property and the rights of the- people -of that.county; -and in man other instances which I-have not time to look up now;, this matter is recognied npw as being a proper subject fo~ l'!egislation.::-"'-':~ h.w, the question in;mry mind is, whether w will -leave tisquestion of .granting aid to railroads to go before the0 pe6ple" in such a manner as is proposed by this amendment, or whether we willn' allow the Legislature-to provide for submitting this question to that portion of our- voters who have A reald interest in the matter. The question with meis, whether we will say to the people in my section of the State, where six" out of eight own no prop e X all, a'd do'ot expect even to be,come permanent residents there, that thei.may en'cumber the property owned by 9'thers there to a ceirt- extent, or whet'er we shall s'aythat only thos who pay the tax shall authorize the levying of' the tax upon that property. I:annot say that I like this amend:mentof -the gentleman from Cass. It does not fully- come up to what I wish. -ty wish would be to submit this ques-tieon to the land-holders resident in the county. I shall vote for that amendment when put to a vote, but I desire to say that I would much rather have something stronger, something different, if -I could get it. I submit to this committee, whether it is not better now to guard this matter, and put it where it will be subject to the vote of those ofy -who arce interested in it, -rather than leave: it subject to t general vote of the people, a great portion of whom are not- ad never will' be inter.eseted in'in it.: - I throw out these suggestions, more for- th'e purposee of cal ing the: attention of- the committee to this point, and to -elici-t dicussion -upon it; t-hat- is, if other gentlemen here thinkt I am right, :an'sthat it does involve a principle wrthy 8of di'scussion. -IIt strikes my' mwd'very: fo'riby, that the. principle inv'olved here is worthy of discussion, and I think:we may as well settle it for the. best'interests of all:. "" L f Mri. SWYE"R I have one idea that I wo311d like to suggest -to this comnmitte e u'pon this subject; I will -trou1ble theme. but a moment. T:ha' idea' ist this;'. whenx y'ou -go''outsideb' of thee govvernmental purposes' of'a imunici'p aleorrpration you should — be - er'n e tti;: same as other corporations. I;'wwSsh he ormittee distimetly to -understand tis position; that when -you go OutSide-ofR the strict, and legit i*$$$,.'!S'- i~ipa e.Q''GrpQz ration, to taX the. itizens of that munucipal corporatiion for purposes other than those of government,' you should be governed by the Same principles which- govern other corporations. It would be considered strange indeed, if a joint stk' association should, go outside of that doint stock associationand: ask o'thers for their votes, or even -allow them:to vote upon questions couneted wit that association. The same is true in regard to a private corporation; it would be: considered strange indeed for any private corporation to allow persons outside of it, those who had no personal interest in it, to vote upon those matters i' which the. corporation alone i in'terested.i hin that corporation votes are ven according to the number of Shares held; and'it is right: -that that should be so' Property is the thing to be managed by that corporation, to be invested by Lit; and property should be thei -criterion by Which to judge of'the right of a persona to vote upon matters connected with it. What I wish to have this committee understand is this; that when a muni.:-cipal corporation has so far deviated from its legitimate purposes as. to tae into consideration the question of the disposition of property,-no:fno r the governmental purposes for —which that municipal corporation was established, but to.invest that' property: for the profit'of that- corporation, in order that the value of the property of that corporation: shouldbe enhanced, then you should allow that property to have a vote; in other words, it should be a property representation. I desire to' have the commRittee understand this:in addition to what the genileman from Menomninee, (Mr. -ALLS,) said. The idea struck me that when you call upon property to be invested in a matter outside the legitimate municipal gov emmnent, that property Rshould have a; right to a voice in that investment.' Mr. BLAOKMAN.. Idesire to move an amendment to that portion of the proposition of the gentlemanfrom Cass; (Mr. Vis'RnIPER,) whieh jt is proposedc to -strike out. The amendment to the amendment is to'strike oUt the follow. ing words:''ana no person shall be efltitled to a vote at any' Submission of such question,s uness he shall be the :owner of property liable to taxation.' I move -to xamend that, portion of.the proposition by striking oUt:thew'0rds, c"the ownner of property liablle to taxation," and insert the words"a fJreeholder;" so that-that portionwill read, "and no" person shall be entitle&d t6 avote at any submissiion of]~ such iquestion, unless hee Shall be a, freehlde'r." ":: -I desire to say a' few: words:in'sup, por Qf my- ame@e~ii -:Z t in0; the view of the question taken by the gentleien who have last spoken upon this subject in regard to what should be:represented in a vote of this kind. It is a vote on -the question of the in-mvestment of property; and I apprehend that e the rue principle is, that no one should-: be allowed to vote but the man who is interested in the property to be invested, and the property to be Cenhanced in value, or affected by the investments Now, let me ask what is ~the'pr'opeirty that is pledged for the payment of'this indebtedness when the indebtedness is in"mcurrred? In othler words, if the bonds of a township are ssued, what property is it whch is mortgaged to pay that. indebtedness when it becomes du.e? I apprehend that it-'wil be found onl a- careful examaination to be the real' estate of that township. The personal property there at the time the Mindebtedness in n'curred; may not be there eight or ten years hence, when th:e tax is to be levied to pay the indebtedness. But the real estate remains there, and the momen the vote authorizing the indebtedness is taken, there is a lien upon that real estate, of which -it ean:not be divested. The man who buys or osells any of it afterwards, buys or sells it subject to anl the advantages or di sadvantages which may be resultatnt from liat vote. Such is not the case with:the personal proper,ty. Before the tax is to be raised to pay that indebtedness, the owner of tha personal property may. take" it away. But- the real estate. cannt be removed;'it remains su'bje. to that indebtedness If .a man m the ieantime comes into6'that township with a lage amount of personalproperty,- he. comes- in- there voluntarily, and knowing that he subjects it to that liability if- he keeps it there. It was- remarked. by' the gentleman :,from Genesee, (Mri.'Lov,TT,,) that at the otime the vote is taken, a man' may not have any" property; but'. he. may have it when the tax comes tombe levied to pay the indebtedness.,: Suppose thakt should be the case; he will buy the real estate subject to this disadvantage, this liability, just: as much as- if he bought.a piece of land- subject to-a mortgage, and he takes that intot consideration at the time he makes the purchase. But that is not; so with regard to personal property;.that kind of .property'is easily trasfexred from one :locaht-ty'to,' another. I: apprehend, therefore,.that' the true -principle is to limit the:vote; in. other words, to limit it to those who are freeholders. I have no' particular feeling.Vet — anxiety in re :gard to this question.- I present it to thi consia:eration of the committee for w:hat they' consider it worth. i;;. T3 q9tic*; t" th- to u'por 166 li LITTIIO CON STIIJL NAT-,4 —-,CONVENTION,6 -e W-e,dn sdav 4 ;o DB LwS xATEs A-wD PROCEEDIGS. the amendment of Mr. BLAaxcN, and upon a division, ayes 23, noes 38, it was not agreed to... The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. ALDRICs, to the amendment of Mr. VAN. RIPER; and being taken, the CHAIRMAN announced that it was not agreed to.... M. HENDERSONX. I apprehend> there was some misapprehension in regard to the vote last taken, and I would like to have the vote taken over again. Mr. BIRNEY. I thoughtthe,question was fully understood. I do not see-how it can be taken over again except by a reconsideration..: The CHAIRMAN. The question was fully stated by the Chair, and the. result announced. Mr. HUSTON. I move to reconsider the vote last taken.-. Mr. BIRNEY. I trust that vote will. not be reconsidered. I have uniformly been an advocate of what is termed. municipal aid for public improvements of this kind. And I have always ad vocated the plan of submitting the question to the. tax-payers or property holders; for it seemed to me that that is the only proper and just method of submitting it. These views have been well presented by gentlemen here who have spoken upon this subject. They have argued that it was right, upon the ground that those who. owned the property were the persons to be af fected, and should have the right to determine the question. It seems to me that if any other plan be adopted, it will greatly endanger the success of this principle before the people. I trust the motion to reconsider will not prevail, but that this matter will be allowed to remain as the committee of the whole have decided it. I doubt ,very much whether we should incorpo rate into the Constitution any.such provision as that proposed by the gen tleman from Cass, (hr. VAN RIPER.) I think the Legislature would never 'pals an act of that kind, without -pro viding for submitting this question:to the tax payers interested in it. But if any such provision is to be incorpo rated in the Constitution, I am in favor of retaining that portion of it which piovide~ that no person shal..be enti tled.to vote Upon such sibmiission but those whO are owners of property liable to taxation.,. -Mr. HENDERSOX..- Without any reference to what may have been, or to what may now be, the views of the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. Bmm~Y,) it strikes me as a little novel that lhe, with his knowledge of legislative pror ceedings, should think that he could forestall the action of this Conven tion, when some member's have voted wider a misapprehension, amd ask the privilege of understanding what _they ha,ve voted for or against. The question can be reached in some other way, perhaps, not so direct. In my suggestion, which was followed by the motion of the gentlehana' from Tuscola, (Mr. HuSTON,) I had no reference to the views entertained by members of this committee of the whole. But I wassatisfied that they voted under a misapprehension.; 'and that idea, I think, is now confirmed. Ihope'the motion to.reconsider will prevail... The question was taken upon the motion to.reconsider, and upon a division; ayes 34, noes 19, it was agreed to. The question again recurred upon the. amendment of Mr. ALDRICaH, to the -amendment of Mr. VAN RIPER. Mr. DANIELLS. I-.am in favor of the amendment;to the amendment. I suppose that every member here is aware that.the very same provision which it is proposed now to strike out is contained in our school law. I have myself seen a person challenged who never paid any tax, who was not in the common.acceptation of the term liable to p.ay a tax, yet he swore im his vote. -Upon application to the attorney of our counuty we were informed, that if the. person could prove that he had two dollars in his pocket, he could not be excluded. from voting. It seems to me tha anytu. C proviSion as this will be entirely fi1L I do ant believe in the principle at'an. Mr. BIRNEY. Is am surprised *at gentlemen bringing up these excep tional cases as determining a principle which affects so. large an amount of property. Now, the fact that some voter has one, two, or three dollars in his pocket, and therefore is entitled to vote, I do not think has much weight. Such a case as that may occur occa: sionally, but it- is very rare that a.per son will come forward on that account, and assert his right to vote. in onr newer counties, when they are first set: tled, it is generally the case that a very few persons own all the real estate, and persons living there, actually {residing there, own very little of it. These persons are exceedingly anx.ious to obtain this means of communi ication, a~nd are ordinarily willing to mincur ay opense for that purpose. Now, it seems to me that un.der these circumstances, it would belong to those ~who would have to pay the taxes, to :say whether they wish to do it; ori not. Those who own the property are the persons interested in this matter, and they can tell whether it will be advan tageous or. profitable to tax this prop erty in this mawier. If all- this new population is allowed to Vote, then any extravagant measures might be adopted, which would, be liable to all the objections urged hete by the opponents of this measure. I trust, therefore, that- the amendment to the amendment will not be adopted -:.. - Mr. LONGYE AR. I rise for. informiation; I understand that the affirmative vote upon this amendment strikes out the, property quali'ficatio};.the negative vote retains it... . The CHAI'RMAN. The geiitleman is correct..... M. r.'HENDERSON..I do not propose to discuss this question. I sups pose there-is no legal genitleman here who would like to. be. looked upon- as the expounder of the law for the ConVention; nor would he be willing to recognize the right of any member of 'the Convention to interrogate him upon questions of law. I have, however, heard it assumed here, (and my vote will be based upon that assumption,) that this is.a. matter over.- which. t'he Legislature will have entire.control. WVere I in the Legislature, I should be' governed very much by the character of the improvement, for which a vote was: sought under the law; and in most cases I- would be willing to have it upon a property qualification. If the matter can be reached through the Legislature, I am opposed' to placing it in the Constitution... Mr. BLACOKiMAN. I desire to make a single suggestion. I do. not care to: express any opinions in regard to the... point spoken of by the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HEsNDERsON). The ques tion has been mooted in some places, whether in submitting any subject to-a Vote of electors, you can disfranchise any whom the Constitution makes electors under the article prescribing the qualifications of voters; whether when you submit a question to voters, you can exclude any recognized by the Constitution as voters. Perhaps there is nothing in this; I express n9 opinion about it, but merely throw out tlih suggestion... Mr. WILLIAMS. While in the Legislature I.was in favor of adopting such a proposition as this; but I can see many objections to placing it in the Constitution. I believe thatno person should be permitted to vote to-impose a burden upon property, unless he is himself to bear a portion of the bur den in some manner or in some foew. But-if we impose' the restrition hare in the Constiution in the form in which it is presented, we maya hereafter meet with some serious; trouble, We do not by this amendment as I under*.. stand it, reach the object desired.: In : other words, as has been stated here, a person may be the- owner of a small amount of property,. which is really a .& t. , - I.ti. 67 Jul-Y, I 1. i.. I-167 I I ik 168 COSITUTIOAL OOYET'tO edneaay not upon the tax roll, and never will go there but upon which he would be liable'to pay a tax, and thereby obtain the right to vote. I would like some such provision as that which I understand is now in force in the State of.Indiana, requiring the assent of the tax payers to such a measure. I would not like to have it provided for in the Constitution, that that assent shall be shown by a vote of the electors;.but to require the assent of persons whose names appear upon the last assessment roll. I would vote for a provision of that kind, but I do not want to provide that this assent shall be shown by a vote of the electors. It appears to me that we would be tying ourselves ip by adopting the provision here proposed; we would necessarily be compelled to submit the question to all holders of tax paying property, although some of them may never pay a tax. Mr. FERRIS. I want to say one word more in addition to what I said this forenoon. I think it would be a pretty sight forthis Convention, sitting here in Michigan, sitting here in part for the purpose of giving the elective franchise to a class that b'ave for two hundred years been excluded from it, to say that we cannot trust our poor white men in the decision of the question, whether we shall improve our localities by bringing railroads into them. If that is the opinion of gentlemen, let them say so, and we will go to the people on the issue. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. ALDRICH to the amendment of Mr. VA RIPER; and upon a division, ayes 28, noes not counted, it was not agreed to. The question then recurred upon the amendment of Mr. VAN RirER, as follows: The question or such aid shall be submittedto a vote of the city or township to be affected thereby; and no person shall be entitled to a vote at any submission of such question, unless he shall be the owner of property liable to taxation." Mr. ALEXANDER. I move to amend the amendment by adding the words, "within such township or city;" so that it will read, " unlesshe shall be the owner of property liable to taxation within such township or city." I think the gentlemen of this committee will readily see the propriety of my amendment. A person may be the owner of property subject to taxation outside of the township or city in-which the vote is being taken, and yet under the amendment, as it now stands, he will be entitled to vote, if he resides within the city or township where the vote is taken.:; The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. A(.~mE, to the amendment of Mr. VA RIPER, and it was agreed to. The question was upon the amendment of Mr. VAxN RiER, as amended. Mr. CONGER. I move to further amend the amendment by - inserting after the words, "unless he shall be," the words, "or expects to be," so that the clause will read, "unless he shall be, or expects to be the owner of property liable to taxafion within'such township or city.": The amendment of Mr. CoNqER was agreed to, upon a division; ayes 36, noes 32. The question again recurred upon the amendment of Mr. V~ RIPER, as amended. Mr. CROSW E'TLL. I call for a division of the question, and ask that the vote be taken upon the first clause of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. A division having been demanded, the vote will be first' taken upon adding to section twenty-seven the following: "The question of such aid shall be submitted to a vote of the'townsbip or city to be aected thereby." Mr. CONGER. I understand that we have had a distinct vote on the last division of the amendment, on the motion of the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. ALDRICH,) to strike it out, and the committee refused to do so. I do not see how the amelndment can be divided, as it'will be, in effect, requiring the same question to be taken over again. Mr. BLACKMAN. I think when that motion was made to strike out the latter part of this amendment, it contained a different proposition from that now in it; it has been amended since then. The CHAIRMAN. The last portion of the amendment has been twice amended since the motion to strike out was decided. Mr. CONGER. I do n(t see that it has been amended so as to materially alter its sense. [Laughter.] eThe CHAIRMYAN. The Chair will rule that the amendment is susceptible of division, and the first question will be upon adding to section twentyseven the first clause of the amendment. - Mr. LUCE. I had not intended to say a word upon this question; but supposing that this amendment might be adopted, I rise merely to state an objection to it. While Itwould be in favor, if a member of the Legislature, of adopting a provision in the law similar to that proposed by the junior gentleman from Case, (Mr. TAN RFOER,) I am opposed to putting it into the Constitution. If we adopt his amendment, it will be regarded by many people of this State s a direct blow against popular rights, and it will be difficult for us to explain why we adopted a proposition permitting only tax payers to vote upon this question. While in the Legislature I labored with some zeal to secure a provision in the law, that none but tax payers should be allowed to vote upon th'e question of pledging the credit of a community. I believe with the gentleman from Menominee, (Mr. INGALLS,) in regard to that subject. But I do not believe that we should put such a provision min the Constitution. If we adopt this first clause of the amendment of: the gentleman from Cass we will be precluded in the Legislature from submitting the question to the tax payers alone; we will be compelled to submit it to all the electors of the locality. At least that will be the fair inference. There may be a better way devised than to submit such a question to the electors, such a way as is practiced in Indiana. In either case, I hope this amendment will not be adopted; I am opposed- to inserting in the Constitution an-ything in regard to it. There will be no danger in leaving the question to the Legislature. If any community desires a law authori7.zing in their case the question to be submitted to the tax payers alone, the Legislature can — pass a law to that effect, if such a provision as this is not incorporated in the Constitution. In some places they might desire it, in others they might not. My own opinion is that the- Legislature should be left free to make such provisions in that regard as might'be deemed best. I do not thuink their is any use in building up a man of straw here, and then knocking it down by means of a Constitutional provision. Ihope that no portion of this amendment will be adopted.: Mr. CROSWELT L. I am glad that we are at last to understand this question more clearly than we have done. The entire discussion from the beginning has been based upon the suppo-. sition of a submission of the question to the peoplethat has been the foundation of the whole argument. We have been told here by gentlemen on the one side, that it is a principle of our government, and fair, and right, that a majority should rule; that by the expressed will of superior numbers, a Community should be authorized to aid such railroad enterprizes: as they may deem beneficial to the general interest. On the other hand, it has been argued that it was wrong and- unjust by a vote of a bare majority to appropriate the property of the minority for such a purpose. Now, to our astonishment, we are: met by the statement -that the question should not be sub; 168 . CONSTIT LP.UION Ar'.. CONVENTION - -W c.dnesda y, ok DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. mitted at all to a vote of the people The tables have been turned, thing have changed, and now forsooth this aid is not to be made dependant upon the popular will. I am glad, as I have already remarked that we are to un derstand distinctly what this proposition means. In the argument of the honorable gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) this morning, he contended that under the provisions of this section as it stands, there must be a submission of the question to a vote of the people. I thought at the time the section could not bear such a construction. He insisted that the Legislature had not and could not authorize the issuing of municipal bonds for any purpose without a vote of the electors. It had fallen in my way to know that the gentleman was mistaken. I knew that the Legislature had frequently authorized common councils of cities, and township boards of townships, to issue the bonds of municipalities without such a vote. I well remember that at the last session of of the Legislature I introduced a bill which passed that body authorizing the trustees of the public schools of the city of Adrian to issue the bonds of that district for the sum of forty thousand dollars. That bill became a law without any provision in it for taking the sense of the^. people of the district upon the question. Its provisions, in my judgment, were wise and good. They were understood beforehand, and I believe, were in accordance with the wishes of the people. But I refer to this case, as I might refer to many others, to show that bills have frequently passed the Legislature, authorizing the authorities of cities and townships to issue bonds at their own discretion, without any clause requiring a vote of the people. I say that under this section as it now stands the whole power is in the Legislature. It may exclude the people of a township or city from any vote or voice in the determination of the question of rendering aid. Now, I submit that extraordinary taxation like this, that is to be felt to the very quick by those who are to bear the burden, should in all cases be first submitted to those interested for their approvaL I have great confidence in the Legislature, but I do not believe in permitting it to impose taxation of this kind without an expression of the opinion of the people upon whom the tax is to be imposed. If we are to have this provision in our Cgnstitution, let us place the power in the hands of the people, clearly defined, secure against the interference of outside influence or intrigue. Let us sur Vo1. 2-No. 22. . round it with every safe-guard essenti s to secure a full and fair expressio s from those who must bear'the load taxation. In my judgment, one o these safe-guards is a vote of the peopl - If I could have my own way, I woul - require something more than a me majority vote. I would not suffer few artful, active men to saddle an in debtedness of thousands of dollar upon an unwilling community. I fea this will too often be the result even wit the adoption-of the pending amend ment. The gentleman from Kalama zoo (Mr. GIDDINGS) told us here to-da - that in his town, after much excitement less than a majority of the elector voted upon the township or the village I do not know which, an indebtednes L of one hundred thousand dollars, to aid in the construction of a railroad There will be sufficient opportunity fo designing men to influence the publi mind with hopes and expectations tha will never be realized, to tire out the L patience of the cautious and cool, and plunge the community into schemes o this sort, without the removal of thi , restraint. Now, I say let us stick to our text I know how this subject has bee treated in the Legislature. I have lived long enough to be satisfied that it will not be likely to be hedged abou with too many restrictions there. Ix their zeal, representatives will insist that their constituents are a unit upon the question, and they will successfully importune the Legislature to grant the desired aid without the circumlocution of a vote. Unforeseen objections wil appear to every proposed restriction I well remember that my excellent friend from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) at the commencement of the last ses sion of the Legislature, was then, as he has told you to-day he is now, in favor of confining the votes upon questions of this kind to tax-payers. Yet he made an argument in the Senate to show that the provision of the Consti tution regulating elections applied to these votes, and that therefore a prop erty qualification could not be attached as a requisite to voting thereon. I differed from him in this view, but he honestly entertained this opinion, and made an argument which, I believe, convinced the majority of the members of the Senate that, under the Constitu tion, the Legislature was prohibited from attaching this qualification. At any rate his view prevailed. I hope that a plain, distinct provis ion will be inserted in the Constitution, requiring the Legislature in every in stance, to submit the question of the proposed aid to a vote of the people to be affected thereby. I will not say, as my honorable friend from Lenawee, al (Mr. BILLS,) suggests, to a vote of the )n tax-payers; but I do say certainly to a; of vote of the people. f If the whole matter is left with the e. Legislature, I apprehend that provis-a d ion will not always be made for taking re the sense of the people in the manner a suggested by the honorable gentleman - from Branch, (Mr. Luca.) At any rs rate, we shall not have a uniform mode r prescribed for the whole State. In some h localities the expression would be ob- tained in one way, while in'others a - different method would obtain. But I y have serious objections to the mode , suggested by my friend from Branch. s He would have the Legislature pro, vide for obtaining and filing the assent s of a majority of the tax-paying elecotors of the municipality in favor of the . proposed aid. If he will investigate a rcase decided in the State of New York c against the village of Rome or the city t of Rochester-on reflection I am ine dlined to think it was against the town d of Genoa-he will find that in that f case, it was held that a statutory sprovision, such as he suggests, must be strictly pursued. The act of the . Legislature required that the officers issuing the bonds, should first procure eand file the written assent of two-thirds t of the tax-payers of the town. I think tthe court decided that the holder of a the bonds was bound to prove affirmat tively that the assent of two-thirds of * the tax-payers had been obtained and filed, as required by law, and that the e affidavit of the officers issuing the bonds was not evidence of the fact. 1 That particular provision produced long and tedious litigation-the validity of the bonds was attacked; they were ) held, if I remember correctly, invalid, - and the general effect was to depreciate such bonds, capital fearing'to invest in them, lest all the preliminary require ments of the statute had not been complied with. Mr. WILLIAMS. Was not the - question in the case of Freeman Clark ) vs. the city of Rochester, the submission . to the vote of the electors before the L enactment of the Legislature would become a law? The question I think , was whether the law should be sub mitted to the people before it could take effect. Mr. CROSWELL. If I recollect aright, the case to which the gentle man refers was an earlier case than the one to which I refer. In the decision to which I have alluded, I think the contest hinged upon the question whether the officers of the town had complied with the provisions of a law requiring the assent of two-thirds of the tax payers before the bonds issued, and if I am not greatly mistaken the bonds failed upon that account. i July 17, 1867.. 169 170 OO~~~~~~~~~TITIYTIO~~~~~~~~AL COXYE~~~~~~~TIO~~... ensdy Now, I would not, by the action of the Legislature or otherwise, encumber the issuing of these bonds by any proceedings of this character. I fear it would only have the effect to injure the sale of the bonds. I would simply have a vote of the people upon the question. I would provide that the faith of a community should not be pledged, that no bonds should be issued, nor security given in aid of railroads, without having in the first place the assent, approval, and ratification of a full, fair, and clear majority of the electors of the township or city-and there I would leave the matter. Mr. WILLIAMS. I move the following as a substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Cass, (MAr. VAN RIPER): No city or township shall be authorized to grant such aid, without first obtaining the assent ot a majority of the citizens of such township or city, whose names shall appear on the last preceding assessment roll thereof.' Mr. INGALLS. As this section now stands, there might be counties in the Upper Peninsula that this amendment would not reach. I would ask the gentleman to include the word "county" in his amendment. Mr. GIDDINGS. One single sug gestion in reply to the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL.) I have simply to say that the proposition he has advocated, to require a vote of the electors of the municipality, and the approval of a majority of all the elec tors in a locality, before such aid can be granted, will in my judgment be altogether impracticable. The truth is that very seldom do a majority o1 the people come out t) vote on eithei side, or both sides. It is almost im possible to get a majority of the elec tors of a town to come out to vote or a question of this kind. I have known scarcely an instance where that has oc curred. I know that in my own town upon the question of raising $100,000 we did not have out one-half of the voters of the town. Mr. PARSONS. The honorable gen tleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL, with a great deal of feeling and eloquence, informs us that he sees in this committee a disposition to do something which he conceives to b wrong, unjust, and improper to b done. With a great deal of eloquenc he describes and portrays the evil tha will result from such action. He say that were he in the Legislature he should be in favor not only of requiring thi matter to be submitted to a vote of the electors, but of requiring it to b approved by more than a majority o the electors. Perhaps he would be in favor of requiring an: affimative vote of two-thirds of the electors before the bonds shall be issued. The argument of the gentleman would lead us to the conclusion that it is the duty of this Convention to so frame this provision that no earthly damage could possibly be done under any circumstances whatever. He wishes us to throw around this subject all the safeguards that it is possible for the Legislature to throw around it. Now, I do not understand that we are here for the purpose of making laws for the government of this State. I do not understand that we are here for the purpose of doing the work of La Legislature, as some gentlemen seem to imagine is the case. I under- stand that we are here for the purpose of framing a Constitution. Nor do I believe that when this Convention shall adjourn, all the wisdom of this State will disappear. I think we may rea sonably expect that the Legislatures, who are to convene in the future will have sufficient intelligence to perform properly the business which will come before them, the business which prop erly belongs to Legislatures. But the gentleman seems to think that it is necessary for this Convention to provide absolutely in this Constiution that this subject shall be submitted to the vote of the electors of the munici e pality interested in it. Now, it is pos sible that the Legislature may possess as much wisdom as this Convention. I trust there will be more Legislatures than one to convene before this Con stitution, if adopted, shall be amended or replaced by another. Some changes may be necessary and proper to be f made; some better course may be der vised. It is possible that the course pointed out by the amendment of the honorable gentleman from Allegan a (Mr. WILLIAMS) may be better than to have this matter referred to the vote oi the electors, or to the vote of the taxt payers. I for one am not in favor of , tying up and manacling the hands and feet of the Legislatures, who are to convene in this State in the future. The honorable gentleman from Len awee, (Mr. CROSWELL,) is now, and has d been for several years past, an honor able member of the Senate of this n State, and I trust that when he goes e into the Senate again, as I have no e doubt he will, he will be as competent to legislate there as he is to discharge t his duties in this Convention. I trust S it will not be considered necessary for d this Convention to make all the laws which will be necessary for the governe ment of this great commonwealth, but e that we shall leave something to be of done by future Legislatures. WVe n should not assume that this Cone vention possesses all the wisdom ethat there is i'i this State. We should not take the ground that the Legislature cannot be trusted with anything that may arise hereafter, and that we must tie up their hands, and fence them in on the right hand and on the left, in the rear and in front. In my judgment that will not be in accordance with the wishes of the people of this State. It has been from this very thing that the greatest difficulties have arisen under the present Constitution, so far as difficulties have arisen under it here tofore. At every step which the Leg islature have attempted to take, they have met the Constitution. It has been in their way; it has stood in the way of progress, in the way of the onward march of the people, and the advance ment of their interests. Let us not adopt the errors of the Convention of 1850. Mr. BILLS. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him one question? Mr. PARSONS. With the greatest pleasure. Mr. BIIILLS.:Is niot- the whole of this section twenty-seven designed as a restriction upon the Legislature? Mr. PARSONS. Most certainly it is. There is no question but what the Legislature, independent of this sec tion, would have the power to authorize counties, cities and townships to grant this aid to railroads. That is as plain as the sun at noon-day. And yet hon orable gentlemen in this Convention have assumed that there was a question about it. And, as I understand it, one of the great objects of this section is to do away with the least question that could possibly arise in regard to it, so there shall be in the future none of these questions raised by the executive, or members of the Legisla ture, or by anybody else; so that all may understand that the Legislature have this right. And this restriction of ten per cent. is proposed, so that I this right should not be exercised ) beyond what is just and reasonable and proper. - But honorable gentlemen propose to go further than this restriction. They - propose to point out the only way which the Legislature shall adopt in submitting this question to be voted ) on, before the bonds are to be issued. Now, if that is necessary, then it is equally necessary that we should go i further, and declare that these bonds should not be issued until the road bed is prepared for the rails. And perhaps that may not be far enough to i suit some members of this Convention. They may desire to go still another step, and say that the bonds shall not - be issued until the iron is laid down upon the track. Now, I would leave all these ques tions to the Legislature; I would trust t a t i CONSTITUTION-AT, CONVENTION. 170 Wednesday, Jul 17 87rEAE ~DPOEDNS this matter to their wisdom, their integrity, and their honesty and sagacity. I have just as much confidence in the Legislature as I have in this Convention, and therefore I hope this Convention will not be disposed to tie up the hands of the Legislature, to cripple their power, and by our action here assume that the legislators who are to convene in this State in the future will be entirely unfit and unqualified to decide so grave a question as this. Mr. WILLIAMS. I apprehend there need be little or no difficulty between the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL,) and myself, in regard to our former action upon this matter, in the Legislature of this State. I am aware that during the railroad discussion last winter, the question was agitated somewhat, in reference to the power of the Legislature to impose restrictions upon the persons who were to vote upon the question of granting aid to railroads. At one time it was a question of some doubt whether the Legislature had the right to impose such restrictions, and I so stated; but it was only a doubt. I am not at all desirous that the new Constitution should embody anything which may lead to doubt upon that point. I am perfectly willing to meet that question fairly and openly here in this Convention. I am anxious to' have a clause adopted here that will for all time hereafter relieve this question of any doubt. And, therefore, I proposed the substitute which I sent up to the Chair., I believe I may say that that substitute embodies in it, at least in the ideas if not in the language, the very amendment proposed by the honorable gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL,) to a.bill in the Senate during the last session. I do not desire to say in this Constitution that the Legislature shall be confined to any particular method of obtaining the assent of the majority of the citizens of a township or city to be affected by issuing bonds for this purpose. I desire simply to require that before the bonds are issued the assent of the citizens of the municipality shall be obtained. I would go further than that; I would not merely require the-assent of the electors; I would put it upon the broad ground that every man in a municipality who pays a tax therein, whose name shall appear on the last preceding assessment roll, shall have the opportunity to give, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law, his assent to the issuing of such bonds. I would put in that clause requiring this question to be submitted to the property-holders of the township or city for many reasons. The vote without that qualification might be a mere farce; outsiders might control the matter, and not those who would be affected by the tax to be thus imposed. I propose in my substitute that the question shall be submitted to those whose names shall appear upon the last preceding assessment roll; not to the electors only, but to the citizens of the municipality, male and female, white and black, whose names are on the assessment roll. My proposition meets every objection that has been urged against property qualification. It is true there are some objectionable features; but I apprehend we could introduce no clause without some objectionable features. Now, in reference to the case referred to by my friend from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL,) I am perfectly confident that he is mistaken in the gist and drift of the case. The case of Freeman Clarke vs. the city of Rochester, in 24 Barbour, is the only one in the New York Reports, to which my attention has been called, where the question of assent has arisen at all. Freeman Clarke having purchased some of those bonds, and hasing brought his action against the city of -Rochester, and the city refusing to'pay the money upon them, the' question was raised whether the city was liable, the law having been submitted to the vote of the electors of the city before it went into effect. It was claimed that no law could be submitted in that way; that it must be a law as soon as passed by the Legislature, and that the electors of a township or city could not make it a law, because they had no right to make a law. The court decided that the bonds were good, and the city had to pay them for $300,000. I think that is the case to which the gentleman referred; I know of no other case of the kind. We may undoubtedly conceive that if there be a provision of the Constitution, or a law, which required the assent of a majority of the citizens, either by an election, or in any other manner, if that assent be not obtained, the same would be illegal and void. That question is hardly worthy an argument in this Convention. Now, I am desirous of having here a property qualification in reference to this vote, while I would put no such restriction upon the right of the elective franchise. But when it is proposed to impose an obligation on property, I would have the owner of that property allowed the privilege of saying whether that obligation shall be placed upon it or not. It has been contended that under such a rule the person who may vote for the obligation being imposed, may not be the person who will have to pay the debt. But the person who places a mortgage on his farm may die, or sell his farm; but he must give his assent to placing the mortgage upon it. And upon the same principle I would in this case require the assent of the majority of those to be affected by this matter. Mr. STOUGHTON. If it be the object of the enemies of the proposition allowing municipal aid to be voted by municipalities to railroads, to so hamper and tie up the Legislature and those municipalities that no such aid can possibly be granted, it seems to me they have resorted to means very likely to accomplish their purpose. If we are to have these various entanglements in the Constitution, it is very doubtful whether a law could ever be passed by the Legislature on this subject which could ever be carried out. The proposition of the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMs,) requires the assent of a majority of the tax-payers, in the first place, before this aid can be given to a railroad, by any municipality. How will you do that? The validity of the bonds would depend, in the first place, upon the question whether a majority of the tax-payers were in favor of their being issued. It seems to me that the principle of his proposition is impracticable. I think the principle of making the property of an individual the index of his right to vote is all wrong. It is contrary to the genius of our free institutions; it is anti-republican. If we place such a provision in this Constitution, there will certainly be one black spot upon it. I think we should never adopt it. Just see where the principle will lead us. If the principl] be true, then in all our primary elections, where the question of taxation comes up, you should allow none but tax-payers to vote, and you should carry the principle still further, and say that a man shall vote according to the amount of property he owns; that a man who owns one thousand dollars' worth of property shall be entitled to one vote, while the man who owns one hundred thousand dollars' worth of property shall be entitled to one hundred votes. I think the people of the State of Michigan will never endorse any such principle as that. I think the people of each municipality should be allowed to say by their votes whether they are in favor of granting this aid or not. I suppose the Legislature would provide in any case that that should be done. It is barely possible that a case may arise where every man in the community would petition the Legislature to allow the officers of the municipality to issue the bonds; and in that case there would be no impropriety in allowing the bonds to be so issued. And there may July 17, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 171 1Pt C;kTTTO LC~E~tN Wded becases where it would be proper to 'submit the question to the vote of those alone who are directly interested in the tax. If the section is left as reported by the committee on the legislative departmnent, the Legislature will be left free to adopt such a course as to them may seem best. This question is not entirely an open question. It has been settled, at least by a decision of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, where it was held that such a vote was lawful. My understanding of that case is different from the understanding of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CRosWELL.) I have the report of the case now before me. By a provision of the Legislature of the State of New York, the common council of the village of Rome were authorieed to issue bonds to aid in the construction of a certain railroad. The law contained this further provision: "The board of trustees shall have no power to make such subscription as is authorized in the first section of this act, nor to raise bonds or create any liability under this act, until it has been previously approved by two-thirds of all electors who (shall have paid a tax on personal or real estate in said village, whose names shall appear regularly in the last vil lage-assessment roll for the next year pre ceding the one in which the vote is taken." The question raised was whether that tax was a legal one; and the Court of Appeals in passing upon it, use this language: "The law by its terms was to take effect immediately, but by th& eighth section, the trustees of the village were not to have power to act under its provisions in subscribing and issuing bonds, until the law had been ap proved by two-thirds of the electors who had been tax-payers in t]e preceding year. By the-ninth section they were to vote " for rail road stock," or "against railroad stock;A" and by the tenth section if the requisite ap proval were had, the trustees were directed to subscribe for stock and issue bonds. The case is, therefore, in substance, only a sub mission to a vwote of the parties interested, of the question whether or not they chose that the municipal corporation should subscribe to the railroad. In other words,.the Legisla ture did not compel the village to subscribe, but, creating by law the necessary machinery, left it to the tax-payers to determine that matter." Now, if we leave this section just as it was reported by the committee on the legislative department, the Legis lature might in all proper cases sub mit the question to the tax-payers in any of the townships or. cities. - But I think it would be entirely wrong to place a provision in the Constitution requiring this question, in all cases, to be submitted to the tax-payers, and to none others.- That provision is unnec essary. The Legislature have the power now. It seems to me that we should leave a little power in the hands of that body. Mr. FARMER. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RirrE,) by inserting after the word " thereby," the words, ,"of a majority of all the electors of such township or city, as shown by the vote cast at the last general election." I think it is plainly indicated here what will be the general policy of this Convention on this subject of granting aid to railroads. I desire that we shall throw all the safeguards around this subject that we can properly desire, and for that reason I have offered this amendment to the amendment. Mr. CONGER. I think the suggestion of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) is worthy of a little consideration by the friends of this measure, that there is danger of its being so hampered as to be utterly impracticable if adopted. The committee on the legislative department, in reporting this section, consulted pro and con about the different modes and different measures of submission; they did so quietly and at their leisure. Different suggestions were made, and the members of the committee, I doubt not, (I know I had my own reflections,) thought over the propriety of the suggestions which came before us in one form and in another. I believed then, and I believe now, that this section, being itself a restriction upon all legislative bodies, is all that it is desirable to put in the Constitution. I believe if we undertake to define here who shall vote, how the submission shall be made, whether to the electors or to the taxpayers, we shall very likely defeat the object of the section entirely-, or if we do not defeat the object of the section, we shall at least tie up the Legislature and compel them to submit this question in a way which may not be the best way. It is for that reason that I am opposed to all amendments to this section. I believe this section, designed as it is to restrict the Legislature to a cer tain amount, not conferrinrg by any means any authority upon the Legis lature-for I have no question of the authority of the Legislature to pass laws to grant any amount of aid that the people may desire to grant-as a restrictive clause holding the Legisla ture to a certain amount, and holding the people of the State, city, or town ship to an authorization before that aid can be granted, I think this section is all that is necessary. If I thought any other course would be better, I would not make any opposition. This has been an open question, a loose question. But from the decisions of the highest court in the State of New-York, I think gentlemen can have no doubt but that it is perfectly legal and proper to submit this question to the people, and require the assent of the property holders, the tax-payers, or any other portion of the people, prior to the issue of the bonds. That is my view; and I think it perfectly safe to leave to the Legislature the power to authorize the loan to be raised as the people might desire, in such manner as the good sense of the Legislature might direct. I have one word to say in reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL,) SO eloquently expressed here. His illustration was one that made me believe it was better for the Legislature to vote directly on the authorization of the issue of the bonds, than to submit it to the people at all; provided the cities and townships would send to the Legislature gentlemen in whom they have as much confidence as the people represented by the gentleman from Lenawee have in him. But I venture to assert here, that the gentleman from Lenawee never would have introduced into the Legislature of the State; a bill to authorize the issue of bonds to-the extent of $40,000 by a municipality in his county, with out knowing the form of bill desired by the people he represented. If it be the form of bill desired by the people who are to redeem the bonds, it is ut terly immaterial how the mere loan is authorized. But the bonds issued in the case referred to by the gentlemen, were for the building of a union school house, such as the people of every place are required by their own sense of right and dignity to build. We have funds for education, but not for building school houses; and the people are re quired to build the school houses be fore they can draw the funds.'And the gentleman well knowing,- perhaps, that it was the unanimous wish of the people of Adrian- that the authoriza tion of the Legislature should be given for the issue of those bonds, without referring the question to the people at all, might have well taken upon himself the responsibility of his own acts, from the regard which his fellow members had for his own veracity and truthful ness, when.he asserted that such was the desire of his constituents. There may be other such cases as that. Wre cannot tell but what the Legislature may be the best judges of the man ner of submission. The wishes of the people themselves may possibly direct it. If the proposition now pending is adopted, the Legislature will have but one course left open to them. Suppose the proposition of the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) should be adopted, that there should be required a majority of the persons bearing names that appear upon the last assess ment roll. I submit that in many places one-third or one half of the names on i 172 ib'O'ST!;'U"TI'O'A'L COXIVEXTio. Wednesd-ay) Jul'; 187 DEAE - ~OEDXS the tax-roll are of persons who are non-residents. Mr. WILLIAMS. Citizens of the township. Mr. CONGER. The proposition does not say so. Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, it does. Mr. CONGER. It says "the names of those who are on the tax roll." Now, how shall you make the distinction, and when? Mr. WILLIAMS. Permit me to interrupt the gentleman. "A majority of the citizens of said township or city, whose names shall appear on the last preceding assessment roll thereof," that is the language of my proposition. Mr. CONGER. Very, well, then; I will say further, there may be a great manly names on that tax roll, of citizens not electors at all. Men, women and children are all citizens. It does not say " male citizens," or " citizens of the age of twenty-one years." Under the laws of the United States, to-day, the title " citizen" is applicable to every man, woman and child in the State. All may vote under this propo sition, yet one-quarter or one-half of those whose names appear on the as sessmnent roll, and who may be citizens, may-not be voters for any other pur pose at all; their names may be there, representing five dollars, as well as five thousand dollars. Now, is that a a correct rule? If there is to be any rule requiring property to vote on this question, it should be an equal and equitable rule, and property should vote according to its valuation. And as was well suggested by the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) if a thousand dollars represented one vote, a hundred thou sand dollars should represent a hun dred votes, and a hundred dollars should reprepresent one-tenth of one vote, and one dollar should represent one-thousandth part of a vote. There is no reason why, if my name appears on the assessment roll representing one hundred dollars, my vote should be equal to that of my neighbor whose name on the roll represents one hun dred thousand dollars of property, any more than the vote of some other man whose name does not appear on the assessment roll at all, yet who has pur chased, it may be, five hundred dollars, worth of property in that town since the roll was made out. For myself, I say here in my place that I repudiate and protest against any proposition that shall include in the Constitution of the State of Michi igan any other authority for electing or voting, in municipalities or anywhere else, in reference to the public business of this State, than the man, than the elector. It will not sound well or look well abroad, in this day when we are extending to all races and classes of men in the nabion the elective franchise, because they are men; when we are amending, as we shall without a question, our own Constitution so as to embrace such a provision, it will not look well to place alongside of it a property qualification for the elector. I hope this amendment will not be adopted. I hope that the section, as now amended, that the proposition, fair and clear as it is, may be submitted to a vote. If it shall be successful, very well; if it shall be lost, then it will be gone, and I will submit to it. I did favor the proposition of the gentleman from Menominee, (Mr. INGALLS,) not because I desired to make any distinction between the people of the Upper Peninsula and those of any other part of the State, but because, from my acquaintance with the early settlement of the Upper Peninsula, from having once explored it myself, and from my acquaintance with it since that time, I know they could act better through their county than through their town organizations. Now, how was that action on our part met? The friends of this measure changed the principle to accommodate the gentleman from Menominee, (Mr. INGALLS,) and then he would not go with us in favor of the measure as amended, pure, simple and unadulter ated, because the people of the region of the State which he represents are not fit to be trusted with the power which he asked us to give, and which we gave to the counties of the Upper Peninsula. If that is so, then we should withdraw that power. If they are unfit to be entrusted with that power under the supervision of the Legislature, then I would withdraw from the -people of the Upper Peninsula the right to have the power at all. Now, we cannot violate a rule. or prin ciple which is to be applied to the whole State by a provision in the Con stitution, and even extend it to the counties of the Upper Peninsula, and at the same time be told that we must alter our rule down here, because the people up there are working men, and not fit to be trusted with a vote upon granting aid to railroads. Sir, I repudiate the idea that among the workingmen, there or here, there is not intelligence, virtue and good sense enough to judge of the propriety of such aid as is here proposed. I know that many of them are miners from abroad; I know that they are not cit izens. But I know that they may be controlled by property-holders. They are employed there; and while they are employed there, the property-hold ers will have greater influence over them than anybody else. They are a class of men unused to judge for themselves, but are led by others. And these very property-holders are the ones who have thefpower and influence, especially in the mining regions, to control their employees to a greater extent than employees can be controlled in the Lower Peninsula. Then the people of the Upper Peninsula can take the same chances that we have here. Now, when we have carefully inserted in this very section that, even with the restriction that we have made, there should be nothing done except by authorization of the Legislature; that there should be no money raised, no aid given, no credit pledged, unless some law was passed for that particular purpose, it seems - to me that we have sufficiently guarded this matter. We have gone a long way to join hands with those who would.entirely restrict or take away this power, when we have limited to an amount which the majority of this committee have declared, not only by their arguments but by their votes, to be safe and practicable. Now, I say for myself, and for the other gentlemen who are in favor of this measure, that we have made this proposition honorably, fairly, and frankly. At the very outset I took oc casion to state that, while my constitu ents were in favor of a larger liberty, while they would prefer that the Con stitution should remain without any such provision in it at all, yet, acting as one of the members of this Conven tion, I believed it better to limit that power, and bring it down to a safe and reasonable proposition, in order that those who do not believe in voting aid at all, or as they claim, do not believe in taking the property of the minority against their will, might at least know that it could not be done to an injuri ous extent; and that those who desired to give aid, although they might not be able to give the amount they desire, should be restrained to a certain rea sonable amount, and yet have sufficient power to grant aid in some manner to the object they desire to accomplish. Sir, it is not true that the friends of this measure have endeavored to befog it, or have done anything unfair, or have failed in frankness and sincerity. I say for myself that if I ever did endeavor to make a proposition clean frank and explicit, one that should be understood, one that should be honor able and honest, both in the assertion and in the endeavor to carry it out, I have done so in this case. I submit that it is not fair to charge upon me, or the other friends of this measure, any duplicity or endeavor to pass a measure which shall operate diferently .,Tuly ill 1867. DEBATES, AND: PROCEEDINGS. 173 17 lO~IUTOA COV-I~ Wded from what we say this measure is intended by us to operate. I trust that the friends of this measure-I mean by that those who join with us, although opposed to the principle itself, those who join with us in supporting this measure, because it restricts the amount, as well as those others who favor the principle-I trust that they will see to it that it is not hampered, and placed in such a position that the very object we desire to accomplish is made impracticable. As it now stands, it is clear and explicit. The authorities which have been cited here, show that the Legislature have the entire power to dispose of the matter as they choose, by submitting it first to the people. In addition to that I say that the Legislature have the right to require the assent of the majority of the owners of the property represented by the votes of the property owners. Any restriction which the Legislature may see fit to impose, before these bonds shall be issued, in my judgment the Legislature have the right to impose. I say frankly, that is my judgment as a lawyer. I think the authority read by the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) sustains me in the assertion that such would be construed to be the law by the Courts of the land. Now, if that be so, then why need we go further than to assert the principle, and make restrictions satisfactory to those who desire aid to be allowed, and also satisfactory to those who desire to restrain the people from giving larger aid, because they are opposed to giving any? We have met on this common ground, not satisfactory to all, yet I believe satisfactory to a majority of this committee. Let us stand by that, and leave the Legislature to consider the various circumstances of the State, the various desires of the people, and the direct application of the principle to the various municipalities of the State-leave the Legislature to exercise some choice, some discretion in regard to the mode of submission, whether to the electors alone, or to the electors with the property holders; whether the submission shall be to a majority only, or to two-thirds, or in whatever manner the Legislature may see fit to present the matter. I have npO choice about that. I am perfectly willing that a larger restriction shall be put by the Legislature upon some towns and cities, than upon others. So far as the towns and cities in the county I in part represent are concerned, I care not how large the restriction may be, so that it does not give the power to a few men to defeat the will of all the rest. If the rule required that a majority of all the_electors should ap pear and vote upon the subject, we know from what has been stated here, that where there was no opposition, where there was no difference of opin ion, it would be almost impossible in such a case to get such a vote. In conclusion, I ask gentlemen of this committee who are in favor, for the reasons I have mentioned, of adopt ing this measure, with the restriction of ten per cent., to go with me against all the amendments which have been pro posed, and to submit to the wisdom of the Legislature this provision, with the amendment I had the honor to pro pose, at the suggestion of the gentle man from Menominee, (Mr. INGALLS.) With that I believe the friends of this measure, and those who are opposed to the exercise of the power at all, will be satisfied, believing that the safety of the people of this State will be per fectly well secured, and the wisdom of the Legislature in the future will give such direction to this provision in the Constitution, as the exigencies of the different cases may require. Mr. PRATT. I desire to ask the chairman of the committee on the legis lative department, (Mr. CONGEr,) one question. Mr. CONGER. Very well. Mr. PRATT. I would ask him whether there is anything in this sec tion to prevent the Legislature from authorizing any city or township to raise by taxation any amount for the purpose of aiding in the construc tion of any railroad, in addition to the authority to pledge its credit to the ex tent of ten per cent.? Mr. CONGER. In answer to that question, I would say that the sole object of the committee in reporting this section was to restrict municipal in debtedness; not to prevent any aid they might choose to give by way of immediate gift or payment. Mr. PRATT. That is the way I understood it' Mr. CONGER. That I supposed to be the legal and logical effect of,this provision. I may say, in connection with that, that the fear has been, not that the municipalities would go too far in raising money at once and paying it-which they or anybody else, I apprehend, have the right to do if they choose-but the fear has been that they would involve themselves in indebtedness beyond what they expected, or, in the zeal of following an enterprise, would be led to go beyond what they at first anticipated. Whether by taxation or otherwise, if the tax was pending and unpaid, it would come within this rule. The section reads: "whereby the indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed ten per Cent. of the assessed valuation of such city or township." I think the gentleman will see that that is worded on purpose to prevent the outstanding taxation in debtedness, as well as the outstanding credit indebtedness, from exceeding the limit named; else the words, "on account of aid," would have been some thing else. The section was worded as it is to accomplish a particular pur pose. Mr. PRATT. I merely wanted to understand the meaning the gentleman attached to this section. I did not want to extend the discussion. Mr. STOCKWELL. I wish to move an amendment, to be considered when it shall be in order. I move to amend this section by inserting after the words pledge its credit," the words "or raise by tax;" also to insert after the words outstanding indebtedness," the words "and the taxes raised for such purpose;" so that that portion of the section will read as follows: "The Legislature shall not- authorize any city or township to pledge its-credit, or raise by tax, for the purpose of aiding in the con struction of any railroad to an extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, and the taxes raised for that purpose, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed val uation of such city or township." The CHAIRMAN. That amendment is not now in order, but it will be held in abeyance until other amendments have been disposed of. Mr. MUSSEY. It is very evident that there is a diversity of opinion in this Convention in regard to the mat ter under consideration. In other words, there is a diversity of opinion in regard to the propriety of extending any aid of the kind contemplated by this section. A portion are in favor of granting such aid, and another portion are opposed to it. I apprehend that in that division the sentiments of the people of the State are pretty fairly represented. But what astonished me most of all was, that those who are opposed to the principle of granting aid to railroads should be opposed to this restriction. The arguments which have been urged here from the com mencement of the consideration of this subject, have been against inserting this restriction in the Constitution. Gentlemen have argued as though, if they had the power, they would strike out this section entirely, which would leave the matter just as it has been heretofore; for the Legislature to provide for just as much aid as they shall see fit. I think that is a very singular state of things. Not only have such arguments been adduced here in the Convention, but I have been approached repeatedly out of the Convention by those who asserted that they were opposed to permitting any township, i 174 cows, -LITUTIONAL CONVENTION. .Wednesday, July 17, 18674 DEBATES AD PROCEEDINGS. 175 village, city or county to vote any such aid, or incur any indebtedness, or pledge their credit in any form or shape-I have been approached by those who urged me to vote against this section. That, to me, is a very strange position for gentlemen to occupy. Now, what is the object of this section? It starts out with these words: "The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township." It does not provide that the Legislature "shall," or that the Legislature " may" authorize; but it provides that "I the Legislature shall not authorize." The very language with which the section commences assumes that without this provision the Legislature would have unlimited power in the premises. Then, I ask, why this attack on the section by the enemies of the principle of granting aid? I apprehend, as I said before, that the same difference of opinion which we see here pervades the people of the State. There is a difference of opinion upon this subject in every community. It is so in the community where I reside, and I apprehend it is so in the entire county which I have the honor in part to represent. There are those who would be glad to have this matter left without what I have termed this legislative provision in the Constitution in regard to it. There are those who have urged me to labor for the insertion in the Constitution of a provision limiting this matter. There are those who have urged me to labor for the insertion of a provision prohibiting such aid. During the late recess I came in contact with a very large number of my constituents, and with one single exception they were in favor of this section. The one who opposed it has not a dollar of tax to pay, but still his opinion is worthy of a great deal of respect, because he has represented property, and has merely passed it over into the hands of his children. But every other legal voter to whom I submitted this section agreed to it. Those on both sides of the question of granting aid were willing to meet on this basis, to limit the power of the Legislature to authorizing municipal ities to pledge their credit to an amount not exceeding ten per cent. Now, I ask, why are we spending all this time in discussing this matter; one party contending for this section, the other opposed to it; and those op posed to it, evidently seeking to make the section so obnoxious by amend ments, that we will be willing to strike it out? I shall vote against all amend ments. I am satisfied with the section as it now stands. Since the word "county" has been stricken out, I hope it will be allowed to remain as it is. There cannot be a great deal of danger in allowing the people to pledge their credit to the extent of ten per cent. of their taxable property. With all these arguments pro and con, it still seems to me that we may as well leave this section just as it is. I propose, therefore, to vote against any and all amendments that may be offered to it, if no better reason can be given for them than can be given for this. Mr. DUNCAN. Does the gentleman claim that this section limits the amount of aid to be so granted to ten per cent.? I have pledged myself to go for that amount, but I am not willing to go higher. Mr. MUSSEY. I understand that it does limit it to ten per cent.; that they cannot go beyond that amount at any one time. They may vote ten per cent. at one time, and when they have paid it off, if they like the business well enough, they can go into it again. But I understand they cannot vote more than ten per cent. of the assessed valu ation of their property at any one time. M'. VAN VA TLKEN3URGH. MAfter listening to the debate upon this sub ject for more than a day, I have been forced to the conclusion, that no amend ment which has been offered, or which can be offered, will meet with the ap proval of the committee, so much as the section itself as it is now amended. I am decidedly in favor of this section; it appears to me that it contains all the restrictions which are necessary. In reply to the gentleman near me, (Mr. DuncAN,) I will say that this section does certainly limit the amount of aid to be so granted to ten per cent. upon the assessed valuation of the property of any city or township. The lan guage embraced in this section clearly provides, that the people shall not at any one time encumber the property of a township or city, with indebted ness to more than ten per cent. of its assessed valuation. I think this sec tion meets with the approval of a large majority of the members here, and 'that no amendment which can be adopted, perhaps, will improve it. I, therefore, hope the section will pass as * it now stands. Mr. FERRIS. I confess that I was somewhat surprised at the remark of my friend from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY.) 1 understood him to say, that those of us who were opposed to the principle of local aid to railroads, were opposed f to the restrictions contained in this sect fion. Now I desire to say right here, in order that what I say may go upon the record in connection with what the L gentleman has said, that I am in favor [ of this section. Mr. MUSSEY. If the gentleman will allow me to interrupt him I will state exactly what I did say in regard to the matter. I did not say they were opposed to restrictions, because I knew they were not. I said that judging from the remarks they made, and from the reasons they gave, one would suppose that they were opposed to this section. Mr. FERRIS. I can only speak for myself. I favored the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. MILLER,) to strike out of this section all after the words, "construction of any railroad," so that the section will read: "The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad." I supported that amendment because it represented my ideas of what was right and proper. Now, in speaking for myself, I do not presume to speak for anybody else. I desired to notice the remark made by the- gentleman from Macomb, because I thought it was placing us on the record in a false position, in a position which we did not occupy. And now I want to say one word more, particularly to the chairman of the committee on the legislative department, (Mr. CONGER.) Like all parties who are defeated in a fair fight in a body of this kind, I for one, am disposed to submit to the will of the majority, and not to endeavor to embarrass the provision they desire to adopt, by proposing useless and burdensome amendments. There is one thing I wish to suggest to him. If it is consistent with the views of those gentlemen who support this amendment, I would suggest that this question of local aid should be submitted to the vote of all the electors, the same as any other measure which has to be approved by a majority of those who vote upon it. There can certainly be no danger in trusting this matter to the people. But I do consider that there will be great danger in leaving it an open question, for in every Legislature, bythe introduction of every bill for the purpose of giving this aid, that body will be involved in just such a wrangle as we have had here in this Convention. If we put the clause in here in such a way as to oblige the Legislature to submit this question to the vote of all the electors, then there will be no such controversy. It may be said that this is a matter of legislation; but I say I shall be satisfied with it, if that addition is made. Mr. BIRNEY. The question before this committee, as I understand it, is upon that portion of the amendment by the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN i July 17, 1867. .DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 175 ~7.. -.6.j:6:,O:::.U T..: L:......-_ K.' edneaD RIPER,) providing for a submission of this question to the people. The CHAIRMAN. The immediate question before the committee is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. FARMER,) to the amendment of the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIPER,) to insert after the word "thereby," the words, "and an affirmation of the majority of the electors, as shown by the poll list of the last general election, deciding in favor of it." Mr. BIRNEY. The question for this committee now to decide, is in regard to the submission of this matter to those who are interested in it. I find existing here among distinguished gentlemen, a singular idea as to the danger of restricting the right of an elector. The gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGERR,) and the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,) say that this question should be submitted to the entire body of electors. Now, I take it that no elector has a right to complain if he is allowed to vote upon all matters in which he is directly interested. Those who are governed should have the right to vote in the choice of their rulers. But it does not follow that we take any right from them, if' we do not allow them to vote upon matters in which they are not interested. If that principle is carried out, my constituents in Bay county, should be allowed to vote upon every matter voted upon in St. Joseph, county, and so in other counties. But the question here is whether I, as one of the property owners inm a certain township or city, will agree to be taxed fifty, or a hundred, or five hundred dollars, next year, for a certain improvement. If you say that A. B., who does not own any property, shall be allowed to vote upon this question, he may nullify altogether my wishes and choice in the matter. I may wish to contribute that amount of money for that purpose by taxation; and I may wish that others who own a similar amount of property shall be taxed likewise. But if you allow A. B. to vote, his vote may entirely deprive me of that choice. In that way, instead of restricting his rights, it seems to me that you evidently restrict my right; because the question involves the use of my property, and not the use of his property. I, therefore, can not see in this distinction concerning the mode of submitting this question, any denial or curtailment of the right of the elector. I should be entirely satisfied with this.article on the legislative department if this section were omitted entirely. I am willing to trust the matter to the Legislature. I will, how ever, not object to the section as it stands, or as it is reported by the committee. One amendment was proposed, authorizing the submission of this matter to the electors of the municipality. It seems to me that the Legislature might well understand that the intention of the Convention was that this matter should be submitted to the entire body of voters. Now, if this Convention shall go so far, I wish to have- a further restriction; because otherwise I should consider the provision as destroying or preventing one of the objects to be accomplished by the section as it is. If the question is to be submitted to all the electors, irrespective of their interests in the matter, it would not suit my views at all, nor do I think it would suit my constituents. If the amendment is to prevail requiring this matter to be submitted to a vote of the people, I would prefer that it shall be submitted to the property owners alone. But if that restriction cannot be imposed, then I desire that there shall be a restriction requiring the affirmative vote at any time to be equal to a majority of the electors in the locality. I had prepared an amendment here which I proposed to offer as a substitute for the' amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. FARMER;) to insert in place of the words he proposes the following: " The measure shall be defeated unless the vote in favor of it shall be equal to a majority of the registered electors." I propose that as an additional guard upon this subject. My amendment does not prescribe how the vote is to be taken. If it is to be taken in townships, as I have seen votes taken upon appropriations for highways andbridges, and for such purposes, by a viva voce vote, when out of five hundred resident voters, perhaps but ten would vote if that practice were to be resorted to, then I should be opposed to the whole natter. I should in such a case as that take my position with those gentlemen of this committee who are opposing municipal aid. If we are to put any restrictions at all on this subject, I: wish to have it so guarded that it shall be decided by a vote of those directly interested in the taxation to be made. I think that would be the only safe course for us to pursue. It seems to me that to adopt any other course would not satisfy the property owners of this State' They will not approve a provision which would seem to put the power of taxation into the hands of those who do not own the property to be taxed. Mr. FEERRIS. Will the gentleman allow-me to ask him a question? Mr. BIRNEY. Certainly. Mr. FERRIS. I desire to ask the gentleman if he wishes to be understood as opposed to submitting the question to the electors of the municipalities? Mr. BIRNEY. I expect that to be done in all cases. I suppose that the Legislature would never pass an act without submitting this question to the voters, with certain restrictions. I am in favor of submitting it the property owners and the tax payers, who are to be affected by the result. If this Convention will not do that, then I want the vote approving of grantiing, aid to be equal to the majority of the electors of the township or city. For that reason I have offered my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BIRNEY,) is an amendment to an amendment to an amendment, which is a little further than we are able to go. Mr. BIRNEY. I did not know but it might meet the -views of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr.- FARMER,) and he might accept it in lieu of his own. Mr. CHAPIN. I did not intend to trouble the committee with any further remarks upon this subject. I rise now simply to say that I am opposed to the whole batch and brood of amendments introduced upon this subject. It strikes me that there is no practical necessity for any of these amendments; they are purely legislative in their character. The main proposition, as amended, with the restrictions which have received the sanction of this committee, is all that is necessary upon the subject,-and I must confess that I have been somewhat surprised to see amendment after amendment, and even substitutes rained down upon us here thick as leaves in Vallambrosa; when the whole of them are of a purely legislative character. They are offered by the very gentlemen too, who have indulged in long and eloquent harangues against introducing legislation into the Constitution; those same gentlemen 'have said that the old Constitution of 1850, was simply a bill of indictment ,against the Legislature, and every section and article of it, was a count in the indictment. I apprehend that we may safely concede the point that the Legislatures who may hereafter meet in these halls will have some little intelligence, and that they will be disposed to protect the rights of the people as regards the submission of this question to their vote. I can see no necessity for any particular direction in regard to who shall vote upon this. question, and how they shall vote, any more than in regard to any other matter submitted to them. This is purely a matter of taxation. I do -t 176 CONSTITUTIONAL CON'VENTION. Wednesday, DEBA,TES AN —D NPROCEDIGS. not'know of any peculiarities clustering around this matter, which' should take it out of the class'of ordinary cases of taxation. Gentlemen seem to take the position.here -that there- is sopmething peculiar about voting this ten-perp.r-nt.;~ that it requires new safeguards, and constitutional bulwarks to be. thrtown around it, in order'- that the rights of the people may be protected. It'strikes me that this does not differ in any:degree from ordinaryinstances of taxatior. Tbe decisions of the courts read here settle the question that the-Legislature have the right to authorize municipalities to impose this tax, fbr the purpose of rendering aid to railreads, they being matters of public'interest, and promotive of the public good. That being the case, the tax beminga legal one, it being within the comptoncy of the L-egislature to authorize the imposition of this tax, I do not know what there is to take it out of the ordinary rule, so as to require us to encumber this Constitution by particular and specific legislation, as to the mode and manner in which the question shall be submitted to, and decided by, -the people. It strikes me that when we have limited the Legislature to a partioular amount, when we have said that they shall not authorize these municipalities to exceed that amount, and require the question to be submitted to.a. vote of the people, we have done all that is required to be done in he organic law of this State. All - the! rest which is sought to be injected into the Constitution by way of substitutes, and amendments, and amendments to amendments, is simply pure legislation and nothing more. For that reason, I shall vote against every one of these amendments. I really hope that we may come to a vote upon this question. I believe the commit-, tee are now ready to vote; I believe they have been ready to vote for:the last two hours. I hope we will now clear away all this rubbish of amendments and substitutes, and come at the real sense of the committee upon this question. Mr. HOWARD. For one I am not ready for a vote. I agree with the genman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGEB,) that we have arrived at the prresent stage of this matter by compromise. I have been opposed from the beginning to allowing the Legislature to authorize any aid, to any amount, or to any extent. When we took a vote upon the question the first day this subject was under consideration, a large majority of the members of this Convention occupied the same ground. But we have been lured from that ground, not only by the warning voice of the gentleman from.'lair, ((k.:X GER,) but by the eloquenceof the gentleman from Gratiot, (Tr. CAPI.) embers have been lured from the position'they took in opposition to measnres of this kind, by the argument that they were not only opposi'g the right of the people to tax themselves, but shutting the door against any public improvement they might see-fit: to. make. This is all very well; I acknowledge myself whipped in this matter up -to this time. But I do not like to see gentlemen turn round and knock from under their feet the compromises upon which they have gained the victory, when they say "we only Claim the right of the people to tax themselve3." I say it is unfair and unreasonable in them to say to us that having gained the ground they have, they Will not allow 'Us to'have the benefits of the measure; that they will not allow us to place uin the Constitution alongside of the measure they have'gained, a provision that the voice_ of the people shall always be heard upon this question. :It is not a stretch: of the imagination for us to conceive of a Legislature entirely in the power of railroad interests. We have seen in New York and in New Jersey, and in other States 9f the Union, that theLegislatures have been !from time to time controlled by these corporations. Although I am willing to leave this matter with.a restriction of ten per cent., which has been fairly gained, Inam not willing to go further and.say that it shall stand withouutthe addition of a provision that the people who are tobe taxed, the tax-payers who are to pay. the money, ishall alone be heard. Thatis wrongin principle. There-are many cases which we.can imagine, when a Legislature havepassed:a law for thegovernment of the people of a particular locality, where the' voice Of'the people should not be'heard in ratifcation Of that law. But when we travel ouitof the. ordinary chaunels of governmental action, and undertake to impose a tax for the purpose of.aMiing im the construetion of:a' public improvement, the people interested ashould always be heard. A-nd'the argument of gentlemen'has been'from the beginninig to the end of this discussion, that the.people were interested m ithis matter and were to be -benefited by. i Now, I ask, who are the most competent to judge, the Legislature, or the people to bebenefited,'whe~ther this.tax. should' be imposed,- wheth,r;this credit of the town.ship' shouid ebb, o6:iv%? I ask in all sineyr,iyty, it' is ibitii:.t-hlt gentlemen havingused the a rgument here that the'pe'ole.should"'be allowed to tax themselves, should' now after havinag . h......,I,.J............ say, that instead of leaving this matter to the people'who are to be taxed, it should be' left in.the6 hands of the Legislature? Very much has. been said about -[amperng and tying up the Legislat.ure. We propose to d'o no such thing. When a law has been passed, and -as received the approval of0the Governor, it becomes a law; it is not -'submitted to' the people; the people have but ai linited' voice in the matter.:But when so many different railroad interests are brought to bear upon the LegislatUre, it is no,t a great stretch of -the imagination to conceive a case where; a proposition may be carried through, whieh the people will not approve. Members from different portions of the.ta,ate, and representing differetint tres st n the Legislature, will be d-posed to assist each other mutually. I make no charge against the Legislatne; I Simply look at the facts as they es: Projects may be carried'trough:which will be obnoxious to the.people,;anl inthose.cases where the:pe6ple-are interested, where their money is toebe taken from their pockets, voluntarily or involuntarily, to advance these im;provements, I insist that it is only consistent with our duties here that we :should permit the people who are to ;be taxed tohave a voice in the matter. I am surprised in looking back over this discussion, to see that we have arrived at a stage when not only have the mfiends of this movejment a majority in favor of the ten per cent. aid, but they seem to.have a consciousness of strength which will enable them.,to carry it through the Convention without adding to it the provision that tohe people shall always be consulted. I deny the assumption of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr.:RIs,) that we -are ignoring any fund-idmental principle Upon which.we stand. This is.entirely diferent from a case where the people are called upon to vote on political questions.; The men in townships who own property, and are called upon to pay.the'tax, are the men to be affected by this question. They are the men to be affected by the increase in the value of property, by being obliged to pay:their money. to promote these improvements. They are those who should vote; they are those whose voice should be heard, and not the irresponsible man who has no tax to pay. Why, sir, in nine cases out of ten these projects could be carried through by the votes of men who might be brought into any particular locality by the railroad interest itself. Many townships in this State might be controlled entirely by-the railroad interest. A railroad might bring in men' e- e' [.m th'ee L_ -.'.v -. I.-..,.. - -1 I I,-71,? - -1 Jiily.171-1867. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. them to claim a residence. We need not go back far in the history of this State to find many instances where elections upon purely political ques- tions have been controlled in that way. t I insist, as one of those who,opposed this measure from the beginning, that if the gentlemen claiming to have gained this victory by compromise wish to deal fairly with us of the minority, they should give us what they havetalked of from the beginning, and what we have claimed of the committee;. a clause requiring the Legislature in- variably to submit the question to the people to be taxed. Mr. CONGER. I will ask the gentleman whether, with a clause submitting'this question to the people, he will favor the measure and vote for it? Mr. HOWARD. I never pledged myself but once to vote for a particular motion, or a particular measure, and I Was sorry for that. I am not among those who have said that if this measure was carried through, I should feel bound to support the Constitution which we may make here. I shall gracefully submit to the will of the majority in this respect. I believe now, and have believed from the start, that we ought not to give to the Legislature any such power. I said this forenoon, that inasmuch as I could not gain all that I ask, I should be willing to limit the power of the Legislature in this subject as much as possible; and if they were limited to ten per cent., and if a clause is added to this section, providing for the submission of the question to the peo ple in every case, it would not be so objectionable to me as it otherwise might be. Mr. CONGER. The gentleman evades my inquiry. I have no right to ask him the question, except that if gentlemen will aid in carrying through this measure, provided certain amend ments are made to it, that might influ ence the action of the friends of the measure. But if the opposition is still to be kept up against it, I have not learned any particular reason why we should give up on any point to the ene mies of the measure. Mr. HOWARD. If the provision I have indicated shall be added to the section, it will be less objectionable to me, and I presume to other members who oppose the principle, than it would be without that clause. Mr. MILLER. We have now been in session for two hours and a half this afternoon; we ought to bear in mind, that we are imposing a tax upon our 'reporter, who is obliged to write out theselengthy debates. I therefore move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leade to ~it agatins r. MORTON. I would ask the gentleman to modify his motion, so that we can ask to be discharged from the further consideration of this article, so that we may come to a vote upon it in the Convention; otherwise we will have to take another day in committe of the whole. Mr. MILLER. I do not think it has been sufficiently ventilated yet; I cannQt modify my amendment, As the gentleman suggests. The question was then taken upon the motion that the cornmmittee rise; and upon a division, ayes 21, noes not counted, it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. FARMER, to the amendment of Mr. VAN RIPER. Mr. INGALLS. I desire to say a few words more upon this subject. In the first place I wish to correct an impression thrown out by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) that I myself introduced this matter before the committee. I believe the gentleman from Cass (Mr. VAN RIPER) introduced it, and I supported it. I did not wish, in supporting it, to be understood as making any factious opposition to the principle contained in the section. As I stated in the first place, I believe a great principle is involved in this section, and I spoke as I did for the purpose of calling out a discussion of that principle. I am still satisfied that there is an important principle involved. But I am also satisfied of this fact, that this committee can come to no conclusion, and will adopt no amendment that will reach that principle. That principle is not reached by any amendment now before this committee. I am doubtful whether any amendment can be made to this section which will reach it. And as none of the amendments reach the principle which I desire to have embraced here, I shall vote against the amendments, unless perhaps upon a division of the question I vote for the first clause of the amendment of the gentleman from Cass. I make these remarks for the purpose of explanation, because by voting against all amendments I may seem to be voting against that which I have advocated The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. FARMER to the amendment of Mr. VTAN RIPER, and it was not agreed to. The question was upon the substi tute of Mr. WILLIIAMS for the amend ment of Mr. VAN RIPER, as follows: "No city or township shall be authorized to grant such aid, without first obtaining the assent ot a majority of the citizens of sucl township orcity, whose naines shall appea on the last preceding assessment roll thereof.' The substitute was not agreed to. th qauustion And- thgen teen'4onl adding to section twenty-seven the first clause of the amendment of Mr. VAN RIPER, as follows: - I "The question of such aid shall be submitted to a vote of the city or township to be affected thereby." That portion of the amendment.was agreed to, upon a division, ayes 31, noes 27. The next question was upon adding to the section the last clause of the amendment of Mr. VAN RIPER, which had been amended to read as follows: "- and no person shall be entitled tq a vote at any submission of such question, unless he shall be, or expects to be, the owner of property liable to taxation within such township or city." Mr. VAN RIPER. I could almost wish that that might be adopted; that itmight stand as a monument of the genius of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) Mr. CONGER. Thanking the gentieman for his compliment, I will say that there are other and better 0onuments of the gentleman-fr6om St. Clair' that will stand. [Laugh'ter.]. Mr. BILLS. I -would inquire if it is in order to move to strike out the words "or expects to be?" If so, I will move to strike out those words, in order that we may vote upon the re mainder of the amendment, securing what in the judgment of many mem bers of this Convention would be just and right The CHAIRMAN. The committee having voted to, insert those very words, it would not be in order now to move to strike them out. The ob jeot of the-gentleman could be reached by a motion to reconsider. Mr. BILLS. I do not rise for the purpose of moving a reconsideration. Gentlemen can fully understand that while I am a friend of the limitation prescribed by this provision of section twenty-seven, I am also in favor of submitting the question to be decided by the taxable inhabitants to be affec ted thereby. If the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) moved to insert those words for the purpose of putting a rider upon this provision, which might affect the votes of mem bers, I can only say that he will not accomplish his object so far as I am concerned, for I shall vote for it with the rider on it. Mr. BIRNEY. I move to reconsider . the vote by which the words "orex.pects to be," were inserted in this amendment. l The question was taken upon the rmotion to reconsider, and upon a divi sion, there were ayes 31, noes 17; no IX quorum voting. The question was again taken upon the motion to econsider, and upon a *.. 1~; L-,: f s e 0 e t f I 1-7-81 Wedne8da,y . I I Jul 17 183.DBT~ ~ ~)ED~'' division, there were ayes 33, noes 5; no quorum voting. Mr. McCLELLAND. As there is no quorum, I suppose the only thing we can do is to rise and report that fact to the committee. I make that motion. Mr. BIRNEY. Should it not be supposed that those who were silent assent to the majority? Mr. LONGYEAR. I think the motion that the committee rise is not debatable. Mr. BIRNEY. I was not speaking upon the motion that the committee UP rise. Mr. McCLELLAND. Is there any other course which we can pursue. The CHAIRMAN. The committee might order a count. Mr. McCLELLAND. I have no objection to withdrawing my motion for that purpose. Mr. CONGER. I think there is no objection to following the usual rule, that if the majority of those voting vote in favor of the motion to reconsider, that motion is carried. The CHAIRMAN. The presence of a quorum is necessary for a continuance of business of the Convention. Mr. CONGER. The last vote taken before this shows that there is a quorum present, and it is within the knowledge of any one looking around him, that there is a quorum present. The CHAIRMAN. The question now is on the motion that the committee rise, and report the fact to the Convention that there is no quorum voting. Mr. CONGER. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Mr. LEACH. I hope that the motion will not prevail, but that if this committee is compelled to rise, the true reason for that shall appear. Mr. BLACKMAN. I would inquire if the motion that the committee rise and report progress is an amendment to the motion of the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. McCLELLAND,) or is it received as a privileged motion? Mr. McCLELLAND. I withdrew my motion long ago. The contest in this corner of the hall seems to be that some gentlemen, who voted against meeting at half-past two o'clock, are determined to keep others here until after tea. -' Mr. CONGER. -Then I withdraw my motion that the committee rise and report progress. Mr. MORTON. I renew the motion that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. I think this question has been discussed and re-discussed sufficiently, and that nothing more will be done this afternoon.-....-.. The question was taken upon the motion that the committee rise and report progress, and upon a division, ayes 29, noes 46, it was not agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The vote jus taken shows a quorum present. The que'stion will again be taken upon the motion to reconsider. The motion to reconsider was agreed to. The question then recurred upon the amendment of Mr. CONGER, to insert in the amendment of Mr. VAN RiPER, before the words "the owner of property," the words "or expects to be." Mr. HOWARD. Cannot the gentleman from St. Clair withdraw that amendment? If so, then I would respectfully ask him to do it, and leave this provision in a shape that will be measurably satisfactory. Mr. CONGER. I would do so, but the gentleman well knows that it was the wish of a very large majority of this committee to insert those words in this provision. Whatever my private view may be, I want to give that majority an opportunity to keep these words in their proper place. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. CONGER, to the amendment of Mr. VAN RIPER, and it was not agreed to. The question again recurred upon adding to the section the last clause of the amendment of Mr. VAN RIPER, as amended, which was as follows: "-and no person shall be entitled to a vote at any submission of such question, unless he shall be the owner of property liable to taxation, within such township or city." The question was taken, and upon a division, ayes 24, noes 37, it was not agreed to.: Mr. LOTHROP. I desire to offer an amendment. The CtHAIRMAN. — There is already pending an amendment offered by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOcEWELL,) to insert after the words ",pledge its credit," the words "ox raise by tax;" also, to insert after the words "outstanding indebtedness," the words "and all taxes raised for such purpose," so that the section will read: "The Legislature shall no t authorize any city or township to pledge its credit or raise by tax, for t he purpose o f aiding in the construction oof any railroad to an extent whereby t he out standing indebtedness, and all taxes raised fo r such PurpoSe on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall e xceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such city or township,"etc. Mr. WILLIAMS. — I think the force of that amendment would be to make the restriction apply to all future time. If the motion be adopted, then if the municipality should raise ten per cent. at any time, it never could afterwards raise any amount of money for this purpose. Mr. STOCKWFTELL. I confess that after the long discussion we have had upon this section and the amendments which have been proposed to it, it is with some degree of diffidence that I offer this amendment. But believing, as I do, that if we are to have a provision in the Constitution concerning the taxation of townships and cities to aid in the construction of railroads, that tax should be limited to a certain amount, beyond which they cannot go, I have offered this amendment. The section, as it now stands, does not so limit this amount. If I understand it correctly, it only limits the'amount for which a township or city may pledge its credit. But it may vote a direct tax to any amount, and from year to year. For instance, a township may vote a tax, not merely of five or ten per cent., but whatever amount it pleases. Besides the amount of credit which, according to this section it may pledge to the extent of ten per cent., it may also raise by tax any amount, even fifty or one hundred per cent. I do not believe this section should be left to stand in that shape. I believe it should be so amended that when the township has raised, directly or indirectly, a certain amount for this purpose, it should not be allowed to go any further. I think that amount should be fixed in the Constitution; otherwise, I conceive great injustice might arise from the operation of this section. A township might be taxed almost to its ruin in some cases, and would be, perhaps, in many cases. It is well known, that in many townships, a large portion of the voters, more than a majority, live in some extreme corner, or on one side of the township. For instance, there may be a thriving village, where a majority of the voters live. And the voters of that village, constituting a majority of the voters of the township, might vote a tax from year to year, upon the whole township, and thus pledge the township to pay money to aid in the construction of a railroad, which would be of very little or no benefit to the tax payers of that township, outside of the immediate vicinity of the village. I believethe people I have the honor to represent, would desire that the amount should be fixed somewhere, in order that they might know how far the Constitution would authorize them to be ~taxed; not have the matter left in such a way, that they would have no means of knowing that. By this section, however, as it now stands, they will be subjected to a direct tax from year to year, and in addition to that, the credit of the township may be pledged for this aid to.-the extent of ten per cent) LTIUIY -17, 1867. DVBATA8 A-VD P1100EtI)IXGS, 170 .180 Wednesdav-, These are a. fow:among the reaons that might be: assiged in favor of the amen'dment;:I,have offered.. Mr-'1. D.INC.[AN I: hope the amendment will prevail. It' was -the understanding here, as I thought, that the amouty of aid to be thus given should' be fixed at ten per cent., and nothing! .more; and with that understanding -many of us have been led to vote fo'r it. Now,.if we are- to be cheated, I want to knowit.X I- should dislike to have it go- out that this Convention adopted such a clause as this is, which heS. been put in the report of the committee on the legislative departiment, .a'd then refused to submit the question to the people.. — Mr. SHE PARER. I hope. the motion of the gentleman from' Lenawee, (Mr. SroC'KwELL,) wd prevail-. When: you :me::eto look: at the indebtedness of thiis State, if. you permit these municipalities to be taxed every year, I do no,t know that we shall-, ever pay our debts. We owe- seventymillion dollars to the general governmen't; we have four m'ilbon dollars of our own State indebtedness.- The interest upon these two debts will be about five million dollars a year.-, The cOUntry is-: now expending about one hundred millions a. year to keep..up a military power in the South, and a:million a week for carrying on- the.Indian war. Now, if we are to assess our. people every year to make these railroads, I do not ]know what under Heaven the State of Michigan will come to. We never can pay our debts in the world. I hope ther'e:' be. some.restriction on this vexatious.taxation. I.hope the time will come6 when we shall be a little more clear of debt: I hope. that we shall hiave. thiis great State of Michigan in-'better condition than it now is BThe.Stateo has. bees called:very great-; it has been c,ried up as the most beaufuil count'iryin the world. Why should we trample down the best: energies:of our people:by' taxation? Fo'r one, I- would ratier move to some other country.,-and go into the woods again, a: I-did some thirty or'forty years ago, and- cut' down another wildern'_ess, than to submit to all' this taxation -to keep up the military power of the govern:ment in the South, to'carry on an Inian- war in the west,: and to pay the necessary State expenditures:whioch are -now about two hundred' t'housan.-dol:-krs'a:year. We ought -to come to our senses in-realtion,to.these matters, and not creat6 a~ exhaustive taxation for ra'lroads. We Xar e'willin~g to allow -those railroads to be built. I amwilliu.gto let the,egislature auithorize aid t6thoe amoun-of ften per cent:,.: though I vooted for:five. -:I- am willing to' leave it to the discretion of municipalities to raise what is necessary;. -I hope,- after sitting here listening so long to these wonderful and eloquent appeals-thathave been made to you, and. which have wearied our respectable reporter almost to death Ai MEVfMBER. The reporter- is all right; you need not wory-about him. -Mr. SHEARER., While, these wonderful and eloquent rhetorical appeals were being made, which -were so astonishing, I hardly knew where -I was., .They-were so- flowery that-I supposed for a long time I was-in a green-house. The question was -then taken upon .the amendment of Mr. STOOKWELL, and" -it was not. agreed to. ..Mr. LOTHROP. I move to amen'd this section by striking out all after the; words "pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding- in the construction of' any railroad," and inserting in lieu! ..thereof the following: "-"Bat any city: or township:may be.author?ized to did any railroad corporation, by the le.vy'of a tax or taxes on all. the property of, the; township, provided the amount of all taxes so levied for all such corporatiohs shall not exceed ten per cent.-of the assessed valuation of such city ori township" The CHAIiRMA-N. The amendment .of the gentleman- from Wayne, (Mr. LOTBOP,R) so far as -it proposes to sthike out, is the identical amendment proposed by the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mir. MiLLER,) soume time since, and voted down by the committee. Mr. MILTLER. I moved to strike out, simply; the motion of the gentleman fomi Waye is to strike ou't and insert. The Ch AIRMi:. The committee having refused to1 strike ou't that ibrtion of this'section, the Chair is of the opinion that it is not in order to renew that motion at this tie. Mr. McCLELLAND.. There" has been added to-this serction, since the motion of the gentleman — -from Saginaw, (M:r. MmiLER, wa ws~acted' oin, a sentenc'e whichf materially changed' the ftextof the section. In that: case, I presume my- c-olleague, (M'r. Lo~ln'oP,) would have the righ-:tto move: to- strike out and:insert.:" If nothing, had been'in-' serted since lthe' motion; of the gentleman from Sagin.w.was acted upon,- as a matter of:- course the motion of my Holedg~e Should notbe" in orde'r.- Buit if r ndse'rstan, the section;. as it now riead- the text,'-has-been: materially chaniged since Tu m~ton was' miade. Mr. LONGYEAR:.'Thoe gentle'man from Wayn. e, (Mr. McCL~'LL.~'.,) cancedes that if nothing had been added to this section,- since the" motion to strike out was lost, then the motion of his colleage, (Mr. LoT'oOP,) would nat be im order; bat he contends,that- because something has been added to the section by way of amendment-it would now be in order to strike out and insert. The first part of his proposition, in which I agree.with him, needs no discussion of couse. But in regard to the last part of his proposition, I would say that it has been ruled by the Cha'ir, in another case, that it was not in order to move to strike out what the committee of the whole had inserted. Mr. M cCLELLAND. As I understand, it is not in order to strike out simply that which has been inserted; but-it would be in order to strike out that which has been inserted if connected with some other part of the text of the section. For instance, the' committee vote to insert a certain word; you cannot afterwards move to strike out that one word, without coupling it with some other part of the text. But you can- join to that word some other portion of the text, and then move to strike out that other portion of the text, together with the word which has been inserted. -.-.:,.: - -.-. —-. — Mr. LONGY.EAR.: Thegentleman is undoubtedly correct, provided the words to be joined-with those inserted, have not been alreaddy acted upon by the committee. But in this case, the words joined. with those which have been inserted, which it is proposed- to strike out, have already been acted upon by'the committee, onthe simple motion to strike out; and the committee' have refused to agree to that motion. Mr. M cLETLLAN,. Suppose a motion- is male to strike out and insert, and'thatmotlon is defeated. A motion is -then made to insert something, which is adopted. Then you can move to strike out not-only that which has been inserted, but also that which the committee, before the amendment was adopted, refused to strikeout, because, a'ter the amendment is adopted, the section is entirely dierent firom what it was when the motion to strike out was acted: upon.., M'r. LONGYEAR. In that I do not agree with tlhe gentleman, because if that were the rule, then you could always meverto strike out what had been inserted, by simply including wi~th it some words of the section, althougli the: committee may have refused to strike out these very words. In that way, after a motion to strike out has been defeated, a second motion to strike out could be made, by simply getting.somethimg inserted. mi the sectison before the second motion to strike out is submitted. -It seems to me that rue is not a proper one.-The CHAIRM'AN'. The Chair stated' his'impreSsion in regard to- the proposed' amendment. It Was - founde'd upOn tfie fact that the committee of'the whole had already refused to strike out the words following "construction i i i I i i i J, 1. 7. DEB S AND]' PoC-1 i81 6f ainy railroad."' The' pavt of the sec-;' tion which the committee6 refsed'to strike out has been-changed by-'thead- dition of certain words.' Mr. McIOLELLAND. Permit me' to read one paragraph from. Bear-clay's! Digest, page 11:. "Although it is not in order toi strike out by itselt what has been inserted; it ma-y': be moved to strilke out a portion of the: origsnl paragraph, comprehending what heas be6en in serted, provided the coherbnce to:be sti'cken out be s0 substantial as to- makre' this effectively a different proposition." Mr. LONGYEAR. I —concede- that part' of the gentleman's proposition. But the point I make' is, that' if the words included in the motion.to':strike out, besides; thos' which'ha/ve be;inserted, have already been acted upon, and retained upon a previous'motion, to strike out, then the motion would-not be in order. Mir. MoCLELLAND. I understand that, since the motion of thegentleman-from'aginaw, (Mr.' MmL]R,). was acted' upon, material words harvebeen' added:to the text of this section,.,' The CHAIRMAN.' The' Chaii''was about to state, that' h'he looked upon that part of the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LoTROP,) striking out all succeeding " construection of any railroad," as being the identical proposition of the gentleman from $Sagiiinaw, (Mr. MTTLER,) except as certaini words have since been added by the committee'in. adopting certain amendments. The part now proposed by the gentleman from Wayne to -be stricken out embraces, first, the words whici the gentle'man' from Sainamaw proposedto strike out; and next, the words which have been a'dded by the committee. Taking th' l.aguage' of tie Digest, as quotedby f the getlman from Wayne, (3Ir.- MOLELL;ND,) the Chair is of the opinion that h.ruling is correct; but it is for the' committee to determine. The Chair will' rule that the amendment, as presented, is out of order. if the gentleman had proposed: to strike out sQome p:orti'o'n of tihe section not embraced in the mmotibn of' the gentleman'from' Saginaw, ('Mi. MILLER,) the' ruling of the'Chair" woduld have been different. Mr. BURTCH. I move that the committee rise, reporrt progress,- and ask leave to sli again. The motion'was not agreed to..: Mr. MILLER. I'-move' to; am'ened this section by str iingg oUt. the words "'shall not authorize'any cit:y or''town ship to pledge its'cred~it," an'd'insert in lieu thereof the words:''"may:author ize any city or township to raise by taX." I also- move to strke out "allf the etion aftr the words:' "ten: per cent. of the assessed valuation': sue city or' township." The CHAIRMAN. The firstpa of the propos"ition of the gentl ma:n. from Saginaw,-~ (Mr'. MILER, i s: in order. The C,air: 1is o opiion, hnwever, that. the oter part 6 f his prop osition is not in ord-er. Mr. FARMER. I move that the com,mittee now: rise, report progress, anid" as le ave to sit agan.' The motion was agreed-to. 'The committee accordingly rose; and the' fPRESIDENT. having resumed the, G. alr, — - M r.. PRINGLE reported' tha't the committee o'f''the' whole, pur:suanit to' the order of' the' Convention, had had "under consideration the article entitled L'Liegislative~ Depart.ment," had made somep progress thereim, aiind had direct' ed'i him to askl.'1eave- to sit'. again., 'Le avee was'accordingly granted._' M.. BILLS. I have drawn up,an order here to" the effect that this article as amended be' prin-ted'' and laid' upon ou~a is....:.....'.. our tables.; r:. "Mr WILLARD. I l' tink that' a that is necessary at'tis timi'e, is to- hav e :, t t, F. * e. IJ*;1}'*,''<-*}_ prntede t hisseotlon: twenity-seven, to which, several amendments have been made:.- I would,, therefore-, move to amend t,he motion of the gentleman :rom' LI:enawee,' (Mr. BILLS,) s:'that this' section as'amended shall be printed in the journal.., Mr. BILLS. I accept' the:ainendment.' The motion as modified was: agreed in. he -our: to., Mr. FERRIS., mov%e that the Convention now adjaourn. The motion was agreed to; anld accordingly (at ten minutes before 6 o'clock p. m., i,) the. Convention adjourned.: FORTY'-FOUR'TH' DAY. THUnsDAY, July 18, 1867. The Convention met- at nine o'clock a., m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.0 Prayer by Rev. Mr;. VuANRIss.:. The roll was called a,nd a quorum answered to, heir names.: L- EAVE- OF ABENCE.-: -.,.BARBER aslied and" obtained indefiniteleave of absence for'-himself,' onf a'ccbunt of importantbtisiuess., M'r. W., E. WARNER asked and obtained: leave of absence for hmself unil Wednesday'.' n Mir. SUT E'RLAND asked and- obtained leave of- absence for himself a,fter- to-day, until Tuesday.. morning-next.,, Mi Mr" GIDDIr~.NS"asked and Qbt'aineda leave" of'absence for himself' after to-0 'day, witi'rTuesday afternoon next. PETITIONS. Mr. SHEARER presented the petition of A. M. Smith, George GConlow and 14 others, for retaining section 47, article 4,.of the old,Constitution, in the new; which was referred to the com~mittee on intoxicating liquors. - Mr-. lHOWARD: presented the peti'tion of- Jerfeson' Bristo, Thos. H. Nesbitt and- 22, other legal voters of Flint township, Genesee county, for a: clause in the Constitution prohibiting the trafflc in ardent spirits. Also, the petition of' HEugh Nichols, .Albert Torrey, Horace Boomer and 19 other legal voters of the. town- of Flint, Genesee county, on thei sanie subject; which' were referred to- the committee on, intoxicating liquors. Mr.'T. G. SMITH presented the-petition' of Hon. Wm. R. Marsh, Hon-. John G. Crawfrd, Major D.' Horton, Wmi. L. H. Smith, P. W. Mety and 8 others, citizens of Fenton,.' Genesee county, praying that a: provision;be-inserted in the new Constitution prohibiting the public land's of the State from being disposea of hereafter, except under the.- provision of the homestead laws, and' against exempting pro.perty fromn legal process for'labor performed on- it,-etc.,; which was' referred to the cqmmittee. on public lands. ~. UTLEY presented the petition of A. Truesdell, A. P. Carpenter, George Backaxd, T. G. Teiry and 82 others, electors of the county of Ne waygo, praying that con ditions and restrictions may be placed in thie' or-. ganic law of the State, in relation to the disposal of public lands; and also, that no law' shall be pas'sed -exempti,g property from legal process fromn labor performed upon' it;' which was referred to the committee,'on public lands.' :Mr. LONGYE-AR presented the pe tition of S. D. Fobes: and 82' other men;' Mri. S. S. Coryell and 137 other .women, citizens of Lansing and vicin-i ity, asking for equal suffrage for mene Eand women; which was-referredI to the committee on electionS-. EDUCATION. 3Mr. WILLARD, fom the committee'on education, submittid- the following report:. The committee on education, to whom was referred article XII of theConsutitution, respectfully report that thee have had the .same under consideration, and havo directed me to report Article-, entitled "Education," recommending that the-same do pass, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. GEORGE WILLARD, Chairman. The report was received and the: committee dischrged. The articlbe was read a fist and second ti' -by its: title, ordbered: to -be. printed, placed on the general order, - - - I.I... - - - Z -..' - __z.. I I,.. - - - —;.- - - -. - - I. -. ... -- z. t. - - - - - - 7- - -1 - - - - - --- - - - -- -- -- - -. I. -. 1. - -.. 1-1.- I. . —.- - - i.. - - I and referredO~A to-E T ~ the ommtte. o th and referred to -the committee of the ;whole. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Mr. WITHEY, from the committee on the judicial department, submitted the following report: The committee on the judicial department, to whom was referred article VI, of the present Constitution, entitled, " Judicia, Department," respectfully report that they have had thb same under consideration, and have directed me to report the accompanying article, entitled "Judicial Department," recommending that the same do pass, and ask to be discharged Irom the further consideration of the subject. S. L. WITHEY, Ckiairman. The report was received, and the committee discharged. The article was read a first and second time by its title, ordered to be printed, placed on the general order, and referred to the committee of the whole. Mr. McCLELLAND. I would suggest to the chairman of the committee on the judicial department, that it would be well for him to move that extra copies of this article be printed for the use of the bar of this State. Mr. WITHEY. I had already spoken to the Secretary of the Convention on the subject. If there is no objection, I will move that five hundred additional copies of the article reported this morning from the committee on the judicial department, be printed for the use of this Convention. The motion was agreed to. TAX ON SHARES Or NATIONA BAEKS. Mr. COOLIDGE. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the judiciary committee be requested to inquire whether any provision can be inserted in the Constitution or the Schedule to be annexed thereto, by which the shares of the stockholders in'the National Banks of this State can be made subject to taxation, in accordance with the acts of Congress, in the absence of legislative action; and if such committee be of the opinion that such provision can be made, that they report to this Convention such opinion, and the clause or clauses to be inserted for that ob.ject., The PRESIDENT. Under the order of the Convention, resolutions of this character can be received only on Tuesdays and Fridays, except by unanimous consent. If no objection is made this resolution will now be entertained.' No objection being made the resolution was entertained. Mr. COOLIDGE. It is known that in pursuance of acts of Congress of 1863 and 1864, the shares of national banks held by individuals can be taxed; and when the securities of the banks are United States securities they can be taxed in no other way. It is furthermore known that there are a large number of that class of banks in this State, the aggregate capital of which I think amounts to some $4,800, 000; I may be mistaken in regard to the precis amount. It is furthermore admitted I believe that there is no law -of this State by which these bonds can now be legally taxed. Should there be no session of the Legislature this next winter, then for the year 1868 this tax cannot be realized by the State. I know that a number of these banks have paid their first semi-annual tax a portion of them I understand have not paid the tax. I furthermore am informed, with how much truth I do not know, but it seems very natural, that inasmuch as a portion of these banks have not paid any tax, those who have heretofore paid have come to the conclusion to pay no more. A tax of one per cent. on these banks would amount to about $48,000. It occurred to me that if any provision, such as my resolution contemplates, could be made, it was desirable that it should be made. I have, therefore, introduced this resolution, and for obvious reasons I have asked that it be referred to the committee on the judicial department. That committee is a large committee and composed of legal gentlemen. Whether such provision can or cannot be made, I cannot tell. I have conferred upon this subject with some of the leading members of this Convention, and have introduced this resolution with their assent. The resolution was adopted. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. ANDRUS. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. PRINGLE in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled Legislative Department." MUNICIPALsAID TO RAILROADS. The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose yesterday, it had under consideration section twenty-seven of this article, which had been amended to read as follows: "The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad, to an extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to pledge its credit for any such purpose, except in the Upper Peninsula. The question of such aid shall be submitted to a vote ofthe city or township to be affected thereby." The pending question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Saginaw, (My. MITT,LER,) to strike out of this section the words, "shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit," and to insert the words, "may authorize any city or township to raise by tax." Mr. LOTHROP. Having failed last night to introduce an amendment which was in order, I now move a substitute for this entire section, as follows: "No county, city or township, shall ever issueits bOLds, or otherwise pledge its credit in aid of any company incorporated for the building of a railroad or making of any other internal improvement; but the Legislature may authorize any city or township, by tax, to raise money in aid of any railroad company or companies: Provided, That the aggregate of all moneys that shall be raised in any one city or township by such taxation, in aid of any and all such companies, shall not exceed ten per centum of the assessed valuation of the taxable property in said city or township: And further provided, That no such tax shall be levied, unless first authorized by the vote of electors of such city or township." The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps the L committee will consent that the substi tute proposed by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) shall be held in abeyance, until -three- other substi tutes ahead of it shall be disposed of. Mr. LOTHROP. That would be ample time. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. Except with the consent of the committee, the substi tute of the gentleman from Wayne would not be in order at the present time. The pending question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. MILLER,) to strike out a portion of this section, and to insert in lieu thereof, the words just stated by the Chair. Mr. FERRIS. Is it in order to offer an amendment for the purpose of perfecting this section, before the substitutes are voted upon? The CHAIRMAN. There being one amendment to the section already pend'ig, it is not in order to offer an amendment, except in connection with that amendment. Mr. FERRIS. My proposition is to insert after the words " construction of any railroad," the words "'plank road, gravel road or turnpike." I do not know whether that comes within the portion proposed to be stricken out. It is the amendment which was offered by the gentleman from Isabella, (Mr. ESTEE,) the other day, and withdrawn; I propose to renew it. The CHAIRMAN. It would not be in order at the present time. The pending question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. MILLER.) Mr. MILLER. For the sake of relieving the Chair from any embarrassment, I wil withdraw my amendment. Mr. FERRIS. I now move to amend the section by inserting after the words, "construction of any - railroad," the words "plank roads, gravel roads, or 182 CONSTJL".VUTIONAT4 -CON'NTIO.W.. 'Thursday, Jul 18 87 EAE P)POEDKS 8 turnpikes." I will state briefly my rea- sons for offering this amendment. The principle of the section having been adopted by the committee, I am anxious' to make it as little objectionable as possible to the opponents of the principle of local aid, who are disposed to fall in with the action of the majority of the committee of the whole. I desire to have this amqndment made for two reasons; the first is, lest hereafter some Legislature, to which applications may be made for authority to a township to grant aid to a plank road, might- be led to infer that none but railroads could be aided in that way, because none but railroads were mentioned in this section; to infer from the fact that railroads being specified here, thereforebthat plank roads, gravel roads and turnpikes, were excluded by reason of not being mentioned. Conceding the proposition of gentlemen, that heretofore the Legislature have had power to d6 all these things, be cause there was no restriction in our present Constitution, still when we come to put in a restriction, and spec ify one thing, that specification, after sucha controversy as we have had here whether such aid should be allow ed at all, might give grounds for a reasonable argument that the Legisla ture was prohibited from authorizing any municipality to grant aid to any other corporations than those specified by name in the section itself. I believe that plank roads and gravel roads, in the northern part of this State, are fully as important to the people there as railroads. They can obtain them long before they can ob fain any railroads; and in order that they may have the benefit of this aid, with the necessary legislation, I desire to have them specified here. Now if gentlemen answer me and say that, be cause plank roads, gravel roads and turnpikes are not specified in this sec tion, the Legislature will be left to authorize the granting of aid to any amount they may see fit, then I say I want the same limitation applied to them that is applied to railroads. It seems to me that such a limitation is as just and reasonable in the one case as in the other Gentlemen will bear in mind that this limitation isnot upon the power to tax and raise money im maediately, to pay for ~ese roads; but the limitation is upon the credit to be given, the debt to be incurred for pay ment at a future day. For these rea sons I am anxious that this amend ment should be made. Mr. CONGER. I would feel under great obligations if gentlemen, who have independent propositions which hose no necessary connection with the one -contained in this section: would take the responsibility of proposing them in their proper places, and let them stand or fall on their own merits. The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,) admits that his Iroposition has nothing to do with this branch of the subject. He is not in favor of this section; he has opposed it vigorously and incessantly from the beginning. He has a pet proposition in favor of plank roads and gravel roads; and I have no objection to his having a section which shall provide for them in any way he chooses. But I cannot tell why he should want, like the cuckoo, to lay his egg in our nest, and ask us to hatch his bantling. It has no connection with this subject, it is a distinct and independent proposition. He has no right to take for his purpose any of the ten per cent. which we ask for our particular purpose. But the object he has in view must be that the young cuckoo shall throw the other fledglings out of the nest, and get all the spoils for itself. We have here a proposition which was reported by the committee on the legislative department, and which has been amended by the committee of the whole. The section as amended has been printed in the journal. Now, I ask gentlemen to look at that section as amended, and say whether it does not embrace all proper restrictions in regard to granting aid to railroads, all the restrictions which a majority of this committee desire? I ask whether it is necessary to have this section now altered and amended, or twisted and changed, until its parentage shall be doubtful, and its own friends cannot recognize it, by such amendments as those proposed by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,) and others? I do not think it is fair, any such warfare as this in committee of the whole or in Convention. Those who have distinct propositions of their-own should make them and stand by them, and let them stand or fall on their own merits. I say. that if the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHOP,,) desires a proposition which shall authorize townships and cities to vote any amount of money by di,'ect tax, in favor of railroads or anything else, he certainly has the liberty, I might almost say the manhood, to bring forward his proposition and let it stand or fall on its own merits, and not intermeddle with the proposition which we desire to pass. * I say that in the scction for which we are contending, the sole question involved is one of credit; that is all there is of it. It involves that ques tion of indebtedness against which the gentleman spoke so zealously and pathetically, that it brought tears within a half an inch of my eyes. [Laughter.] But the proposition which has been read to us this morning, is entirely and absolutely a distinct proposition from the one now under consideration. His proposition relates entirely to taxation, while this relates solely to credit. Now the friends of this particular measure are not discussing the question of taxation; they are not discussing the question of plank roads or gravel roads; they are not discussing the question of mills or manufactories or bridges. The gentleman from Kent (Mr. FRRIs) has proposed a new proposition, which is not embodied in this at all. He desires that we shall share with his pet projects a portion of the credit which the fiends of those measures seek to apply to railroads alone. I will go with the gentleman for any separate proposi tion, to authorize townships to assist in building plank roads and gravel roads; they are improvements which town ships may well give aid to. If he will introduce an independent section for that purpose, I will join hands with him in carrying through such a measure, if it be desirable. But he is not in favor of the principle, as he has told this committee, of aiding any of these internal imprQvements by taxation or by credit. It does not weaken his ob jection to the principle to divide and fritter away this aid among a variety of things, to all of which in my opinion he is opposed. This section as it now stands, I be lieve is satisfactory to its friends; I have heard no complaints against it. It is satisfactory to those who, for dif ferent reasons, have united in favor of this particular restrictive section of the Constitution. So far as I can judge the friends of this section are satisfied with it; with the amendment which was adopted, yesterday, submitting the question of such aid to the city or township to be affected thereby. This section involves a question of pledging Credit; the question of pledging credit in aid of railroads, and not of other improvements. I say here now, as I said yesterday, that those who desire ' this particular subject matter to be in corporated in the Constitution, mnay just as well take their stand one time as another; because if this section with * all the restrictipns and limitations which the committee of the whole have L placed in it, is not now satisfactory to , the enemies of the measure, there is no proposition that can be satisfactory to L them. It is now proposed to so amend this I section, that it will defeat the object - had in view by those who favored the section. It is proposed to make amend ments to it, which will defeat and wea~ ken't, and drive its friends from it. n p e i t i f i I DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS, 183 July 18, 1867. I COS. sTITUTtoNA At, CONVENTIO TuaN. Now, such guerrilla warfare is- all. proper; I do not deny the right of anybody to attack this section directly or indirectly. It is a system of attack which I believe is acknowledged to be legitimate in all legislative and deliberative bodies. I nfind no fault, therefore, with the manner of the attack, or with: the different- propositions made to defeat this measure. But I hpve also the right to request the friends of this measure to stand by-it as it is. How does the section as amended now read? It reads — as follows: "The Legislature shall not authorize any city or-township to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad, to an extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to pledge its credit for any such purpose except in the Upper Peninusala.:The question of such aid shallbe submitted to a vote of the city or township to be affected thereby." Un -til to-day we have been assured that the addition of -the last provision in this: section would give satisfaction to those who were notso much in favor of the ten per cent., but who would be satisfied with it, if the question could be submitted to the people. That has been inserted here; it is favored by many members, and acquiesced in, apparently, by others. That amendment has now been made to the section, and it is now in such a form as it was asserted would be satisfactory. For myself, if the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,) should be adopted, I would rather the section should be lost.' I do not know but what I should consider it better that no section'at all should be put inthe Constitution, but that the whole matter should be left to the Legislature hereafter, to' do as they may choose. A restriction which is utterly worthless, by dividing up the little per centage allowed'here among all-other improvemenrts, is of no use to the friends of this measure. I submit to gentlemen who' are either' theniseives in -favor of:this measure on principle, or who have professed them/selves willing to join us beCause-it is a restriction-I submit that w nwwe have arrived at a fair proposition, upon which we have agreed and united,' fo~r the purpose of aiding as well as-for the p urpose of restricting, there comes a time when we ought to carry out' that undersuanding; and stand by our section.. "'' Mr.',FERRIS. Mr. Chairm,a'n M Mr. CONGER. I have not finished yet., The gentleman has arisen in several instances, immediately after I have, made remarks here,'to say that what I have said is not the law of the land, and should not determine his zv < mInQ-d Ad @X o E o those cases. I wish to say,,forthe benefit of the gentleman,:'that I do not -assume any control here' over him or anybody else. I do no think it necessary that he should attack me and denounce me, as he has done upon three or four occasions, because i assert my own opinions.'I stand orfall by my own sentiments and by myself. A..nd'to say that I attempt to control others, or.to dictate to others, isnot the truth in regard to my practice here. -I wish the gentleman to understand that I express my opinions for myself, for which opinions I am responsible. I make these remarks here, lest it should be thought that I assumed anything of that kind. I desire to express my own opinions and my own wishes, and fo them I am responsible. I'deny the implication that I desire to control others in their'judgment or in their action. Mr. FERRIS.' I rise more for the purpose of explanation than of a,rgument. Mr. DANIELLS. I want to offer an'amendment, and I would be glad to hear the gentleman make some remarks on it. Mr. FERRIS. In a moment. Mr. DANIELLS. I think the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIs,) has already spoken once on thisquestion. The CHAIRMAN. If any other member desires to speak, the gentleman from Kent will not be in order to make further remarks at this time. Mr. DANIELLS. I desire to speak' so far as to offer the following amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS;) to add to his amendment the words' slab roads, saw dust and corduroy roads." Mr. FERRIS. I am glad that amendment was introduced. Mr. BURTCH. I hope'the gentleman will accept the amendment. Mr.'DANIELLS. I thought'the gentleman would be pleased with it; I hope he will acceptit.''i Mr. FERRIS: Yes, it is quite characteristic of my friend' from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS.): The CHIAIRMAN. Does the Chaix understand the gentlemon' from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,)-'to accepts the amendmernt? Mr. FERRIS. I said I was glad that the gentleman had: introduced it; I do not accept it. My friend from St Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) has charged me with others, with engaging in a sort of guerrilla'warfare against this section. I think he had better transfer that charge to the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) and some of the other friends of the proposition of the legislative committee.. I Staed:yesterdai, wd I ae now, that I have opposedrthe principe of this section until overborne by the majority of this committee. I was indcined to yield, and was content to ac,cept-"the principle contained in this isection;, as the settled policy of the State for the future. I did not suppose that'the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. cCONGEiR,) woUl undertake to prevent those:who have honestly opposed his'- proposition rom now sustaining *pS ro p..m it, and while doing so, endeavoring to improve' it, if possible, so that they'can carry it outin good faith, when they find'that-thiS is'to be the settled policy of the State. I do not make any- proposition to'amend for the purpose'of embarrassig this section; I deny any such charge. It was,.uncalled for and unwarranted. The principle contained in this section is the gra'nting of local aid to railroads; that is the principle of the section. But that which was denied on the one side, and contended for on the other, was the right of the Legislature to authorize''townships and cities to vote aid to such'-n corporations. But that principle being established by the vote of the committee so far as it relates to railroads, it certainly can do no harm "to apply the same principle in other cases. -Nor does it follow that, because, a: man is desirous of applying that principle to other cases, he is act'ing in hostility to the principle itself. 'My friend from St. Claoir suggested that I should introduce an independent section. Why'? This section introduces the principle of local aid, and recognizes its existence; it confines it, it is true, to railroads.' I understood my friend from St. Clair to say that by loading down this section with the amendment I propose, we should make it objectionable. I cannot for the life of me see wherein that would be so. It is in no way likely that a plank road is going to run' along or near the line of a railroad'in the same township. That class of improvements will be built in other parts of the State. And the fact that the Legislature is authorized to empower towns in one portion of the State, to grant'aid to plank roads, will not conflict at all with raising the requisite amount of aid for railroads in other parts' of the State. If there is such a strong and determined objection as is urged by the imaginary friends of this section, to my'proposition, that it is going to embarrass them in the adoption or application of their section by having the proposition I have introduced'incorporated into it, I have no objection: to putting it somewhere else.'But I do not understand that, because I have opposed the principle of local aid, I ~ mto lie id ha $tking pr't' 184 -Thur.sday, July 18, 186w. DEBAT]tS API) PROOEI. _,r.8' the action on this section, or any other section of the proposed Constitution in this Convention. I do not understand that, because the friends of this principle have triumphed in committee of the whole, they therefore constitute the Convention, and the rest of us become mere outsiders and hangers-on, dancing in attendance upon their will and pleasure. I think the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) should have accepted my statement yesterday, when I said I was disposed to submit to the decision of the Convention. I was opposed, not to aid to railroads alone, but to the proposition authorizing local aid at all; I was opposed to any such section in the Constitution. I stated then, and I reiterate the statement now, that the principle lost a great many of its objectionable features by the addition of the clause submitting the question of aid to the peopole. It might perhaps be comparatively satisfactory. It was satisfactory, of course, as being the principle of the majority of the Convention; but it would be still more satisfactory in its effects, by having the clause attached to it submitting the matter to the vote of the people. I acted in good faith in opposing the principle. Being conquered in my opposition, and the principle being incorporated as a part of this Constitution, by the majority of this Convention, and the decision of this Convention having recognized this principle, I propose to be treated no longer as an alien enemy, but as a friend, and to act honorably in that capacity. And whatever amendments I may introduce will be introduced, not to embarrass the principle, but to aid in its application, and if possible to lessen opposition to it. If they shall have a contrary effect, if they shall tend to produce embarrassment and opposition, it will not be because I so intend. I will state in regard to the substitute which I introduced when the question was first before the committee the other day, that I see no necessity for action being taken on it, and, there fore, at the proper time I will with draw it. There is no use in having the same question tested over and over again. Hr. LONGYEAR. The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIs,) informs us that he, and I understand him to in clude all other enemies to this measure of granting local aid, will submit to the decision of the majority here. Mr. FERRIS. I speak only for myself Mr, LONGYEAR. Then for him self he makes that statement. It seems to me that this submission, and the - ubmission of the other~ to the major ~Q1 — 2 o. ity, is something like the submission of our erring southern brethren after we had whipped them by our armies; they "accept the situation." Our erring brethren, it is true, accepted the situation and laid down their arms, but they commenced forthwith to harrass and kill off and drive away every Union man from their territory, and to establish their old rebel rule; they resorted merely to a different mode of warfare. I do not complain of ithere; it is a legitimate mode of warfare. From long usage, it has come to be legitimate for the enemies of a measure, when they fail to defeat it entirely, to defeat it, if possible, by piece-meal, to load it down and embarrass it by objectionable provisions, so as either to render it so objectionable to its friends that they will not vote for it, or to render it ineffectual if adopted. Now, I wish to call the attention of the friends of this measure, to this kind of warfare and to warn them against it. Let us look for a moment at the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRis,) and see if it is not in its character exactly that which I stated in the outset. If the amendment of the gentleman from Kent is adopted, it may operate in many cases, and must operate necessarily, as an absolute prohibition of any aid to some one or fore of the projects named. Let us see if it is not so. That gentleman, as well as some other gentlemen upon this floor, seem determined to misapprehend the character of this section, and to treat it as a grant of power, instead of what it really is, a restriction of power. The power already exists as was conceded by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) the other day. He conceded that the uniform current of the decisions of the courts was to the effect that this power exists; although he seemed to have some faint glimmer of hope that in the future the current of decisions will be somewhat different. Yet the power exists, as much in rela tion to gravel roads and to plank roads, as to railroads. This section is a restriction of that power. Now, let us see how it will operate, if the amendment of the gen tleman from Kent is adopted. The restriction is placed at ten per cent for any and all the projects named in the section. Now, suppose you add to railroads, plank and gravel roads. Then the Legislature authorizes certain townships or cities to grant aid to the amount of ten per cenL to certain rail road projects. Are not they thereby absolutely prohibited from granting aid to plank or gravel roads thereafter, the limit having been reached? effect unless the plank road was in the same township with the railroad? Mr. LONGYEAR. Of course the gentleman's amendment could have no effect on a plank road,'or a gravel road, in Canada, or in Ohio, or in any other township than one in this State. Mr. FERRIS. But suppose the plank road is in Isabella county, and the railroad is in this county, how would it operate then? Mr. LONGYEAR. Suppose the railroad and plank road are both in Isabella county; how would it operate then? Mr. FERRIS. If they were in the same township this would affect it. Mr. LONGYEAR. Certainly. Mr. MILLER. I rise to a point of order. When the committee of the whole commenced operations yesterday, it was upon my motion to strike out all of this section after the words "aiding in the construction of any railroad." That question I believe has not yet been decided. - The CHATRMAN. Accordming to the recollection of the Chair, that question was decided some time yesterday.: Mr. MTILLER. Does it so appear upon the' journal? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is informed by the Secretary that it so appears upon the corrected journal. Mr. MLTTLER. The Chair will pardon me for making the point of order. Mr. LONGYEAR. The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FiRRIs,) said in his interruption justnow, that what I have stated would not be the effect of his amendment, if the plank road was located in one county or township and the railroad in another. That, it seems to me, is entirely begging the question. I was speaking of the case where aid was authorized by the Legislature, to the limit of ten per cent., in a township or series of townships upon the line of any railroad, and said that would preclude the granting of aid in that series of townships, to any gravel or plank road in those townships. Mr. FERRIS. Except within the limit of ten per cent. Mr. LONGYEAR. If the gentleman is in earnest in desiring a restrictions upon gravel roads and planksroads, then he should offer his proposition-as an independent section; otherwise, it will conflict with this provision. If the Legislature, in the first instance, should authorize this aid to be given to plank roads and to gravel roads, then it would operate as a prohibition of aid to any railroad in the same townships. Mr. McCLELLAND. Will the gen tleman right here, permit me to ask him a question, because I do not un derstand this thing myself?..~'.: D-P,P-ATES -AND PROCEEDINGS. Ju'ly 18, 1867. 185 86 OOTITUTIOAL COVETIO. Thursday,. -Mir. -MccLELLAND. Suppose there has been a levy of ten.-per,- cent..for a railroad, and the tax has been levied, collected:a'd paid, ana the township is not indebted a single farthing; does he understand this section to preclude thie issUig: of'-.bbnds again by that twnshipsfor another ten per cent2.?. i. LONGYEA. Certainly, they can issue them, after the first have been paid.. Mr. MrCLELLAND. Does this seti'on.lmi' the aid.; to ten per cent. for all'time to come? Mr. LONGYEAR. No. - - Mr. McCLELLAND.- Then, if I understand the gentleman, ten per cent.. may be levied this years and a: tax raised, and; that ten per' cent. p.aid off Next year-they; may levy. another ten per cent,which they can. pay off,. Ad SQ, they can go on, so long as they can Beep.the townshi out of debt beyond the limit,of ten: per cent. Mr. LONO.A I have no doubt that would be tlie,' cnstruction of this .sectionI.- iwas-goig to make some remarks upon that very proposition. Gentlemen opposed to this measure seem to argue this question -as though this provision was, inm. and of itself, an nimposition. of a tax, or of a debt upon- the towshipAs; as though the people who.'. were to be. taxed were to have nothing to, say upon the subjeet.. Or at all events- that the section authorizes the Legislature to impose this indebtedness,..year after year; that as often as the debt shall be paid off, the.:Legislature may.impose it again. Why, sir, te whole question isleft with the people.;; by the amendment which was adopted on yesterday, the' question is so left by an express provision of the Constitution. itself; therefore, there is no possibility of this matter baing taken out of the hands of the people. If the people,- after they have once incurred an indebtedness 'nd paid it off, are well} enough satis fleda wi,th the: enterprise,-with whatthey shall: have gaimed by the former. idebtedness, they can incur a like indebtedness for a new project, or.t aid still '.fut:her the oldao'ne~'. A,d whose business is it but the'ir.own? It isjust the same as in- any other business transaction. If I shall have gone into busi.,. -, ~~!i:ae..o....:..mt~ bui,:. ness in onoelinem of busies-, commer'cial or otherwise, and shal:lhave incur red a large indebtedness,.anad I shall have paid it off, and thereby rendered myself richer by the enterprise, and another entierprise of the same kind offers itself, whose busness is it -if I etenr -int that one:? Would I not be considered a ff6ish man, if I had the opportunt:y and didd ino improve it? Sir,.', cofdAilt! debt! debt w hio iba'een' r"aise he're agaimns this whole scheme, is not an unfanmilar one to my: ears. In- that body,'where for four years during the great rebel.lion, I was honored with a seat, whenever any project came up which was distasteful to: certain gentiemen, the changes- were ri'g: upon wthat word debt,?' to -their full.extent. But stil this goverinment went on, and iled up debt upon debt, and -debt upon debt, util-it exceeded the enormous sum of hree billions of dollarsl But since that time, we have seen that debt rapidly- diminishing, and taxation dinmin~ishing.at the same time. Who is frightened at. the cry of debt now, when a little pittanc- of ten per cent. on-the valuetion of property is asked for internal improvements? When we see the veast recuperative energies of this country, its exhaustless resources, its enormous debt diminishimg tosuch Earapid extent as not only to astonish ourselves, but to uttey bewilder ad ~n'o:fd'd the statesmen and finan cier of ~the old 1country, shall we-be frightened o:ff from buildmg our own railroads by the cr'y of,s debt," when: the amount of that debt is limited to ten per cent.? It seems to me that our experience for the last few years has.. been such that that cry ought not to have been raisedi or, at all events, it ought not to frighten us when it is raised. Mr. LOTHROP?. I came into the Conve.ntion yesterday morning, intending- further to discuss this general question, if I might do so without trespassing upon the Convention, be, yond what I thought due to propriety. But a vote which was taken early in the nmornmg showed to me, as I then thought, that there. was' so strong a majority of this oinvention i favor-of the general principle of authorizing the pledging of: credit for this purpose, that I would not be justified in furtheir speaking and simply consuming the time of the,Convention; a thin.g which I would not allow myself to dd at any time,;when I was' aware of eit. But I "did not thereby gives.atacit pledge even to myself, or an impliedapledge to anybody else, that I in any manner accepted the proposition before the Conven-. tion. I; had on the previous day ex-plicitly stated my objections to the whole of these propositions. To those 'objections — I still adhere.. I intended at -the proper time to bring before the Convention certain modiffications of this measure. I do no Sintend:to ask time to speak upon those propositions, but merely to submit them to a vote of the Convention.. - - I do not understand that the learned chairman of the "com'mittee. who has reported this article, (Mr.. Co..e',) and has taken.char.geof thisai''ular sec-' -til has any rigt to assue that nBo body else in this Convention,shall Submit any other proposition. Has he any right to assume that a particular proposition, as presented by himrnself or anybody else, is the form which shall finally be adopted by this committee of the whole, or by the.-Conv,ention? Let me say that the gentleman would feel justly offended if'I should assume that_. he had organized ring, and that they had prescribed the form which was to be adopted,- and that nobody: else was to be pemitted to move any amendment to it; I say he would be offended if I should say that. And yet his language almost forces that idea upon us, when he turnsa around to those- whom he claimsxare with him upon this subject, and says that they must stand fast against any assault; and-when he, says that any amendment, although offered im good faith, is laying an egg in his nest. I do not suppose that he intends, by any means, -that he has any organization which it is assort of saerilege, or dishonor, or insult,-to: interfere with. Yet his language would seem t imply that. He specifically refers to several of us when we have moved amend ments which he calls assaults, and wants to know if we have not the man:hood- to present those propositions s-eparately, and keep them away from 'thiS one. Now, if I understand our positionand if I do not,- I want to understand itthis is a deliberative body. Any proposition which is brought up here is presented for deliberation, consider aetionl, and correction; and it is not to be considered as finally settled until ihe last and final vote shall be taken upon it, either in the committee of the whole or in the Convention. I have so viewed the matter, have so acted, and :have felt myself at liberty both to vote for amendments and to offer them myself; and it- was with that new only that I moved the amendment which I offered this morning.: I said the other day that I was irrevocably committed against the idea of towns: lending their credit for any such purpose. I said still further then, as .I say now, that if any such method is admissible at all, it is a method by which the town shall determine what money it has to spare for such a purpose, what: money it feels itself capable of devoting to such purposes, and then, precisely as. an individual would do, take that money from its fumds and pay it out.: avow that to be my judgment; and I desire at the proper time, and I intend at the proper time, to bring that proposition before this committee,- and before the Convent.'ion, -and let:them v0ote upon it. I am not Iresponsible; foil thei dispo~sition of it; CONS.LJL-L ONAL ' COls, VENTION. I 11 - --------------.......... .1 -... 11., i'..-..-.. - . .- 1.. - ,., , - I..-., -I...ll......... 7.. Th,u-rgd-a ' . -i.Y, 186 11 Tuly 18, 1867. i', but I am responsible for bringing the matter before them- and I intend so to do. Let me say still farther, while I am upon the floor, as I-have been referred to;by gentlemen here, especially on yesterday by the gentleman'rom Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR.) He assumed that I had misled the Convention: on a point, where I would have no business —to mislead them, because it was to be presumed that I knew whereof I was speaking. He said that I had misled the Convention in asserting that a railroad company was a private and not a public corporation. I did not use the word s" corporation " at all in my remarks in that connection, nor were.my remarks directed to that end at all. The committee will remember that I was speaking to -this point; I was saying that railroad enterprises were -no part of the purposes for which townships were organized; that townships were organized for governmental purposes, andto exercise that portion of government which is committed to that portion of the governmental organization. I said that matters of railroad enterprise were matters of private enterprise. I was drawing a distinction between that class of powers which relate to government, and that class- of functions which relate to industrial and trading enterprises..If I was -not very successful in my -illustrations, the committee will remember at least how earnest I was in the illustration which I made on this subject. I now repeat that the propositions which I then asserted are unassailable, that railroads belong not to govern-, mental- enterprises, but.to trading,: commercial or business enterprises. But I go still farther; had I ftold.-the committee that a railroad was a private corporation, in the technical sense of the term, I should not have misled thecommrittee. I now aver, speaking as a lawyer, that a railroad is, in the technical sense of the term, a private corporation." And I go still further; I aver that the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan, have never decided any other way.- I am perfectly well aware of- the decision in the case of " Swan es. -Williams," reported im the 2nd Michigan Reports. I have been aware of it for many years;'I know precisely what was decided in that case. It de-: cided this, neither more nor less: that the power of -eminent domain which rests in the sovereignty," need not be exercised by the sovereignty directly, but fin certain cases may be delegated toQ a corporation to be exercised. I cannot claim that I was ignorant that uch a decision. had been made;'because' professionally I have had occasion repeatedly to exercise that delega ted sovereignty. That was the point, and the only point, decided in -the case of ".Swan vs. Williams." It is true that the judge who delivered that opinion, in the delivered opinion, not only decided the point involved, but he -did something more. In' his discussion he used language which we technically call " dicta," and which went beyond the point involved, and laid down certain positions that are not correct. He did say, as was read here yesterday, that this class of .o0rporations, for -certain purposes, ought ratherto be called public than private corporations. But -he did not decide any such thing. The onlypoint in the case wa, whether the State of Michigan' must exercise eminent domain directly, or whether it could delegate it to a corporation!known as the Pontiac railroad company. -The court decided that that power could be delegated, and such had - been-,'the decision long years before. - -,But let me say further; I aflrm that it is'well settled that a railroad company is a..private corporation. Now, lest I might be' supposed to be in error on that point, I refer to a standard text-book. I could refer to other standard text-books; but I refer to a common standard text-book on this subject, "'Redfield on:-Railways," from which I read as follows:-. "Railways inthis country, although common Carriers of freight and: passengers,.and -in some senses regarded aS public Works, are ordinarily private corpor.ations. By private corporations nothing more: is implied - than that the stock iS owned by private- persons. If the stock is owned.exclusively by the State, the corporation is a public one, and such public corporations are under the. control olf the Legislature, the -same as -municipal. cor — porations, and.ordinarily acquire no,sutch vested rights of property as are beyond the control of legislative authority. The American cases going to confirm'. this proposition and to show that railways are private corporations,. are numer6us.'" There are cited in the note followwi-g that, perhaps twenty cases, [and not a dissenting case. — The. only -instance, to :my knowledge, in w.hich the case of S8wan vs. Williams is referred to on this subject, is. to'. disapprov.e the lan-. guage of the judge. And I now assert that it is the doctrine of-the textbooks, from the beginning, thate a public corporation is only a corporation organized by the government, for general or; limited governmental lpurposes. —-- It is only such a corporation that -is, dieeed to be a public corpbration; except:thait: it is said -in some;- cases, and it-is refer-. red to here, that -where -the State' incorporates a body, an'd takes itself..all the stock, that also is a:public corporation:. Buit the'-authorities on this subject are- not uniform. -But ever since the decision -.in the- case- of the Pleater,'s'a]nk' of- Gergia, tin. — has ....,,,:,- -,_,...,. I.- b........e....... d c e t _ -h r a. S t.,a takes stock in a corporation, the fact that it so takes stock does not malce that corporation a public'corporation, but it still remains a rrivate corporation. Therefore,' had I said to the convention directly, that a railroad, corporation was a private corporation, [should have. been correct in a technial sense. But what I did sa'y, and what I repeat to-day, is that a railroad corporation is not to be classed as exercising those powers which are committed to the fundamental organization of towns; namely, the exercise f certain goerumental powers. I repeat again that a r'ailroad corporation is an erganization for industrial, trading, or commercial purposes, and in that view it is strictly a private concern. It is entirely true that, 6r the exercise of the right of eminent domain, it is deemed that such a corporation may exercise that right, when delegated to it by the state. It Lias in its operations Qr objects, enough f public interest or public benefit to receive that delegated power. Did I not say to the committee tho other day, that no man could exceed y ideas of the importance of railroad corporations for the public interests? [ recognize the advantages of these corporations. I state this by way of explanation, so that I cannot be said to h,av'e misled the committee at aL Mr. CONER' Willie gentleman ow me to make a single inquiry? ure. -; - fr. CONGER. -I would inquire whether c Redfield on Railways" does nIot say, in the first note just after.the twenty authorities.eited,-hatalthough they are private corporations tey'eercise public:functions, and to that extent are treated in Law and in pracie as public institutions? M r.- LOTH.-ROP. I, shall best answer the gentleman by reding -the 'note, whateer it is.:: -:-. - a?.i.:: M r'r. COGER.:The note I refer to is the first note on the first page comnmen.c:-mg.the.subjeet.:..-;.:.-, a.'I M-gr. LOTH.R P. That note is before me, and I will-re-ad it;- is as folLows: , There is no necessity for these public func, tions being confined- to ggregate corporations, as is the universal practice in this country. The same tun'ctions and immunities might be conferred upon -any -private person, at. the.-election of the Legislature, as vas done by the Legislature of: New York upon'Julton and Livingston, in regard'. to steamboat navigation,:which grant was held valid- but for the United States Constitution. And whoever wasthe grantee, the same rights, duties and liabilities would result from the grant, whether to a natuiral person or to a corporation." ., C. adieu. -The-ot.p.roi.o to that. - - i - D 'AN G * :D,B *.... - - -P- -R. _. _....I.... [S 188:O~~TIUTIO~AL. -V]~~TIO~ Mr. LOTtitOP. I have read the very first note, and the very first words of the- note. What I have read is the whole of the first note, and the whole of the note on that subject. Mr. CONGER. I had the book making memoranda when the gentleman sent for it, and'I may have been mistaken in the place to which I wish to refer. I think that recognizes the doctrine which I claim; I will, however, pursue the inquiry myself, and make the search myself. Mr. LOTHROP. My answer to that inquiry is, that it is entirely immaterial, so far as the question of public or private corporations is concerned, whether it exercises public functions or not. The United States Bank-I refer not to the first, but to the second one which is known as the United States Bank-is a case in point. The very ground on which the constitutional lawyers of that time, who construed constitutions differently from what they are now construed, rested the right- to have corporations established by the United -States Government, was this: that where the wants of the government demanded a financial agent, the Legislature was the judge of what that financial agent should be. If Congress declared that it was proper to incorporate a bank as that financial agent, they might do so; and that financial agent might exercise a great many public functions. And more than. that; we have all around us corporations -most unquestionably private, that exercise public functions, and some of them the very highest public functions. -, Mr. CONGER. The note to which I referred is the third note. Mr. LOTHROP. The third note is a note to the portion of the —text which I:read. First it cites a large number of cases and then it proceeds thus: -" The last case, [Thorpe v. R. & B. R. 27 Vermont Reports, 140,] discusses at some length the right of legislative control over private corporations, whose functions are essentially public, like those of' banks and- railways. The importance of such control, within reasonable linmits and under proper restrictions, both to the public interest and that of these corporations, will.be obvious when we consider the magnitude of the interests committed to such corporations, and the vast amount of capital invested in such enterprises. We make no account of the banking capital of the-country, most of which is occupied in business more or less connected with railway traffic. But the capital and business of railways is almost incalculable." I read that with the very greatest pleasure. But I submit to every gentleman of this committee, whether. it in any manner interferes or conflicts with the propositions which I have made to the committee? I-assert that it does not. Before I was referred to in this matter, I said that private corporations often exercised public functions, but that did not make them public corporations at all. Where there are no restraints upon the Legislature, it is perfectly competent for it to delegate the exercise of various of its functions to corporations. And I was going to refer to several instances where it did so. I have already said that the only point decided in the case of Swan vs. Williams, was whether the right of eminent domain could be delegated to private corporations. It was decided there, as it has been uniformly decided everywhere else, so far as I know, that the right of eminent domain could be delegated to - private corporations, where the interests of the public involved in the corporation are sufficient -to call for the exercise of that power. Now, to resume the thread of my argument where I was interrupted. I said that very many of the most important functions were frequently devolved upon private corporations. The coining of money is one of the incidents of sovereignty. With the coining of money, the establishment of a currency is inseparably connected. Now, from the beginning of this country, the establishment of a currency has been delegated to private corporations, and is to-day delegated to private corporations. The bank notes all over this country are incidents of the exercise of the functions of sovereignty in the hands of a private corporation. Whether wisely or not, is of no consequence; I only speak of the facts. It is so, and under our organization will probably remain so. If time would permit, I might cite numerous other instances familiar to every lawyer. The point, an.the only point of value in this case, the point which I pressed upon the committee day before yesterday, is this: what is the essential nature of the business that is carried on by a railway corporation? Is that business governmental business; or business that belongs to any department of the government of the State, county, or town? If it is, then it may properly be exercised by towns. But if it is in its nature industrial, trading or commercial, then it is a matter of private concern, which should belong to private individuals, either in their individual capacities, or in their associated capacity, as joint stock corporations or joint stock bodies. There is no man on this floor who denies my position, that the business of a railway company is in its very nature trading or commercial. Therefore, I say now, as I said before, that it is a function not properly to be exercised by towns or any other department of the gov ernment; and least of all by towns which are the least adapted to it. I had not intended to refer to it, but my learned friend over the way, (Mr. CONGER,) gives me so much attention that he must permit me to refer to what he saild on this subject the other day. I find myself going beyond what I intended when I rose, but I trust the committee will indulge me for a moment. The only argument that was made upon this subject in reply to what I said was that made by my learned and wide-awake friend when he said that railways were unknown when townships originated, whether in the way of "hundreds" in England, or in any other form. I think that townships originated under the auspices of the Puritans. However the fact of their origin may be, he said that railroads did not exist then, and therefore the recognition of railroads was not included in the organization of townships. Did that satisfy the committee as well as it.satisfied my friend? If it did, then it would be quite idle for me to address arguments to them here. We have been told long ago that there is no parrying a jest. Anid very many positions, sharp, clear and decided, have been blunted by a well directed jest. However much credit liay redound from them to the wit of 'the person who interposes this shield, there is no reply to them. I ask is there any other answer to the position than that? Had my learned friend said that when townships were organized, private industry and private enterprises and organizations for enterprise were unknown, then there might have. been some point in his answer. But when forms of industry, of which this is only a new form, precisely the same.in character, were then as well known to the ingenuity and wit of man as they are known to-day, and were excluded from the idea of township organizations then, it must be because the township organization was something essentially different from them. Did the township organizations recognize banking as proper to itself? Or did it recognize any of the forms of manufacturing as proper to itself? Not at all; and yet they all then existed. What did the clear-minded and just men who produced that great contrivance of human wisdom-the township organization-what did they recognize? They recognized this: that there are certain essential functions of government which are distinguished and distinguishable from private, individual, trading and commercial enterprises. They drew the line; matters of government were given to the town; matters of industry and commerce, -and t s TI'u COS' T TIOAL —, CONVFXTIOX. -Thutsda,y 1'88 July 18, 1867. DEBATES AD PROGEEDIGS. 189 private enterprise were left to individuals, or to corporations organized of individuals. I would also say to this committee,and to my friend on the other side, (Mr. CONGER,) that he knows full well that it is one of the merits of all organizations under the common law, that they consist of certain principles which are easily and with facility adapted to any new condition of things. Now, if the principle of the organization of towns recognized as primarily within their 'scope, commercial enterprises, they would be expanded into these new enterprises. But if they did not recognize it they would exclude all these new forms. It is one of the great merits of an organization under the common law that it has this peculiarity. Now I wish to go further; the essential form of the township excludes all participation in private enterprises. I affrim that it is just as consistent with that idea to make me, as a member of that township, a partner in a banking concern, in a manufactory, or in a peddler's wngon, as to make me a partner in a- railroad corporation. For the moment I put my aid or assistance in that railroad enterprise, I am a partner in it to a certain extent, or I contribute to it, and I thereby become a participator in it. Or if I am not a partner, it is simply that I am required to give my aid absolutely as a gift or donation, instead of retaining any in terest to be derived from that gift. Will any. gentleman contend that a township should embark in a State or national bank; although I might dem' onstrate to the satisfaction of this committee, that the:establishment of a national bank is for the interests of the town? No man will do that. Or, if I could rear upon this beautiful stream here in this place, a flourishing and thriving manufactory, I should enhance "that augmentation of the valuation of property here, spoken of so proudly by the gentleman from Ingham, (Hr. LONGYEAR.) I wish- to push the matter home to gentlemen. They say, shall not the people of a township do just what they have a mind to do? I answer that at once; do not pause'here and be inconsistent; at once create your town ship, and in the organization of the township declare that it shall be com petent for the township to become a parner in any and every industrial enterprise whatever. Say that.the people will limit the matter as; they ought; that the judgment of the peo ple will not err in this; that the people will go just so far as they ought to go, and no further. Mr. Chairman?,: the argument is too fallacious to be dwelt upon. The real ground is this; a township is organized for purposes entirely alien to these. A township is a particular organization, for governmental- purposes alone; and it should not be permitted for a moment to transcend those purposes. If it does, then its distinguishing character as a township ceases to exist. There is not a gentleman within the hearing of my voice, I do not care whether he has great or little confidence in the people, who will agree to impress on this Constitutution, and, therefore, upon the organization of the State of Michigan, the declaration that a township organization exists for any and all purposes, public and private, governmental and commercial, which the people of that township by vote, shall wish and determine. Therefore, the matter of the vote of the people, has or ought to have nothing whatever to do with it. The -inquiry should be, what is proper for the people of thlat township in its capacity as a town? All those things which are proper for them, let the electors of that town do. But for all purposes that lie beyond its limits, the town should no more venture to interfere with them, than the town should venture to interfere in theological matters; the one is as alien to the proper organization of the township as another. -' Now,- in regard to'debt! debt! debt!- three times repeated," says the gentleman, do- we not know that pledging credit means debt? But do we not know that "pledging credit" is a great deal smoother phrase than "debt?" Do we not kn~ow that men who cannot be carried over a rough road, can often be beguiled to pass over a smooth one? I object to going over the road at all, and therefore I have opposed- the thing from the beginning. But if we go over, I want that we should go consciously, because we do neither ourselves nor the people justice, when we talk here in the Convention as if we or the people were infallible. We are all open to inconsistencies; we are all misled and misguided; we are creatures of impulse; we move not by reason or logic, but we are creatures of a thousand passions, and are swayed to and fro like a reed in the wind. I have nQ flattery to offer to the people. Devoted all my life, to-day as when I began, to an unyielding faith that popular institutions on the whole, are better than any other, I know that they are as fallible as any other works of man. I believe our safety in popular- institutions, as well as in any other, is in the form and organization of the laws, where the limits and boundaries are distinctly prescribed, and where in our wandering path, our steps are aided, oa the'right hand and on the left, by monuments which'shall guide, instruct and save us. This is my view of popular institutions, and the ground of my faith in the pcople. When the people are organized as a township, I want the people to exercise township authority. When they step outside of that, and act in their individual capacity, I am for removing restraints and restrictions, and opening the path to- enterprise and trade, free almost as the winds. I would'-have every man subscribe to industrial enterprises -as he may choose. But -I would not put his property at the c'.trol of the- vote of organizations which do not deal with property. Let me illustrate right here; eminent domain is one of the very highest attributes of sovereignty, without which no government could exist, and which every government exercises. Yet, following the examples that have been laid down for us almost from the baginning in the very arrangement under the new Constitution which we are framing, as well as in the Constitution which now exists, what have we done? We have declared that this right of eminent domain, one of the very highest of the prerogatives -of sovereignty, shall not be exercised as against the property of a private indi-: vidual without just compensation to him. Now, the State cannot take' my land,.cannot take your land, without giving you and me individual compensation. And yet, what do gentlemen here: propose? They propose in effect to authorize a certain section of thatsovereignty, acting through the township organization, actually and effectually to take the property of an individual against his- consent, to the extent of ten per cent., and give himn no individual compensation whatever. It would be no answer to me; it is no legal, logical answer to say, that, he may have the benefit of the railroad, or other enterprise which may be constructed. Why -should not the government say to him: "I take your property for the purpose of building a fort; you get your compensation in the protection which that fort will afford you with the rest of society.". Mr. GIIDDINGS. Will the gentle-. mIan allow me to ask him a question'? Mr. LOTHROP.: With great pleasure.,. Hr. GIDDINGS. If we pass no restrictive clause such as is proposed here, would not the towns then, in the opinion of the gentleman, have the right to grant aid to these railroads? - Mr. LOTHROP. I said the other day, and I thought I made the state ment explicitly, that under the pre vailing decisions of some seventeen _ State courts, followed up by the decis 0............ _ ion of the Supreme Cour of the United States, that is now declared to be law. r. G-IDDINGS. Then would it not be/better to restrict this- authority than-to leave it, free? M:r. LOTIROP. I am in favor of that. SIhave not argued imnfavor of !eaving it without restriction. I stated the:other.day here -that there shduld be.a restriction;'that the town'ship should not be permitted to pledge its Wre.it,'and;'the Legislature should not be permitted to authorize it to pledge itds~redit for this purpose. I said still further, not'that I expected that these decisions would be reversed, but I said that there had grown up'a dissentig opinion on this subject, grounded upon this idea; that as the organization d the township-andof the county, and of *fle city, did not authorize a participation in'these industrial enterprises, therefore when- these towns, cOUnties and cities received.their impress under the Constitution it -was not proper to authorize them.to go beyond it. That: opinion has been growing up upon a further consideration of the matter. I do not expect ithat consideration will take effect in the courts, but I feel as confident as I live that it will in time tak~e. ffect in the ConstitutoinS liio whi shall hereafter be revised.: Mter communities have suffieiently tasted all the bitterness of this cup, of' permitting township, county and other organizations, to enter into trading enterprises, they will declae by a: restriction: that this' siall not be:visited upon their: children as it has been upon: them. I: want "it to. g6o.-forth, not.only im the amendments I'have:before offred,.'buti in the one I have just sent to the Chair,; that it shall not — be competent for c'0i'nty, city, or town to pledge its oreit in any form. And the permission contained' in- my amendment:for them' to gran~t aid by' tax,- I;'have pro-: posed, not becae I:thought it- should Se:.razted,:but because if. it is to.be t,-ed at —all, that'is the least iinjurios way,. that is the-:best way in which it mcang'be done, for- -the -whole loss will lie met andi shouldered at once.:: But as -I was saying when inter opted, it- is phi a14wer legal or othlerwX'~e to say, tha-t —when a m~ah's land- is taken'for a fort by th-e government in the exercise of the right of eminent domain,- or for a railroad, orfor- a mill, dr forr any other public benefit-it -is no answer to —Say to- a man-",You will receive' your benefit.among the:general benefits'.th at will crown the cornmuni-tyby reason of.this undertaking." Thbe'rule is, that he shall be individu-: ally rnmdemnifi'ed. I:own property m: a township: where it: is supposed a rail — r~oaQ w'illbe:.built.: The'peoop' lOf that township want -me to subscribe to the railway..I say, "no; I have considered it well; I do not choose to sub:cribe to it, neither ten, -twenty, forty or fifty per cent." -"-Why not?" "iI do not think it is in the right place; I do not think it will pay-; I will not go for: it." Then what is done? The town -steps in and takes its ten per cent. of my property; and if it may take ten per cent., it may with the same propriety take fifteen, twenty, thirty or fifty per cent. of my property and devote it to that railway. If I am a- nonresident, I cannot'vote upon that matter myself.: I say to the town-" You ought not to take nmy property for that purpose." -"'.,' Oh, - but; you -will get a benefit from it."' I say that -if the State comes and takes my property, and places a railway on it, then you cannot pay me in that way. You must give me- individual compensation. Can you take my-property to build a railway, aind pay m.e in this way? The:reasoning is- fallacious.. But, say gentlemen, you bought your land subject- to all this; you- knew you would be subject. to taxation. I say,; certainly I-knew that; I say that is not: the ordinary power of taxation, because that goes to: governmental purposes and-no further. I might be permitted by You, Mr. Chairman,- (Mr. PlImNLin:the Chair,) for you used the language the other -day, to answer as is eften answered in matters of contracts.: I might say, non haec:in fwdera veni.- I: did not — enter into any such covenant or contract. I went-'into that township, and agreed that my property should be subject to all taxation for governmental purposes, for schools, for highways, and for all those — >purposes which belong to the administration of government: in -that town. -.When- I bought my property. there- under the: Constitution,: I agreed that my property.shuld4 ha sub ect to Bt.h t.ati'on, and i Will be bound by"it. -But'I did not consent that that town should -beturned into apprivate corporation, and that my property in that town should: be vested in ""saw-mills, or railroads, -or taken for any such -purposes.'Nowthat is a complete, decisive:answer; and ] believe there is nqt a gentle' ian; in this comRittee who does not recagnise, With; mee, that that is a complete, deoisive answeron:that'subject.''; Mr. BURTCH.'Will:the gentleman allow me to ask hi one question? -:Mr.- LOTHROP.'- If the gentleman: 'will agree not to inffict:upon: me- the. compliment he proposed yesterday, I will give way: to'hin. -': -: - -:him. Mr. -BURTCH.. The- question I would as — is-:this: suppose -that the: government, which you speak of, should conclude instead oQf bilig hgwatys Eas they now build-them, that they would build railroads upon every sec tional line, would that be within the meaning of the law? -Mr. LOTHROP. The question is not a difficult one to answer, if I have inot already answered it. If a railroad can serve the purpose of a public highway, so as to -take its place in that part of' the government: used for laying out what is called the "king's highway;" if railroads can be made to serve that~ purpose in -the organization, then most unquestionably railroads might come' within the category of governmental functions. But the gentleman might just as well ask me if:lumber manufac tured from saw logs can become a part 'of the governmental institutions, and .cannot the manufacture be carried on by the town? - I might now add an illustration on :this subject of- corporations, which would otherwise have escaped me, — It: has been sometimes said that a railway is a highway. There. is some little ret mote analogy between a railway' and a highway. But it is so little, thatwhen lawyers or courts have undertaken to -apply it;-they' have broken down.: The Legislature of the- State of New York attempted to appropriate the highways of that —-State -in some instances,:to0 railway-crporations.' for the- purpose f- building railroads on-them, and they. Were built on them. The question was this: is the- appropriation of a: high-' way to the use of a railway, an appropriation of ^-"that highway, or only' a::modified use of that highway.? — For if it is a highway still, it is: within the power of the Legislature, and- it may be so administered. But-it was de — cided that the.faot'was: otherwise. It was'-decided that even the'Legislature which has control over highways,: could not appropriate it to a- railroad corm pany!fo.the- purposes.-of a railway; and where it had been done, the owner of the aSdjacent premises was permitted to bring his action of ejectment to drive the railway off the highway,:It was held that it was a diversion of the highway-fom the purposes of a highway; and that, being such a diversi':on,X the'adjacent-' owner- of property had the right ta have' his damages assessed, and his property win the highwa taken:; from him before it could be diverted to the use of a - railway. It is a railway,:and not a highway that the king's subjects could travel-on- at their ple'siire, with cart,s, mules, horses, wagons, etc. -- A railway is a: way for a priv'ate corporation with. its private wagons for: fthe- transportation of its'.freight and passengers. 1 Mr. rBURTCH.- I believe they made. it a-common highway dolwn: south., -Mr. L9TW P. You hiv'not 190_ 0ON/ I'TIO MA. CO NEN i! TiON.e .Thursday, Jul 18 187 DEBTE Af PRCED S:; much of a common highway down south, if the gentleman will take my statement in regard to it, as.I saw it this spring. However, this diversion has entirely withdrawn me from the purpose to which I was speaking, and has prolonged my remarks very much beyond what I had intended., I will continue them but a short-time longer. It is said that this matter of raisisng money and pledging credit works well,; and has worked well thus far. It will be a phenomenon such as has had no parallel hitherto, if it can- work well on the whole. I do not hesitate here to -predict-although I have no sort of doubt —-that my friend from C:linton, (Mr. DANxTET,S,) might with great pro-, priety cite me the witty line from the Bigelow Papers, "not to prophecy till. ye know "-I would be perfectly willing to predict that if any large amount of these township bonds shall be issued to railroad. contractors, there will be reserved for the people of the State of Michigan a great amount of mischief," not only pecuniary distress, but this matter will. enter into your political and social organizations, and they will be beset to put themselves wpon the basis of repudiation, or upon some form of restraint. I do not care what form -you put. into this Constitution; if - live long enough and continue in practice, I shall meet -these things in the courts..And: I. say that if this provision or any other shall prevail, and bonds are issued, we cannot escape the social convulsion:that has prevailed everywhere else. -Does not every gentleman of this committee remember that in the State of Pennsylvania, where this mania once existed, where counties issued their bonds just as freely as you now -ask to issues township bonids, when those bonds matured (they did not amount ,,,,,,,, ( t,, d i d, - -;.,,! to one per cent. of the assessed valuation Of those counties,) there -was not power enough in the- august decrees of the law of the State of Pennsylvania to enforce their collection? And those decrees had to be followed up by that most melancholy spectacle in a.4ree country, the constable back'ed uip by the bayonet. And in'the Stateo. 0IWis. counsi, under shimiar circumstances where private obligations were given, the feeling of the people arose.to such an-extent that there was no law;i the State Which could enforce those private obiigations except.by. coercion. A.n.-d those who lived'- that: State saw that melancholy spectacle, of a great- publie improvement being destroyed by those who were called upon to pay for it. —,,;...:: :;.hid in. Iowa, after six decis'ions,by the supreme court, fiximg the valdity of these bonds, they. -ucceede'dt i-t inso infusing the popular feeling into the court, that we witnessed the rather disgracefiul judicial spectacle of the supreme- court of Iowa reversing the whole of its six former decisions, and declaring these county obligations invalid. We- are the same manner of men in Michigan that there are else.where..We have the same- passions and infirmities that others have. To-day we are eager in the pursuit of a thing, to-morrow the revolution begins and it will be the same kind and it will be the same form of revolution- that ha's occurred elsewhere. - I am an earnest friend of internal improvements in any form; I have been for years an unwavering friend of railroads. At the same time, I must regard them,:after all, as industrial enterprises, which I desire to see placed on: the only soound foundation upon which industrial enterprises can be placed, maintained by the capital of the commumity.t I protest against 6r politicalI organization, in its best and primary form, the township, being demoralized and corrupted by a connection with these schemes. The town cannot and will not act wisely in that regard. It ought not to be permitted to enter into them, because its- organi-zation' does not fit it for it. If it is to be permitted to enter into them at all, I prefe'r that this burden shall be met by taxation. I have gone so far, that the committee I hope will indulge me a little further; I will promise to be forbearing hereafter. [Cries - of "'Go on!" " Go on I"] I am reminded -at" this point that the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CosGr) said, and this was the key ifote: of his- remarks, that hei,. was not :surprised at the position'of the gentleman from Waynet; that he was not surpirised at oppsihion from that quarter; -if I undrstood him he was not sur:prised that my constituents shsuld .takme that view. Now, I will not talk -here about my constituents at all. I .dO not-know whether I have- any constituent in that sense. I can certainly -say this, that my- constituents have troubled me just about as much as I have troubled tliem. They elected me witlhout" asking me,- against my desire and in my absence. And after they elected me they have let me'n alone, and I am goihg to- let-.them alone. But ifl m'y friend means tha't tthe.people among whom I live arme ior narrow minded in this regard than'other men, I think he has taken up a-cry ra'ther hackneyed and entirely untrue. I do not think the people whom I represent are opposed to railway enterprises, or to railroads that go so'me'where else than:'ito their neighborhood. At any rate I:: ;ili" aver' tais;: th:at Of-'all" the en'ter prises in the State of Michigan, whether running over our soutlhern territory or our northern territory away from us, I have not for years hea'rd a single protest among the people where I live. For' one, if I.: am to be'6 deemed a representative, I say once for-' all, to the people of every section of the. State, wherever their interests call.upon'thei to'build railroads, andc theirs means authorize them to do it, I. bid them —God-speed, build your railway'rs.' - If the gentleman means to. sayfUrther, that the people of Detroit have less enterprise in that regard'than ot her people, I am not anxious to enter into any defense of theni on' that subject. I have heard that statement often, and I do not believe in its truth. It is said about the people of. Detroit, why do they not do as the people of Chicago do? Now,' I suppose thit' for :the- humble town where I- liHve to undertiake to-0compare itself with Chicag6, woul be- about as ridiculous as, for -Boston to compare.itself.with New York. We will undertake to discharge our reponsibilities. And I- say on the ;authority of the gentleman at-thehead of the second- enterprise in -Illinois, that the city of Detroit has contributed as much to railroad enterprises, according to its population, as the people of Chicago. The people of Chicago have not built the railway system which is now in existence- in Ilinois. Why was that system of — railroads built? -Because they were so situated, both in Chicago and'min Illinois in-.connection with other parts' of this country, that the capital of this country fiowed freely to them. I love the State of Michigan as the .mian loves the soil upon which he has reared his own children., I do not fall ;belw in fealty and loyalty to the State of Michigan any other man on,this floor. But I d6 not propose to say -that this State is superior to any other place on G'od's earth. I do not say its gifts are superior to others. Its .gifts are great, its endawments'are gseat,; its "hopes fare gloriouS. But whether it shall be more wealthy aid prosperous th-a/n any other StDate,: I do not know'. But it can be as wealthy and prosperous and enlighteed. as the reasonable-hopes of any man should de'mand; and that -is enough for me, ;acd the- people among whom I hope' to live.. I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that we cannot have railways here, with the same rapidity that they.are built in other States. We cannot settle and cultivate our- forests with- the same rapidity that the prairies of the west are settled,:here. the settier as -he goes :min the spring, drives- his: team afield, an'd r'eps' his curb iS''ile rs,.u J-,al- - 18 -1867's 1 y ) DEBAT- ES AND. rROCEEDINGS.. I , -.. -. the settler in this State must laboriously hew hid' home, and the sweat which he spends upon it, will win for that home a charm over every other. These things belong to our commuaity, and the country in which we live. We must take these things into account. We cannot have all these blessings with the same,facility that others have them. I will undertake to say, in behalf of the city in which I live, and. as its representative, that its commercial men, its business men,- having reference to their capital, have as much capacity as the people of any other place in the West; and they are not at all behind them I repudiate as unjust to me, as unjust to them, as unnecessary and gratuitous in this debate, the aspersions upon them in this regard. Having arisen simply to speak to the proposition of a preference for a tax instead of pledging the credit of townships, I did not intend to indulge in these remarks; and but..for the way in which I have been led on, I should not have indulged in them. Now, in conclusion upon the point directly upon which I desire to speak; I claim that if townships shall render this aid to railways,. then they should render.it precisely as an individual should do. No man would say that it would be proper for an individual to borrow money, to invest in a railway, and to run himself in debt for that purpose. Each man would say that the extent to which he could properly invest in a railway is to the extent of the capital he can put in, because a railway enter prise is an investment of capital; I ask that towns shall do the same thing. -The gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDriNGS,) told you that the very beautiful town in which he lives held a meeting. the - other day, where they voted one hundred thousand dollars aid to a railroad,.and inl that instance only a small part of the electors of that town voted. Why? Because it was only a promise to pay; it was only running into debt, the pay day was a long way' off.- But let me ask gentle men, suppose that the proposition had been to.raise a tax by levying upon that town one per cent., and the men there were to be be obliged to put their hands into their pockets and pay over their money for that purpose; would not-all the voters have come out? If it:was a private enterprise, and men had been called together. to say how much they should contribute, all those who had an interest in it would have been there. But it was only a promise _to pay. We have a fatal facility for rining into debt; we should protect ourselves against this. It is worthy of au e~-r't~ get e *ailway; it is worthy of a strenuous effort. How much of an effort are we willing to make? How much are we willing to pay for it-not how much are we willing to' promise to pay?, If I am going to contribute to a railway, which I do not appI ove, I want to settle that job up in my lifetime, and not leave it for those who come after me. I want to meet it now, as my friend on the other side invites me to meet this proprosition-to meet it with my manhood, and pay for it at once.' And what I ask may be enjoined upon myself now, I ask may be enjoined upon our-people in their aggregate capacity. Mr. LONGYEAR. If I might be indulged by the committee in following to some small extent the-gentleman from Wayne, (MIr. LOTHROP,) outside the immediate question before the committee, I propose to do so for a short time. I expected that the authority which I read yesterday from the case of Swan vs. Williams, in the Second Michigan Reports, would be attacked. I wish to say right here, that I read that authority as an argument upon the question; it is here in the book; it is in the State Library. where every member of this committee can examime it for himself, and see whether the argument of the judge delivering the opinion be sound or not. I do not agree with the gentleman from Wayne that that part of the opinion which I read is mere dicta; it is directly upon the point at issue in the case. What was that point? The issue was the right of the Pontiac railroad com pany to take private property for their own use, under the constitutional pro vision prohibiting the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. The whole question in the case hinged upon whether the use to which the property so taken and so to be devoted, was a public or a private use. There was no qualification in the constitutional provision under which the dicision was made. That provision was that private; property should not: be taken for public use without com pensation. Now, if the use were a private use, then the court could not say that for certain specific purposes they would permit private property to be ta]ken for private use. The whole question was whether it was a private or a public purpose for which the property was taken. Then how can the gentleman say that the de cision of the court upon that point was dicta merely, and not in point? The part 6f the decision which I read to the committee yesterday, was upon that very question, whether this was a public or a private use. The court held that a railroad was a public cor protioa for certain purpQogs, a4 for the very purposes that make taxation to sustain it applicable. I will not read that argument again at this time; it is -within the reach of every member of this committee, and I invite them to peruse and examine it.. I contend upon general principles that railroad corporations, from the authority by which, and the purposes .for which, they are created, are public corporations. And here I will read some cumulative authority upon that subject from the Ohio Reports. But before reading that, let me refer briefly to Redfield on Railways, an excellent authority upon that subject. The proposition he lays down does not necessarily conflict with the proposition that I have laid down. He says that although for certain purposes, railroads are treated as public corporations, yet for certain other purposes, they are private corporations. What more or less than that does our supreme court say in the case of Swan -vs. -Williams? That is all that we contend-for. Our supreme court went on that very proposition, and carried it out and elucidated it, to shoW to what extent and in what particular, railroad corporations are to be deemed as public corporations, and in what particular as private corpora tionf That did not conflict at all with the proposition laid down by Mr. Red field; they simply extended and eluci dated the doctrine laid down by him. I will now read from First (McCook's) Ohio Reports, page 643, in support of the general principles stated by me. In the case of the Toledo Bank vs. Bond, the Supreme Court of Ohio held as follows: "The only sensible distinction between public and private institutions is to be found in the authority by which, and the purpose for which, they are created and exist. Be cause, therefore, a corporation may fall un der the denomination of private corporations, in the artificial distinction between public and private corporations, it is none the less a public or political institution. The distinc tion between public and private corpora tions is somewhat arbitrary, and by no means determines whether the corporation is a pub lic or private institution. If the stock in a banking,:railroad, or insurance corporation, be exclusively owned by the government, the institution is denominated a public corpora tion; -but if a private individual be allowed to own a single share of the stock, in common with the government, it is said that it be comes a private crporation. Eleemosynary corporations, established for the purpose of public charity or for the advancement of re ligion, education or literature, upon dona tions or bequests made exclusively for these great and beneficial public purposes, without the right to, or expectation of dividends, re payment, or other individual private interest therein in future, are denominated private corporations. But an incorporated village, in the use or expenditure of whose property the citizens of the village have individual and private interests, and receive daily, individ uawl and private benefits, is denominated a public corporation. To say that an incor porated bank, authorized and created frog CONSTITUTIONAL -CONVENTION. 19!1 - Thursdav July 18, 1867. DEBATES AD PROGEEDIGS. 19? I considerations of public policy, and endowed by law with the extraordinary power and sovereign attribute of creating in fact, the circulating mnedium of the country, and regulating the standard of valre, is not a public institution of the State adopted -for the purposes of internal government, because it falls under the artificial denomination of private corporations, would be an arrogant absurdity. And it would be equally absurd to treat a railroad corporation as a private institutioni, which is endowed with extensive powers, and the extraordinary sovereign authority of exercising the right of eminent domain by taking private property for publi& purposes. In truth and in reality, whatever arbitrary or fictitious distinctions may have been created by mere verbiage, these corporations are, in fact, public institutions, created by public authority, from considerations of public policy, and endowed with highly important civil power for the advancement of the public welfare. It would be unreasonable at least, (to speak with the greatest moderation,) to say, that because some private interests are invested in these corporations, that, therefore, they must be denominated private insti. tutions, and for that reason placed beyond the reach of responsibility to the law-making power of-the State, by which they were created. The most sacred rights of private property are made subservient to the public welfare." Now, that is all I design to say upon that point, in addition to what I have already said. The gentleman from Wayne, (MI. LOTHROP,) tells us that railroad enterprises are not among the attributes of the township; that granting aid to railroads is not within the principle of the organization of towns and cities. So it was in early days with regard to educational enterprises. In former years they were regarded as private enterprises, until they were finally adopted by the government. Now they are deemed as much a part of the public institutions of the country, and as much within the principle of the organization of the township, as is the payment of the salaries of township officers; just as much so. And so if we follow up the history of railroads in this country, we will find- the same progressive idea of their becoming public institutions, that we find in regard to educational enterprises. Originally they were purely private enterprises. But how is it now, and how has it been for the-last several years? The federal government has treated them as public enterprises, to the extent of donating millions and millions of acres of the public domain for their aid and support. If they are purely private enterprises, why has this been done? It is a recognition of the fact that they are public in their nature, character, origin and uses. Now, one word in relation to the position that lending the credit of the township to these railroads, is taking private property for public use without compensation. I shall be brief upon this point. I shall read mainly from decisions on that subject as to the distinction between the right of eminent domain, and the right of taxa Vol,2-No. 25. - tion. I am aware that our own supreme court is not first-rate authority upon this point, with the gentleman from Wayne. Yet I venture to read from it. I read from 2d Michigan Reports, page 566, in the case of Williams vs. Mayor, &c., (of Detroit. The question involved, I believe was the question of taxation, for the paymnent of an assessment for paving. The court in that case say: It is very obvious that when private property is taken for public use, within the meaning of the Constitution, the compensation therefor must be made in money, for that is the only fixed standard of representation of value known to the law." It was contended in that case that taxation for a pavement was taking private property for public use. On the next page the court go on to say: "But if money is property within the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution above cited, requiring, when taken for public uses, compensation to be made in money, do not these provisions equally apply to all taxes levied and collected for the purposes of paying the public debt, the compensation of public officers for their services, the support of schools for education, the purchase of township libraries, and the construction of roads and bridges in the country, as well as to an assessment for improving a street in the city of Detroit? It cannot be denied that these are all public uses, and that the money applied to them is taken from its individual private owners for these purposes. Yet no one claims that compensation in money ought to be made for money so taken." Further down on the same page the court say: "Before noticing the distinction urged by counsel upon the argument, it seems proper to remark that every species of taxation in every mode is, in theory and principle, based upon an idea of compensation, benefit or advantage to the person or property taxed, either directly or indirectly. It' the tax is levied for the support of the government and general police of the State, for the education and moral instruction of the citizens, or the construction of works of internal improvement, he is supposed to receive a just compensation in the security which the government affords to his person and property, the means of enjoying his possessions, and their enhanced capacity to contribute to his comfort and gratification, which constitute their value." Here is the whole doctrine of the expediency and justness of taxation in aid of railroads. Mr., McCLELLAND. Will the gentleman read the last sentence of the page? Mr. LONGYEAR. Certainly. I had just come to that, although I had not marked it. That sentence is as follows: "Taxation, not based upon any idea of benefit to the person taxed, would be grossly unjust, tyrannical and oppressive, and might well be characterized as' public robbery."' To all of which I- give my unqualified assent. If raiit'ads ale not of any benefit to the person taxed, then taxation to aid them would be unjust, tyrannical and a public robbery. But will the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) say that they are not beneficial to the community through which they pass? I apprehend not. Mr. FARMER. WVill the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. LONGYEAR. Yes, sir; certainly. Mr. FARMER. Who is to be the judge of the benefit? Mr. LONGYEAR. The people who are to vote upon the subject. Mr. BURTCH. That is it. Mr. LONGYEAR. Let me say a word further in regard to this distinction between eminent domain and taxation. Let me state right here just the gist of this distinction. The compensation contemplated by the Constitution to be paid for property taken for public use, means a return to the owner of its value in money. Taxation is based upon the idea of compensation, or benefit, or advantage, either directly or indirectly, to the person whose property is taxed. Mr. LOTHROP. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question? Mr. LONGYEAR. Certainly.. Mr. LOTHROP. Is not the legitimate idea of taxation this: a contribution of the citizens of a community, under the forms of- law, for defraying the public expenses and proper burdens of the government? Is not that the proper idea of taxation? Mr. LONGYEAR..That is no doubt one of the proper sources of the right' of taxation. Mr. LOTHROP. Now, if the government shall undertake, under the form or name of taxation, to take away your property and give it to me, is-that taxation, and can it be consistent? Mr. LONGYEAR. Certainly not; I contend for no such right. Mr. LOTHROP. Therefore, the distinction between taking property by eminent domain, and taking property by taxation, is simply this: in the one case the property is. taken by the government for its use, or by a corporation for its use. In the other case, there are certain burdens to be borne, and they are spread all over-the community in the form of taxation!.! Mr. LONGYEAR. The gentleman from Wayne begs the question there. He assumes that the only legitimate source of taxation, is the bearing the burdens of the government; that I do not concede. Mr. LOTHROP. Another'question, if the gentleman will permit me? Mr. LONGYEAR., Certainly. Mr. LOTHROP. The gentleman undoubtedly agrees with the popular sentiment, that a bank exercises certain public functions, and is of great value to a community, especially a commercial community. Does the gen July' 18, 1867, DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 193 19 COSIUTOA COY-I~ hrdy tleman believe that his property can be taken under the form of taxation to support that bank? Mr. LONGYEAR. The gentleman from Wayne must excuse me from arguing any question not involved here. Mr. LOTHROP. I will excuse the gentleman. - r. LONGYEAR. When the subject comes up, and it is proposed to tax a community for'the benefit of banking institutions, I will argue the question with him. But when the question'now before us is the granting of aid to railroad companies, I will not be drawn into the discussion of another question at all. Yet I will say to the gentleman that if a banking or any other institution partakes of the nature of public use or public benefit to the extent that railroad companies do, and as railroad companies are universally held.to do, then. I would say that it would be legitimate to tax townships and cities in aid of them. I will now read from the Eighth Michigan Reports; that same doubtful authority to which I have already Palled the attention of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHmOP.) I read from page 282 of that volume, in the case of Woodbridge vs. City of Detroit; another paving case. Mr. LOTHROP. I argued that case. Mr. LONGYEAR. Of course I do not read it for the information of the gentleman. The court, in rendering the decision in that case, referred to, and quoted from, a decision made in New York, in the case of the People vs. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4th Comstock, 423, as follows:. Taxation exacts money or services from individuals, as and for their respective shares of contributions to any public burthen. Private property taken for public use by right of eminent domain, is taken not as the owner's share of contribution to a public bur then, but as so much beyond his share. Special compensation is therefore to be made in the latter case, because the govern ment is a debtor for the property so taken, but not in the tormer, because the payment of taxes is a duty, and creates no obligation to pay, otherwise than in the proper application of the tax. Taxation operates upon a community or upon a class of persons in a community, and by some rule of apportionment. The exercise of the right of eminent do -main operates upon an individual, and with. out reference to the amount of value exacted from any other individual, or class of indi viduals." I was about to say, after reading these authorities, and it will be in fur ther reply to the gentleman's proposi tion in his question to me, whether or not the only legitimate source of taxa tion was the bearing of the public bur dens. I will apply the object of taxa tion to this very case. Is the paving of a street a public burden, within the meaning of the gentleman's proposi tion? We find the court. in case after case, sustaining the right of taxation, and laying down the principle that taxation is contradistinguished from the right of eminent domain. Now, what difference is there in principle between the paving of public streets and the construction of a public work like a railroad? Now, as to the expediency, policy, and safety of this matter. I shall not take issue particularly with the gentleman from Wayne, further than to say that our confidence in what the people may decide, sometimes depends very much upon the condition of things. For instance, many years ago, when I first came into this State, which was in 1844, I have no doubt that if thegentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTEnROP,) lived here then, he had very great con fidence in the justice of the decisions of the people. Now, I have very great confidence in the justice of the decis ions of the people. Times have changed since then. The gentleman in his qual ified expression of a want of confidence in the people, has a very good rea son outside -of the question of taxa tion. For my own part, I find the people can be safely trusted with the question as to how much they will tax themselves, or whether they will do it at all or not; and that is all there is of it. Mr. BUIRTCH. As I have been struck down on this floor, when I at tempted to answer the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHtROP,) I have pre pared my answer in writing, which I send up to the reporter. The CHAIRMAN. The opinion of the Chair is, that except by consent of the committee, the speeches of geitle men cannot be sent to the reporter. - If there is no objection, however, the speech of the gentleman fromn Eaton will be handed to the reporter. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I would like to understand the character of the speech before I consent to that. r Mr. BUiRTCH. I am willing that the Secretary shall read it if he can. If he cannot, I will try. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sees nothing disrespectful in it. It will be. read if there is no objection. No objection being made, it was read . as follows: The argument of the honorable MDr. LOTHROP resolves itself into this, that * it is a matter of mere policy as to . whether a municipality shall pay as it goes or use its credit. Mr. CONGER. nasmuch as the discussion has taken a range embracing all the propositions before the commit E tee, and I believe that the rule provides that the chairman of the committee re porting the article can speak more than once upon the subject, I propose to de tain the committee but a few minutes longer. It is due, perhaps, to myself that I should make some further remarks upon this matter. It is due to myself, because I have been charged here by a very distinguished authority, by a gentleman whose eloquence and whose learning places his views at least in a high position here, whether his views are of approval or condemnation, with having presumed to dictate to this committee the particular form in which measures should be adopted, and that, too, after I had most distinctly and positively denied any right to control the action of this committee, except as other members can control it. 'Mr. LOTHROP. The gentleman must have misunderstood me. I said that some of the language of the gen tleman might imply that, but that cer tainly could not be his position. What I said in that regard was in justifica tion of my right to offer amendments. I said that I thought every gentleman had the right to offer amendments here, and be exempt- from the criticisms of the chairman of the committee. Mr. CONGER. The language of the gentleman from Wayne was, that the chairman of the committee seems to assume that nobody else in this Con vention had any right to submit any other proposition; andcl he inquired whether it was to be understood that he had formed a ring to sustain the particular form he was advocating. Now, it is not material what particular mode I, myself, or the gentleman from Wayne may see proper to adopt in ar:riving at our conclusions. I say that I have given no occasion for permitting myself as chairman of the committee, or as a member of this Convention, to be charged with assuming any right personal to myself. I admit that my way of reaching a point is not so graceful as that employed by the gen tleman from Wayne, (Mr. Loebyo.) I do not approach the matter so gently and so easily, and perhaps without shocking the nerves of my fellows so much as the gentleman from Wayne. My views are decided and distinct; my manner of expression may be abrupt. I never in my life had so beautiful a representation of the an cient land of Israel, as when the gen tleman arises to address this body or any other. It seems as though from his mouth nothing could flow but milk and honey. It has been the envy of my heart for a long number of years, so far as it could entertain feelings of envy, that it was impossible for ml to attain that graceful diction' which the gentleman uses. But it is no disgrace to me that I have my own mode of assetrtig positively'my own views and impressions. That; I suppose, is What t t t 1 1 194: CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Thursday, Jul 18 87 )1AsAi)Po~IkS 95 the gentleman meant when he remarked upon my statement. Passing that, lowever, for it is personal, and does not bear upon the great question before us, I submit that what the gentleman is pleased to turn aside as a jest, and not very pointed at that, has more truth in it than the gentleman can meet by any argument, or by any history. - When he said that townships were not organized with any reference to railroads, and when I said that they were not so organized because, when they originated, railroads were not known, and because I alluded to the fact that they might have originated in that old system of hundreds and parishes in England, the gentleman meets me by saying that in this idea of townships with their powers originated in New England, or he thinks they did. Mr. LOTHROP. I said that whether they did or not, it made no difference. Mr. CONGER. However that may be, I thank the gentleman for the suggestion. It has led me to review those early times of the Puritans in New England. But I submit to this Convention that in those early times the, municipal organization did control every single matter of public interest in ever'possible manner. And I assert here, which the gentleman cannot deny, that in New England, in its early days, when these townships were being formed, there were no enterprises, public or private, that the municipal organization did not assume the control of, either directly or indirectly; to aid or restrain roads, bridges, mills and factories, every enterprise, without a single exception, that partook in the least of a public character, or that was to any extent of a public benefit, was in the early days of New England, under the absolute control of the municipality. Now, my jest has more meaning in it than a jest; and yet a jest is good, and as some one has said may be concentrated wisdom. I do not claim that however, for mine.. But I do say that the municipality in all times and in all ages, whether you begin with the chief municipality of the country, or to down through all the different ramifications of that power, did have the control of public interests, uses and benefits, and did regulate the manner in which the people might use those benefits. But they went further in Puritan New England. It is assumed by those of a particular party, who delight in villifying the Puritans that they went even beyond the exercise of municipal power in connection with public works. It is asserted that they went so far with their restraining power that they affected private interests~ Mr. BURTCH. I rise to a point of order. Mr. CONGER. I do not give way to the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Eaton has a right to state his point of order. Mr. BURTCH. My point of order is, that the Puritans are not under discussion. The CHAIRMIAN. The Chair does not understand that they are under discussion. Mr. CONGER. I say the townships in those days,when the gentleman says they probably originated, attempted to assume the control of the private relations of life. It is said and asserted that the laws of those municipalities prohibited the husband from kissing his wife on the Sabbath. And it is even said that laws were passed to prevent the working of beer and vinegar on the holy days [Laughter.] They went beyond our own ideas of municipal power.'They went so far as to control all public works, as no man familiar with the matter will deny. If that was the origin of townships, then townships promoted and controlled by taxation and otherwise all public improvements. The building of roads through the wilderness, the building of vessels, the building of mills for grinding grain or,sawing lumber were controlled by the municipality, and the people were taxed for that purpose. Any one familiar with the history of those early days, knows that those interests were managed by the townships. In those palmy days, when townships were first thought of, they controlled all public works. I will allude to one other position which the learned gentleman has taken. He says that he objects to this right of municipalities to tax property for the aid of railroads, because he did not buy his property with reference to this taxation, but with regard to other modes of taxation. He says that he knew he was liable to be taxed for school-houses, for roads and bridges, and therefore he does not object to it. It is strange to me that a gentleman so learned in the law, and who also knows that ignorance of the law is no excuse for crime, that every man is supposed to be familiar with the law for all purposes, should just previous to making that assertion have said, that in seventeen States of this Union, the acknowledged current of the deis ions of the supreme courts of those States had been, that there was a right to tax property for railroads, and that ~ the supreme court of the United States l had re-asserted the principle for the whole country, that there existed by 4 law the right in townships to tax peo-' ple for railroads. When he buys land in any town is it to be presumed that he is ignorant that the courts of seventeen States including Michigan, declare that one of the purposes of the taxation which the township might exercise is for the aid of railroads, and that the supreme court of the United States has likewise asserted that was one of the subjects of taxation which the township might exercise? Now, I will venture to say that the gentleman cannot find a decision in any of those seventeen States, that the township might tax the people to build a school house, for that was so universally admitted that it has never been called in question. But the point with me is, that when he bought his property, he must have known that such was the rule in Michigan. Noman owns property in Michigan, but. what knows that the township has the right to tax it for works of public improvement, including railroads. And no gentleman knows that better than my learned friend from Wayne. I say that when the gentleman asserted so positively, that when he bought property in a township, he bought it subject to ordinary taxation for the purposes he mentioned, and that it was right, because he had that knowledge, his statement carries that knowledge still further. He knew that the township could tax him in certain cases for other purposes, and I apply the principle that they have the right to tax his property, because he did know it i this, as in the other case. One other word; the gentleman without any attack, without its being called for, asserts that the people he represents, citizens of Detroit, are, and always have been, in favor of railroads in this State, even though they do not perhaps go t~ their city. I am glad to hear the assertion. I trust the gentleman will not forget that it has been made here. I remember that some years ago, the citizens of Detroit aided in the building of a railroad upon the express condition, as I have understood it, that it should not be in the State of Michigan. Mr. LOTHROP. Having had some little familiarity with railroad enterprises for the last twenty years, I would inquire of the gentleman to what particular fact he refers? Mr. CON GR. I refer to the buildLing of the Great Western road from Port Huron to the east, instead of along the southern line. I mean the line built from Windsor to Komoka. There was quite a strong desire among the people of this State that that line should run for ~ifty or ixty miles t i i s I i i c e t r e t -iO .bidl3A.T:ES A" b PhO'C:EjtDI6 - j-uiy 18 - - 1867. 0. i9 OOST'ITUTIOAL COY]TIO Thursday, through the State of Michigan, from Detroit to Port- Huron, and there connect with the Grand Trunk line, which was the original line from Sarnia to Suspension Bridge. And I assert that the newspapers of Detroit, and the citizens of Detroit, did oppose the building of that road in Michigan, and preferred that it should go through Canada altogether. It was a matter of frequent talk with well-known citizens of Detroit, not only with myself, but with other gentlemen of Port Huron. I believe but for that continuous and obstinate resistance on their part, the road might have been carried through. I think the records of that time will show that the Legislature always desired that it should pass through Michigan as far as it might on its way to the east, and not start of at once through Canada. That is not to the point, it is true, but it meets this general proposition that there is pervading the minds of the people' of this State, that the people of Detroit and the stockholders of the Michigan Central Railway, are not in favor of encouraging or aiding any roads that are not direct feeders to them. That may be a wrong impression; that may be a false impression. It may be, perhaps, that the people of this State have mistaken the desires and- the designs of that great corporation all through. But that they labor under that impression there can be no doubt; and that many of the citizens of Detroit do not further projects that open the avenues of trade in other portions of the State away from themselves, is firmly believed. by many citizens of this State. On the general proposition here, such a suggestion of the feelings of the people may be proper. It has been asserted over and over again here that the design and desire in passing this section, is first to restrict townships from voting too much aid; second, directing the Legislature to authorize a township to aid within that restriction. I do not care whether it applies to the city of Detroit or not. We know that it does not apply to the Michigan Southern railroad, or. the Michigan Central railroad, or any other railroad now in existence. We claim that it is to help on the new projects in the newer portions of the State. We ask it for ourselves, not in derogation of any principle of right. We submit a restriction; we declare that the Legislature shall authorize. And yet the gentleman tells us that although he is opposed to the. whole thing in principle, he does not attack our proposition unwarrantably; that he opposes his proposition as well as ours. He tells the people of the new counties that: they can better'raise lve thousand dollars to-day, with their feeble means, and hand it over to railroads, than to pay that amount by installments for the next ten years. He proposes to dictate to the people of the new coun ties and new towns, how they can best raise their money, and best pay it. That is what I object to. Did our towns roll in wealth, had they capital seeking means to. be em ployed, we could perhaps get private capital. But the only object we have is to so far aid the construction of roads within our means, that we may induce foreign capital to come in and assist us for the balance. And when we claim, as the legitimate result of our proposi tion, that the value of property in the township will not only be increased, but that new property and new values will be brought there, and that we shall tax that property for the benefits which have been conferred - upon it, right along by installments, we assume to know$that it is better for us than to pay the money at once. We assume to know that it is better that the burden should be divided, and a portion of it come upon the increased value of prop erty, than it is to put all the burden upon ourselves now. We are not alarmed at the prospect of debt. This is not such a system as Pennsylvania, or Indiana or WVisconsin ever had, either in principle or in the manner of its application. It is no such system as any other State of this Union has ever adopted, which has worked so injuriously. I say it is no such system, either in principle or in practice. It seems to me to be admitted by the majority that with this restriction this measure is safe. Being safe, we claim it is better to extend this aid by credit than directly by taxation, and that the reasons which make the one desirable and valuable, and without danger, make the other undesirable and invaluable for our uses. The gentleman says that I charge him with trying to lay a cuckoo's egg in our nest. I did not make that remark in regard to the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTIROP.) I know that the gentleman wants nothing to do with our nest, except to lay violent hands upon it, and to tear it to pieces. He is not willing even that it shall be a last year's birds' nest; he wants to destroy it entirely. If he cannot destroy it by direct arguments, which will satisfy this committee, then he will destroy it insidiously, by introducing a pr6position which he hopes may prevail, and thus destroy the benefit we desire to derive from this. I have no hesitation in'charging him with a desire to destroy this provision. He asserts his right to attack it as he chooses, and I admit his right. I spoke to the friends of this measure not to be misled by the manner of the attack, which I say was legitimate. If the gentleman cannot convince us by argument, I desire that we shall not be misled by sophistry. If the gentleman cannot beat us by a direct opposition to our principle, I do not desire that we shall be led off and divided, so as to waver in our support of this propo sition. It is all fair warfare. But if this committee can be induced by him to adopt his proposition, then it will destroy ours. I admit that he will be successful, and we will go down. I should then be in favor of no section at all, or one which prohibited all aid whatever. Those who desire, and who are laboring for this section, desire it in the manner and form in which we ask, and not in a form and manner that gentlemen who have nothing to do with it, who do not live where this authority is to be exercised at all, pro pose that we shall-put it. Those gen tlemen have the right thus to attack our measure. I admit the ingenuity and plausibility with which the attack is made. I venture to say that if the gentleman's learning, and genius, and talent, and power, had been exercised in behalf of this section, insted of my feeble efforts, this discussion would have been over long ago, and this proposition would have gone through without any hesitation. But although I cannot bring the talent, and genius, and education to the support of this measure, still I can bring zeal and earnestness consci entiously to its support. I think I have sufficient judgment and intellect to tell when a contrary proposition is fallacious and sophistical, so far as accomplishing the end desired. I would have desired that the gentleman might have been in this" ring;" that he might have been the champion of this measure, which the poor counties and towns and the people of this State desire. I would he might have placed himself upon the record as their champion, as the leader in support of their interests, instead of having that task imposed upon me. God knows that I have no pride of place or of position in this matter. My mouth would not be opened again during this Convention if these measures, which I deem valuable to the interests of the State of Michigan, beneficial for my constituents, and also for the new and poor counties if these measures could be passed in the wisest and the best form, I would trouble this Convention with no remarks and no speeches, but would sit here joyfully and merely record my votes on every succeeding day of this session. CONSTITUTIOX-AT,. CONVENTION. I, 6 Thursday, a J11ly 18, 1867. DEBATES AD PROGEEDIGS. 197 MIr. MILLER. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER) charges the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) with uttering sophistries; and he says that he- meets the gentleman from Wayne with his own weapons. I now ask him if we are to understand that what he has said is also sophistry? Mr. CONGER. That is a simple question of interpretation. I will not insult the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. MILLER,) by supposing that he has not common intellect to discern what is sophistry and what is not. Mr. STOUGHTON. It is said by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTRaOP,) that the case of Swan vs. Williams, -simply settled one thing; and that was, that the right of eminent domain might be and was delegated to railroad companies.. Conceding that to be so, I wish to make a single suggestioni If the right of eminent domain may be delegated to railroad companies, because they work out some public uses, why may not public aid be granted to them upon the same ground? It has been said that the right of eminent domain is one of the most sacred rights of sovereignty. Will any one contend that the State can delegate that right to private persons or corporations, in order to accomplish a private end? I apprehend that such a statement will not receive the approbation of any gentleman on this floor. It is because they have many of the attributes of public agents, and accomplish great public benefits, that this important power is delegated to them. Now, is the taxation power any more sacred than the right of eminent domain? If a railroad company may take the land of an individual without his consent, is it not reasonable that the whole community, when they desire, should grant some small aid in the construc tion of that road? There is another consideration to which I will call the attention of the committee very briefly; to the changes that have been rung upon the word "debt." It has been held up in its most odious light. Now, the fact is that almost all great public improve ments are works of time, are generally secured by pledges of credit. Our school-houses and other institutions of learning are built in the same way. Our very national existence has been preserved by pledging the public credit to a vast extent. Without going into the discussion at large, I will say that the measures under consideration will not in my opinion add a single dollar to the debt of the State. If a farmer gives his note for one thousand dollars for a material improvement upon his farm, does that necessarily decrease the value of his property? Is it a pub lic debt? Is it a part of the debt of the State? Most assuredly not. If a village, or a township, or a State grant a few thousand dollars to construct a railroad, payable only when an adequate amount of work is done, will any one tell me that anything has been added to the public debt, or that the State is any the poorer for it? Gentlemen seem to go upon-the hypothesis that the credit of the State will be pledged, and that no adequate return will be received; in other words that no roads will be built. We have several safeguards for that; one is that only ten per cent. shall be voted. In the next place, we have the guarantee of the judgment and discretion of the Legislature. In the next place, we have the judgment and discretion of the people, who are to pass upon this measure. With all these safeguards there seems to me to be no great or serious danger. Mr. SAWYER. I ask tlie gentleman from St. Joseph, inasmuch as he uses the term " eminent domain," or " right of way," if there is any distinction between them in law? Mr. STOUGHTON. The gentleman understands the difference. I spoke of a railroad having the right of way. Mr. SAWYER. I understand the right of eminent domain to be this; that even though the government shall grant to a railroad the right of way, it still retains the right of eminent domain there. Mr. STOUGHTON. That is a distinction not involved in this question. Mr. SAWYER. It is involved, to my mind. Mr. LOTHROP. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGaER,) spoke of my reference to the city Of Detroit, and to my constituents there, and of what I said on that subject, as an unprovoked and uncalled for attack on him. I would return to him the most profound apology, if milk and honey ever could be aggTessive; I certainly should never have referred to them at all, if I had not understood him, in very round terms, to refer to me, and to the quarter of the State from which I came, and to the persons I represent. I think I certainly heard him correctly. Now, further in regard to the fact of which he speaks. I had some personal con nection with the matter to which he refers. I will now proceed to speak deliberately of what. I understand to be the facts in that ease. ~A railroad connection through Can ada was extremely desirable to us, and to a large portion of the State of Mich igan. It was difficult to obtain one of any kind. The first proposition upon which we fastened ourselves, and for which we made a serious effort, was the line from Fort Erie, opposite Buffalo, to the city of Detroit. We failed; we could not get that line built. The next project rallied all this same English capital; but all the English capital that it could command at that time could not build the Great Western road. The question then arose whether the New York Central and Michigan Central should aid in the construction of that road. I now say to my learned friend that the city of Detroit never did oppose the construction of that line of road to Port Sarnia and thence down from Port Huron to Detroit. On the contrary, the difficulty was this: the effort was made, and I will refresh the gentleman's memory when I tell him, that Malcolm Cameron, formerly Postmaster General in Canada, and now government printer there, came to the Legislature of Michigan. The proposition was to place a restriction, so far as the State of Michigan could do it, upoh any aid being rendered to that —road, unless it would come by the way of Sarnia, and thence from Port Huron to Detroit. I know from personal knowledge that there was a very strong desire on the part of the people of Detroit that it should cross by way of Port Sarnia. There was no opposition. to it, that I have any knowledge of. But we did oppose the placing of any restriction upon that road. It was a Canada road. The question was whether they should have the control of their line, and we did not want any embarrassment placed upon it. It was exceedingly difficult to get any road any how, and we wanted to assist any line on which they would build it. When the Grand Trunk road was built from Port Huron to the town of Grosse Point where I live, and where I have invited the gentleman, (Mr. CONGER,) to come Mr. CONGER. How far does the road run from where the gentleman lives? Mr. LOTHROP. About as near as I could expect a Port Huron road to run, about four miles. When that road came to Detroit we were glad to have it there. When it came to Detroit, I believe I am correct in saying, that there was not a single dollar subscribed in the State of Michigan north of Detroit to get that road through. And let me say still further; of course our towns and cities have but a limited amount of capital. The gentleman did not expect~ when I said that the citizens of Detroit were willing to have railroads built elsewhere, that we should build those roads when we can not build all we want ourselves. Hie certainly didvnot expect that of us. I am welling that he and others. should Jul is 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 197 198 CONSTIT'UTIONAL CONVENTIOiN. build roads. All that he can expect of us is, that we should be willing that they should do it. We do not expect everything to come to our mill. We will invite everything there that we can. We do not claim to feel well when they go somewhere else. We do not oppose other sections, and it is entirely unjust to us to say that we do oppose them. Of course, if there arises a contest between some other community and ourselves, as to where a road should go, the gentleman would certainly expect that we would prefer that it should go to Detroit. He will not quarrel with me if I prefer that it should go to Detroit, even if I am milk and honey. We will talk this matter over further, when the gentleman comes to Grosse Point, where I have invited him. Mr. DANIELLS. I move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to. The conimmittee accordinglyrose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the Chair, Mr. PRINGLE reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Legislative Department;" had made some progress therein, and had instructed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. STOCKWELL. I'move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly the Convention, (at twenty minutes past 12 o'clock p. m.,) took a recess until half-past two o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention met at half-past two o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. PETITIONS. Mr. P. D. WARNER, by unanimous consent, presented the petition of Mrs. Dr.- Rose, MIrs. R. 0. Wilcox, Mrs. E. M. Cobb, Mrs. A. Valentine, Miss M. O. Sykes, Miss S. A. Briggs, Miss Ada Robinson, and 50 other ladies of the city of Detroit, asking the retention in the Constitution, to. -be formed by this Convention, what is contained in section 47, article 4, relating to the traffic in intoxicating liquors. Also, the petition of Mrs. C. Hastings, Mrs. A. G. Lindsay, Mrs. G. W. Henry, Mrs. A. Allison, Miss C. A. Cooke, Miss S. Irving, Miss Ettie Stone, and 60 other ladies of the city of Detroit, on the same subject. Also, the' petition of' Mr. Carrie Coray, Mrs. L. M. Curtis, Mrs. A. E. Humphrey, Mrs. H. Dixon, and 15 other ladies of the city of Detroit, on the same subject. Also, the petition of Dr. J. A. Brown, Bradford Smith, Wm. F. Maynard, J. B.-Corey, and 14 other legal voters of Detroit, on the same subject; which were severally referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. PRINGLE in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Legislative Department." MUNICIPAL AID TO RAILROADS. The CHIAIRM1AN. When the committee rose this morning, it had under consideration section twenty-seven of this article, which had been amended to read as follows: "The Legislature shall not authorize any city.or township to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad, to an extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railrpads, shall exceed, ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to pledge its credit for any such purpose, except in the Upper Peninsula. The question of such aid shall be submitted to a vote of the city or township to be affected thereby." The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,) moved to amend this section by inserting after the words "construction of any railroad," the words, plank roads, gravel roads or turnpikes." Pending which, the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) moved to amend the amendment by adding to it the words, "slab roads, sawdust roads, or corduroy roads." The first question is upon the amendment to the amendment. ,Mr. DANIELLS. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. FERRIS, and it was not agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. There are now pending before the committee certain substitutes for this section which have been offered. The first in order is the substitute offered by the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIPER,) which is as follows: "The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit or levy a tax for the purpose of aiding in the construction of.any railroad, to an extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any one railroad, shall exceed five per cent. of the assessed yaluation of such city or township, and not to exceed ten. per cent. for any two or more railroads. The question of such aid must be sub mitted to a vote of the people, and no person shall be entitled to vote at any submission of such question, unless he shall be the owner of property liable to taxation. No county shall be authorized to vote such tax or aid." Mr. VAN RIPER. As the several points contained in that substititute have been passed upon by this committee, I will withdraw it. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman rom St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) moved a substitute, which was entered upon the journal as an amendment to the substitute of the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RIPER.) It will, therefore, not be in order for the gentleman from Cass to withdraw his substitute except by general consent. If there is no objection, however, it will be withdrawn. No objection being made, the substitute of Mr. VsAN RIPER, was withdrawn. The CHAIRMAN. The next question is upon the substitute of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) as follows: "The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to raise money by taxation, or to pledge their credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad to an extent whereby the tax raised or to be raised, or the indebtedness incurred, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed, in any five years, or at any one time, ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of the taxable property of such city or township; nor shall the Legislature authorize any county to raise money, or to pledge its credit to aid in the construction of any railroad." Mr. STOUGHTON. I do not intend to take up any time of the committee at present, in discussing the substitute I have offered. I have aided, so far as I could, in perfecting the original section; I am: now very well satisfied with it. -I have to say, however, that the substitute which I have moved meets my own views in one or two respects more nearly than the proposition of the committee. If it is to be voted upon, I desire to modify it in one or two respects so as to make it correspond with the amendments which have been made by this committee to the original section, in relation to counties in the Upper Peninsula, and the submitting the question of aid to the city or township to be affected thereby. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will observe, in regard to these substitutes, that three substitutes have been received by unanimous consent, one following the'other. The Chair will take this view of the matter under the circumstances: That the question will be first taken upon the first substitute; if that shall be adopted, it will dispose of the other two. If it shall not be adopted, then it will be in order to consider the others, and they will be acted upon in the order in which they were offered. The question now is Thursda: -y Jul 18 18w DEAE.~ ~oED~S upoa the substitute offered by the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) which he has modified so that it not reads as follows: "The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to raise money by taxation, or to pledge their crecit for the purpose of aiding in the coytruction of any railroad, to an extent wherey the tax raised or to be raised, or the indebtedness incurred, exclusive i interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed, in any five years, or at any one time, ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of the taxable property ol such city or township. No county shall be authorized to pledge its credit for any such purpose except in the Upper Peninsula. The question of such aid shall be submitted to a vote of the city or township to be affected thereby." Mr. CONGER. If I can understand the meaning of the substitute proposed by the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) it does not meet my own views of this matter; it does not, and it cannot, accomplish the object that I for one, desire to accomplish by this section. I am sorry that I shall be compelled to differ from my friend in this matter. But it seems to me that we may want to raise by taxation more than one ten per cent. The principle which we have advocated is, that if the people desire to raise by tax any amount, they may do so. I like the section as amended by this committee, better than any other proposition which has been submitted. I would submit to the gentleman from St. Joseph, whether the section as now amended, is not a better proposition for those who favor this project at all? The question was then taken upon the substitute of Mr. STOUGHTON; and upon a division, ayes 27, noes 33, it was not agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The next ques tion is upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Kent, (Mlr. FERRIs,) which is as follows: "The Legislature shall not authorize any county, township, city or village, by a vote of its citizens or otherwise, to become a stockholder in any joint stock company, cor poration or association whatever, or to raise money for, or to loan its credit to, or in aid ot any such company, corporation or asso ciation." The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. FERRIS, and it was not agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question now is upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (MIr. LoTHROP,)which is as follows: "No county, city or township shall ever issue its bonds, or otherwise pledge its credit, in-aid of any company, incorporated for the building of a railroad or making of any other internal improvement; but the Legislature may authorize any city or township, by tax, to raise moneys in aid of any railroad com pany or companies: Provunded, That the ag gregate of all moneys that shall be raised in any one city or township by such taxation in ald of any and all such companies, shall not exceed ten per centum oi the assessed valua tion of th taxable property in said city or township: And furthker provided, That no such tax shall be levied, unless first authorized hy the vote of electors of such city or township." The question was taken upon the substitute of Mr. LOTHROP; and upon a division, ayes 34, noes 41, it was not agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The section is still open to amendment. lMr. PRATT. I desire to offer a new section to come in after section twentyseven. I do not wish to have it acted upon until this section shall have been disposed of. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair un derstands that the committee should first go through the article; and then amendments to the body of the article will be in order. The amendment suggested by the gentleman from Hills daie, (Mr. PRATT,) can be received at this time if there is no objection. Mr. CONGER. I object to its being received and considered until we have concluded the article. The CHAIRMAN. Objection being made, it will not be in order to offer that amendment at the present time. LEGISLATURE PROHIBITED FROM AUTHOR IZING LOTTERIES, GRANTING DIVORCES, ETC. : The CHAIRMAN. When the committee of the whole went back to section twenty-seven, they had been engaged in the consideration of section thirty-one of this article, and had amended it so as to read as follows: "The Legislature shall not authorize any lottery or permit the sale of lottery tickets; nor grant divorces; nor audit or allow any private claim or account; nor pass special acts extending the time for the collection of taxes." Section thirty-one is still open to amendment. TRAFFIC IN INTOXIOATING LIQUORS. MHr. BILLS. I move to amend this section by adding to it the following: " Nor pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage.". Mr. CONGER. As that is a proposition which was referred to a separate committee, and reported by that committee, and as there is one section more in this article which was reported by the committee on the legislative department, and as this proposition of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) will undoubtedly occupy considerable time, whenever it may be brought up, I would ask that its consideration be passed over, until we have considered and disposed of section thirty-two of this article. When that shall have been done, I will have no choice about the time when the other matter shali be considered. Mir. BILLS I have no choice whether the proposition I have submitted be taken up now, or after the next section of this article shall have been disposed of. Mr. PARSONS. It strikes me that this subject of the traffic in intoxicating liquors should not be considered at the present time. It is one in which the people of this State feel a deeper interest than in almost any other subject before the Convention. Every delegate should have an opportunity to be in his seat, and to be heard upon this question. There are many, who are now absent, who would doubtless be glad to participate in the discussion upon this subject, if any is to be had, or at least to have their names recorded upon one side or the other, when the vote shall be taken upon this question. It does appear to me that a question of so much importance as this should be made the special order for some particular day. I do not think it should be pressed upon the committee of the whole without any notice or forethought, and attempted to be forced through while so many dele gates are absent. I do hope that a question of so much importance will receive that consideration which it ought to receive, and that every op portunity and every facility will be given and allowed to members of this Convention to be present in their seats, and take part in deciding this great question. I know there are many delegates absent who are anx ious to be in their seats when this question comes up. I do not know but what the friends of prohibition may have taken particular pains to have -those who favor that measure present ad in their seats at this time; they may have kept them here, for aught I know. But I hope they will not attempt to force this measure upon -the Convention at this time. If there is a majority of this Convention in favor of inserting this clause in the Constitution, without a submission of the question to the people, after due notice shall be given and after the members of this Convention shall have had an opportunity to be heard and to vote upon this question, then I for one shall be satisfied to abide the resul. :But I shall not be satisfied, and the delegates who are absent will not be satisfied, without having that oppor tunity. Neither will the people of this great State be satisfied, unless their delegates have an opportunity to be heard, and to participate in the discus sion and consideration of this question. Mr. MUSSEY. It strikes me that the argument Of the gentleman from Shia wassee, (Mr. PARSONS,) against consid ering this question at this time is a very strange one. If he willglook at July -18, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 199 20 CO.IUI~LC~y~I ~Tirdy the record he will see that the largest vote we have had for the last thirty clays was given yesterday. And it is not, it seems to me, very reasonable that he should urge, as a reason against considering this subject at this time, that so many delegates are absent. The CHAIRMAN. The question is now upon the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lenawee,,(Mr. BILS.) There is no motion to postpone. Mr. MUSSEY. Is there any change in that regard since the gentleman from Shiawassee took his seat. The CHAIRIAN. Not at all. Mr. PRATT. I hope the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lenawee will be held in abeyance until after the section I desire to propose shall have been acted upon. That section is germane to the subject which we have been discussing here for the last two days. And inasmuch as that discussion is all fresh in our minds, I would like to have my section acted upon before we are called upon to consider this very important amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS.) MIr. CONGER. My request was not that the matter should be postponed until some other time or place, but simply that we should go through with the remaining part of this article, as reported by the committee on the legislative department. Without expressing any opinion about the proper time for considering the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, 1 will move that section thirty-one be passed over for the present, and until section thirty-two shall have been disposed of. Milr. BILLS. In reply to the request of the chairman of the committee on the legislative department, (Mr. CoNGER,) I have stated that I had no personal objection whatever to first acting upon section thirty-two, and then returning and taking up the subject matter which I have introduced. And I say now that I have no objection to that course. With the understanding that section thirty-two may be first acted upon, and that we can then return to this section, I will for the time being withdraw the amendment that I have offered, but I do so with no other understanding than that. Mr. PARSONS. I do not like to have any such understanding as that, so far as this question is concerned. The CHAIRMAN. The motion to amend is withdrawn, and if no further amcnd mcnt is offered to section thirtyone, that section will be passed over, and the next-section will be read. Mr. BILLS.. I will propose my amendment at this time to section tfiirty-Qn~ Mr. CONGER. I renew mynotion that section thirty-one, with the pending amendment, be passed over, until the section reported by the committee on the legislative department not yet acted upon by this committee shall have been disposed of. The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. CONGER; and upon a division, ayes 22, noes not counted, it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. BILLS, to add to section thirty-one the following: "Nor pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors as a beverage." Mr. BLACKMAN. It is with considerable hesitancy that I propose an amendment to this amendment; but I feel constrained to do so. I move to amend it by striking out the words "as a beverage." The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. BLACKMANS to the amendment of Mr. BILLS; and -upon a division, ayes 25, noes 32, it was not agreed to. Mr. McCLELLAND. I move to amend this amendment by striking out the first word, "nor." Mr. BILLS. It seems to.me that the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr: McCLELLAWD,) cannot desire what his motion would seem to indicate. It will be noticed that all the different classes in this section begin with the word "nor." It is now proposed to add an additional clause which should begin with the same word. Mr. McCT,ELLAND. I withdraw my amendment. The question again recurred upon the amendment of Mr. BILLS. Mr. PARSONS. I move that this subject be passed over, for the purpose of making it the special order for next Tuesday or Wednesday, which motion I will submit when the committee of the whole reports this article back to the Convention. If that is done, the several delegates who are now absent, and who desire to be here and participate in the- discussion upon this question, will have an opportunity to be here. For one, I certainly feel that it is unfair, that it is not right, or just, to spring upon this committee the discussion of so grave a question as this, and to force this question to a vote without giving notice to thosewho are absent. I know that there are delegates upon both sides of this question, who are absent, who would like to be here to have their votes recorded on one side or the other. It may be said that there are a large number of delegates now present, more than there have been for a number of days past, or than there will probably be for some days to come. But if the delegates of this Convention have notice that this question will come up for consideration on a particular day, and then are not here, I,for one, will be perfectly satisfied to have the question then determined. Let every one understand that this question will come up on Tusday or Wednesday next, and I will be perfectly willing to have it taken up at Ihat time. I do not want to have it postponed for any length of time. 'Mr. BILLS. Could I see any possible benefit to be gained, either in the prosecution of the business of this Convention, or in a more faithful and thorough consideration of this question, I should waive any personal desire I might have that this question should be considered now. I would remind the gentleman that I am informed by the Secretary that this Convention is fuller to-day than it has been for thirty days past. The argument then that we are not now prepared to consider this question because members of the Convention are not here, falls to the ground. The objection that we are hurrying the Conventlon to a vote on this grave and important subject, I conceive to be hardly worthy of a reply. As a member of this Convention I propose that this subject shall be taken up now. I have no objection to the motion which has been made; I trust this committee will find no difficulty or embarrassment whatever in determining in about one minute whether they wish to postpone this matter or not. For one, if a majority think it is proper to do so, I propose to go on with the consideration of this subject at this time. There is one thing right here, which I desire to say. It has been intimated that this is a grave question, one that will elicit an immense amount of discussion. I have no such conviction. For one, I would be willing to pass this in five minutes, or to stay here the balance of the day, or of the week, and hear others discuss it. As an individual, I have no eloquence to spend upon the subject. I think we will detain the Convention less, and that less time will be consumed, if we proceed immediately to the discussion of this question, than there will be consumed if it be postponed to any other time Mr. WITHEY. I do not agree with the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. PARsoNs,) in reference to the postponement of this matter. I think every gentleman in this Convention is prepared, at this moment, to vote upon this question. If we should discuss it for six weeks, I do not think a single vote would be changed. While I do not object to discussion, and will sit here as willingly as any gentleman of i 200 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. A, Thursday, July~~ 18 1,,7 EAE -~ RGEI~ the Convention, and hear any amount of: discussion upon the subject, stin I believe we are all prepared to cast our votes upon the question of prohibition or no prohibition. I am entirely prepared. to vote upon it, and shall not ask the Convention to hear me in' reference to its merits.' I believe the minds of others are made up as well as my own I shall vote in favor of this clause, prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors, with the distinct understanding, however, that when. we come into Convention a motion can be made to take this clause out of the main instrument, and submit it separately to the people. I suppose that motion can be made in Convention at any time, and I shall be in favor of it. I am entirely.willing to' have this question passed upon now. As we have a larger number of members present to-day-than usual, I think we should take a vote upon this question to-day., Mr. PARSONS. With that understanding, I am willing to vote upon the question now; all I ask is to have this question submitted, separately to the people. M.r. HOWARD. For one, I respectfully protest against any-such understanding. Mr. WITHT,Y. I do not ask that there shall be any such understanding. I only say what is our right. Mr. LOTHROP. Allow me to suggest to the chairman of the committee on intoxicating liquors, (Mr. BILLS,) that'this is one of those questions about which there may be some discussion; I do not know -how much. But it is one of those questions which this Convention have committed to a separaite committee. We raised a special committee for the consideration of this question, and that committee have made a special report upon the subject. It is a subject upon which more petitions have been sent to this Convention, I think, than upon all other subjects put together. Now, would it not be well to allow this matter to stand separately, and be treated by itself, assigning a time for it, and letting it come up in some regular form, and be discussed as a separate clause? There may be just as many members present to-day as there will be hereafter, but I think it will be more satisfactory to every one to have this subject set down. for consideration at some particular time. ' I suppose the great question will be, whether this provision shall be incor porated absolutely in -the Constitution, or whether'it shall be submitted separately to a vote to the people. Now, if the question came up on a resolution submitting these two propositions, whether this proposition 2hould be "-Vol 2 —No. 26. incorporated':in. othe" Crnstitntion," or whether it should be submi.tted. se.ar'ately to the people, I: "do' "not kiow that I should have any objection to that question coming up now. But it does not come'up in."'that shape; it comes up here: on this.. report of. the' committee. It. is quite "probable "that the fo,rm'now presenttedwill not'.bethe form which the ConRvention would pre fer.one way or the. other'I therefore request the cha'r'man of that committee'.to taklie this matter into serious cobnsideration, and see whether on the whole, the importance given by the people and by the Convention to this question, by placing it- apart from all others, will not best be. considered by keeping it in'that separate'position, and. disposing of' it at some. particul ar time. '.'r. BILLS. It seems to me that we are now. in precisely the position where the whole' merits' of' this ques.tion can be -as thoroughly disc'ussed, as at any.other.''time. As regards the inquiry suggested by the gentleman from' Wayne, (MHr. LoTHR'Po) I have' to say simply this: if a resolution should be aaoptea'subm,ting this question separately to the people, it will matter nothing that we have per fected this provision in one placeo,r another. If such a resolution should prevail, it would have nothiig to do with the adoption or rejection ol f this clause. If this'clause shall be rejected, then no resolution will be'req.a for a separate submission; if the clause shall be adopted,' the resolution for submitting this' provision' separately can. be considered. at any time; and there is such a resolution reported from the committee.' I do not apprehend that this exciting debate, which has been going on here fior some days' past, has very materially disqualified anvy member from a cool, deliberate consideration of this question;' I see no force in. the argument in favor of postponing this subject.: I shall be as prepared to vote upon this question in five minutes, as I should be in five days; and I think that is the condition of other members of this Convention. -Mr. GIDDINGS. There' is something due to members -of this Convention, to each individual member,. on the. score of courtesy. And where several members express-a desire to postpone this question. for a time, in order that those absent'may be present, I-would- in regard to. this proposition, as well as in regard to any other, desire always to extend such couresy,. unless'I have some very strong' grounds' for acting otherwise. If I should rise at any time and ask this Convention, having sufficient reason to satisfy myself, to postpone the consideration of. any subjec.t, when it.'can be postponed without detriment to any interest of the State, or the,. business of' this Convention, I should', expect,' my friends. would' be willing to grant me th.at courtesy. I do no.t suppose that it is of any great importance to me whether the vote upon this ques.. tion. shall be taken now or'at some, other time. But it does seem to.me' that'this.' should be regarded as an indeopendent'subject. It was'i.-eter.mie 'by the Convention, at the beginning"'of its session, that this. question.'shoul-d go to a special committee, and not, be. left with'the committee on'the legis lative depar tment. I can see, reasons'. why gentlemen might suppose that'. this subject would be taken up as'an independent proposition, and would. not be attached lto "the''re-. port.'of the. legislative committee. I'have" myself'on one occasion' suggested that.a certain arti cle should be passed over for -the time'being, b'... .cause some gentlemen were not present; perhaps'because I was no.going. .to be present myself, and that c'oures'y. was extended. I do not see why. this' 'subject'should not." be passed' over- and' set'down for some certain'day.' Sup','pose that there are as. many here now. as there ever will be; all'who felt'an interest in the subject would'be here at the time named.. No matter if' thii. Convention is full to-day'; what'. h'as. h at to do with'the question of courtesy.i 'I believe it is a common practice in' legislative bodies, and' it should'be. in' a Convention of -this character, for'the purpose of' framing the fundamental' law of the State, to grant this'couirtes. It, may be true, andis undo'ubtedly s.o, in the case of the gentleman from Kent,. .(Mr. WITHEY,') that'he is. as prepared. .to vote to-day as he wll be at any othfer,. time, with the undcerstanding.that' at' some other time the proposition' shal be'considered of submitting'this matter separately to the people... But. some other gentleman may not con-. sider it proper to: vote one way or.the 'other on this subject, until the question'.. of submission is settled. Some members may desire to'"vote for the proviso' involving that question, but would not. be ready to'do so now. * I think we had better come into' this' :matter in pretty'good spirit, for.' we are :likely to have somne considersable spirit -'of some Edid on' the subject before we. get through, judging from the intima-' tions.we have already had.; If any member desires'that this subject'shall be passed over for the present,. it seems to me that we should -do it, for it. will. not make much difference in regard to our business' on'the aiction'of,' this body upon this subject. Mr..IRiEY. Thegentle~ma,.from, Julv 1-8l,. 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS, 11. 1.... I -I',.., ........ .. 1, 2Ol. 202 co~~~~TITIYT~~o~~AL CO~~VE~~TIO~. Thursday,~~ Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) proposes by his motion to do what has not yet been done in this Convention; that is, to take a distinct and separate report of one of our standing committees and incorporate it into an article reported by another standing committee. It will be remembered that when the committee appointed to report upon the imode of procedure in this Convention presented their report, they recommended the appointment of divers committees. It was stated by that conrmmittee, at that time, that they did not deem it necessary to report in favor of the appointment of a separate committee upon this subject; but that the subject might as well come up, and the question of its being retained or omitted, be considered in the article in which it is found in the present Constitution. But this did not satisfy the friends of prohibition, and they moved the appointment of a separate committee upon this subject. That separate committee was ordered by the Convention, and all the petitions and memorials, together with all other matters pertaining to this subject, have been referred to that committee. The majority of the committee have reported a distinct provision, and the minority of the committee have reported a resolution in connection with such a provision. It seems to me that we should follow the order which we have been pursuing in respect to the reports of other committees, and take up and consider this as a distinct report, and not.connect it with thle report of any other committee. I think we could go through with this article on the legislative department as reported by that committee, and then take up the other report in its order, and consider and dispose of it. My vote will be regulated to some extent by the determination of the question, whether this provision shall be submitted to the people separately, or incorporated in the Constitution. That it seems to me is the only question we need discuss; but that question does not come up directly by this mode of presentation. I hope, therefore, that the motion will prevail to pass over this subject for the present, and make it a special order. Mr. ROOT. It will be remembered that at the time this particular subject was referred to a special committee, we had considerable discussion upon this same point, whether the subject should be taken out of the article on the legislative department and referred to a separate committee or not. The only reason, as I understood then, and I understand now, for taking this subject from the article and submitting it to a separate committee, was because of the labor it would be likely to throw upon the committee on the legislative department, if all the subjects in that article were referred to them for consideration. The appointment of a separate committee upon this subject was then opposed by many gentlemen who now oppose the subject being placed in its regular place in the article on the legislative department. The committee have considered this subject, and now we hand it back to be placed in the article from whence it was taken, as we consider that the proper place for its consideration; that is all that we ask for the present. Mr. CHAPIN. I cannot see any good reason for postponing the consideration of this question. Gentlemen have spoken as though there were some special circumstances which would furnish a reason for taking such a course; but I do not see what these circumstances are. It seems to me that the gentlemen of this Convention are just as well prepared to act upon this question now, as they would be if it was discussed for as long a time as the deluge lasted. I think every member of this Convention came here with his mind made up long before this Convention met.r We all know that it is a question in regard to which there was much discussion, and much public feeling, even before this Convention was called. It is a question which has been constantly before the people, and I do not think discussion will affect the action of'this Convention upon this question one way or the other. Holding these views, knowing that.my own mind is made up, and believing that the minds of most, if not all of the members of this Convention are made up on this question, I cannot see any particular reason for deferring action upon it. Mr. WILLIAMS. There is no particular object in the consideration of this subject in the committee of the whole. I apprehend there will be no further amendments offered to-it than have already been offered, except the one reported by the minority of the comnmittee. The proposition is made by the chairman of the committee, (Mr. BILLS,) to attach this proposition to the article on the legislative department. By the force and effect of the language of this provision, it plainly belongs in the article on the legislative department. If the proposition shall be adopted, this committee of the whole would simply say that the article on the legislative department should be so amended that section thirty-one shall contain this additional clause. When we come into Convention, and the question comes up on concurring in the action of:the committee of the whole, in relation to the amendments to the article, then the question will properly arise whether we shall incorporate this into the Constitution, as a distinct proposition, or whether we will take it from the Constitution and submit it to the people for their separate action. If we concur in the action of the committee of the whole, we should then make this a part of the Constitution, to be voted upon by the people as a part of the Constitution. But if we conclude to pursue the other course, and to proceed to consider the, other report from the committee on intoxicating liquors, embracing a resclution submitting this to the people, that other report can then be considered by the committee of the whole very properly, because there may be many questions of amendment in regard to it. If we desire to pursue that course then, we can non-concur in the action of the committee of the whole, placing this clause in this article. Whatever action we may take now, we will not forestall any.action which will properly arise in the Convention. Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to say one word with reference to the matter of taking up or not taking up this subject at this time. It has been stated that on yesterday we had the largest vote which has been taken in this Convention for the last thirty days. I suppose the time of the week had something to do with that. It is probable that on Wednesday and Thursday of every week we will always have a ftuller Convention than earlier or later in the week. If we postpone this subject to any other day except on'those two days of the week, it must discommode members who are now present. The question for us now to consider is, can we expect any time hereafter to have a fuller Convention than we have to-day? I myself, together with some other members, expect to be absent on Saturday and- Monday. This is the case and has been the case with me at least once in two weeks since I have been here. It seems to me that this is an opportune moment to consider this question, when we have a full Convention. Mr. CONGER. I have no particular choice as to the day when this matter shall come up for consideration. By reference to the rules it will found that rule thirty-five provides that "every article shall receive three several readings previous to its being passed; and the second and third readings shall be on different days," ete. I understand that the reports fom the committee on intoxicating liquors which stand on our general order as Nos. 16 and 17, come within the scope of our standing rule, and must be taken up:and disposed of some CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Thursday, 202 I - DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. time in that way. I had supposed that all reports from committees would take b their place on the general order, and be referred to, and considered by, the t committee of the whole. This particular subject-matter was v taken from the committee on the legis-n lative department, for some wise reason g undoubtedly, in order that it might s -have a committee of its own who should r take charge of it, manage it, and perfect it in its different stages. The subject matter which was referred to that j committee has been reported upon by the committee, and that report is now c offered as an amendment to the article i on the legislative department. And a very much against my wishes I am j compelled, as chairman of the commit- a tee on the legislature department, to take charge of a subject which was c considered by a larger committee than i the one I am chairman of, and a com- t mittee composed of more distinguished t gentlemen, at least than the chairman t of the legislative committee. I think it is, therefore, an additional burden upon the committee on the legislative department to compel us to engineer reports of a larger committee through 1 the committee of the whole. I think the proper way woulcbe for the report ] of the committee on int6xicating liquors to take its place on the general or spe cial orders, and that it be considered i by the Convention in committee of the: whole what course they will pursue in i regard to it. And when the matter is all decided, when this subject has been engineered by the chairman of that committee through this committee of the whole, and through the Convention, then the Convention can decide where it shall be placed in the Constitution. I think that course would be more sat isfactory to members; I think it is what was expected by members of this Convention. Now, while I make these remarks, I say distinctly that I have myself no choice where it comes, nor when it comes. But I certainly shall expect the chairman of that committee to as sume for the time being my place, and take charge of the subject-matter which was referred to his committee, consisting of thirteen members, being a larger committee than the committee on the legislative department, for he could rally to his assistance a larger number of co-workers than I could rally from the committee on the legis lative department. Mr. LUCE. Allow me to correct the gentleman." The committee on intoxi cating liquors consisted of nine mem bers, not thirteen. Mr. CONE:R. I submit to gentle metr here that the committee on the legislative department, at least its hairman, has been somewhat wearied f by their labors for some days past, and t rould be very glad to throw this mat- t er upon its appropriate committee. i Mr. McCLELLAND. I would be f very much pleased to have this com- n aittee adopt the motion made by the i gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. PAR- t oNs.) My colleague who submitted a a eport upon this subject, (Mr. D. GooD- f WIN,) is absent, and I know he is very a desirous of being here when this sub- t ect is discussed. If he was absent pon private business, as a matter of n course I could not expect that any len- n ty would be'shown him. But he is t absent discharging his duties as a. udge, in the Lake Superior region, nd I am informed that he will return d by Wednesday next. Under the cir- t cumstances, I would suggest whether c t would be extending the courtesy of this committee, or of the Convention, too far, to allow at least that length of time in order that he may be able to a return, to take part in the discussion i and consideration of this subject. It will be remembered that butfourmem- i bers of the committee on intoxicating liquors reported in favor df the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lenawee; and an equal number, four, reported against it; or rather four members reported in favor of embod y'- ing the provision in the Constitution, and four members reported in favor of its separate submission to the people. There are also now five delegates from the county of Wayne absent. One of them was called away by sickness in his family. One is absent, as I have stated, discharging his duties as a judge. The others are absent from what causes I know not. I know, however, that some of them were detained some time ago- on account of deaths occurring in their families. I know they are all very anxious to be here when this subject is discussed and considered. I submit to the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) whether it would not be better, with the consent of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) who is chairman of the committee that reported this article, to go out of committee of the whole as soon as we are through with this article, with the exception of this provision, and have the whole article laid upon the table until some day next week, which can be fixed for its consideration. I do not see how such a course as this could retard the consideration of this subject. In all probability we shall then have as full if not a fuller Convention than we now have. I would suggest Thursday of next week. I believe that is the day of the week upon which we probably have as full an at tendance here as any other day. So. fr as I am concerned, it is immaterial me when this subject comes up, if hose who are particularly interested i it, and desire to discuss it, have a air opportunity to be heard. I know my colleague, (Mr. D. GOODWIN,) who s compelled to be absent, endeavored o get some one else to take his place, nd discharge his official duties, but ailed. It seems to me that considertion should have some weight with his committee. Mr. BLACKMAN. I certainly.canLot see any reason for the postponement urged. While it may be true, as he gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McLELLA,D,) has stated, that soemeemers on that side of the question who desire to be heard are absent, it is also rue that there are absentees on the ther side of the question. Mr. McCLELLAND. I would inquire if there is any one in favor of the other side of the question who is absent on special duty as my colleague is? I believe the gentleman from Van Buren is a lawyer. I ask him whethfer t would be proper for my colleague, Judge GooDwin, to be present here, when those pressing duties are resting upon him as a judge? Mr. BLACKMAN. I cannot, and shall not, undertake to decide what duties are paramount to our duties here as delegates to this Convention; I know, however, that there are some members absent on account of sickness, who would like to be here, and members on the other side of the question., What I was going on to say is this: to whatever time we may postpone this matter, if those now absent shall be then present, it is likely there will be others absent who are equally anxious to be here when-this subject is considered. But I can see no reason for this postponement on another ground; the vote which we may take here in committee of the whole is not conclusive. If this amendment shall be adopted by the committee of the whole, we must take a vote in Convention upon concurring in the action of this committee. If it shall be the wish of the Convention, after this subject shall have been reported from the committee of the whole, to make it the special order for some particular time, they can do so, and then those who are now absent can have notice to be present. But I can see no reason why any special notice should be given of the time when this amendment shall be offered and considered in committee of the whole; any more than other amendments of grave-importance which have been offered and discussed here for several days at a time. All the ~mem bers of this Convention are aware that 203 July 18,- 1867. .Ix -C~II.. ~...... - u..I this question would come up before us for considera,tion, and that the article on "the legislative department is the proper place for this prohibitory clause, if it shall go into the Consti'tution"at all..' 'Now., whatever may be said about this subject having been reported as a separate article, and'about the pro.propriety of its being acted upon sep-: arately in its order, I suppose not only the chairman of the committee' on intoxicating liquors, (Mr. BILLS,) but "any other gentleman in this Conven-' tion' has a right to offer this amendment, -and to'offer'it now, without any more notice being given than'is re-' quired in offering any other amendment, which may be -of greater or less importance. It seems to me that'there' is no occasion whatever'for delaying this matter. I have heard nothing '-thIt looks to me like a good reason for postponing this subject, or any'reason ;l'ich would not applr to any other' miatter ofi mportwce which has beendis-: ui sseda he6re during'the last two weeks. MIr. HOWNVARD. I am well aware that there are members'of this Convention now absent, and, as has been stated by the gentleman from Wayne, '(M'r. ]M.CICLELLAND,-) necessarily absent, some-of them discharging their public official duties. Among that number is' Judge,GoonwiD. But there are other 'members of the delegation from Wayne 'county, of whom hardly so much can be said. -One of thei, it is urged, ise necessarily and'excusdiy absent on '-ae.o unt of a recent death in his family. -Mr. McCLEL,L'AND. — Two of them,. Mr.t HOWARD. Two of them are, absent for'that cause. But there are one or two members of that delegation who have been here within a very few days past. Mr. McCLELLAND.'One of the gentlemen who has been absent for' ':some time,: is still absent on account of 'a'death in his'family. Another gentleman was here for a few days, and he 'ha~s gone home; for what reason he re-' "mains'there I do not know. Another was here'until -this morning, when he" went ~ home on account of sickness in mis family. Mr. HOWARD.- I do not propose to qiuestion the motives which lead them to be absent. But I submit that "there is no assurance that we shall. be aable, by a postponement of- this question to the time proposed, to accom"modate the: gentlemen named. But there is a certainty that if we postpone this question for one week, or for any: 'other length, of time, many delegates who'are now present will be unable to' be present'at that time. It is understood that several members of the Convention intend-to go home; those who have farms, to attend to their'farming pursuits through:the next week; at least I have heard it so imtmated. -Now, in taking the: action'that is sow, intoo proposed -here, -adding this clause to -the article on the legislative depart ment, we but conform to the report made by Judge GooDwIN, and- to the report made by the "chairman of the committee on intoxicating liquors, (Mr. -.............. of(... BItLLS.) The reports made here by both'these gentlemen, each report con curred in by'four members of the com'mittee,:are'to the effect that so'far as we propose to:act here at this time, the Legislature shaillpass no law grant lig a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Both these reports-go to that extent. But the report made by Judge GooDYwi goes further, and proposes to submit the question of prohibition'or license as a separate proposition to be' voted upon by the people. We can act' now upon the proposition submitted by the:gentleman from -Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) and then stop until Juidge GoODWIn returns, or until some more, convenient time, when wemay consider that part of'the report made by Judge GooDWrNwm, which differs'from the report made by the chairman of the committee.' - -' ~I am certainly opposed to taking any such action in the':atter'as isipro posed to be taken here, for the purpose of giving members who are absent an oplportiiunity to be here. Inasmuch as both of the'Se reports agree to the full extent which we now propose to go in the action that is to be taken, if the motion of the'gentleman from Lenawee prevails, I can see no hardship or dis advantage. wvhich will result, Under any circumstances, to Judge GOODWIN. I believe we mayas well now incorporate this provision in the article on the leg islative deplartment. We can at'any time hereafter -taike iup the other prop osition of a separate submission of-this question to the people; that.can b'e - done after Judge GoODrWI shall return, or at'any other time.: Mr. CONG(ER. With the explana tion of. the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD,)'that it is -merely pro posed to pass upon this subject in one 'particular, and as I understand that ithe reports are alike in that particular, I for one have no objection to passing upon it now, with- the express under-standing that sufficient notice shall'be given to members who are absent to :alow them to return in time to take *"part in'the final disposition of this subject..-.: Mr. PARSONS. The assurances which have been given by several members of this Convention, that they will assist in making this subject a special order, when it comes up mn Convention, upon the questin ofn oncurring -in the amendments of -the committee -of "the whole,'so as to give mnembers now absent time to return, —'I will withdraw my motion to pass over this subject.. Mr. BLACKMAN. I do not wish to 'be misunderstood in regard to any remarks which I made about making this a special order. I do not consider what I said'as any pledge of my action at all. Mr. PARSONS. I did not take it from what the gentleman said. Mr. BLACKMAN.'I do'not wish to be placed in a false position. The committee can take such action as they please. The question recurred upon the amendment of:Mr. BmLLS, to add to section thirty-one the following:' Nor pass any'act,. authorizing the grant of -license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors, as a beverage." r. BIRNEY. I move to — amend the amendment by-adding part'of the resolution reported:by -the -gentleman :fromWayne, (Mr. GooDwiN;) it:is'as follows: " This clause of this section shall be sepa.rately submitted to the electors of this State for their adoption or rejection, in form following, to wit.: A separate ballot. may be given by every person having a right'to vote for the revised' Constitution, to be deposited in a separ' ate box.. Upon the ballots.given for'the adoption of the said separate section, shall be written or printed, or partly written.and -partly printed, the words, " Licen'se for sale of liquors-No;":and upon the ballo.ts given against the adoption of said separate section, in like manner, the words, "License fbr sale of liquors-Yes." And on such balots shall be written or printed, or partly written'and partly printed, the words, "Constitutional License," in such manner that such words shall appear on the outside -of such ballot when folded. If at said election ua niajority of the votes fobr and against the said separate section shall contfain the words, Licenise for sale of liquors-No," then there shall'be inserted in the said article numbered, the said additional clause of the section, as aforesaid separately submitted, to be n'umberedas section A, in said article." Mir. BRADLEY. I object to the amendment of the gentleman from Bay, (MHr. BIRNEY,) because it brimgs up now the very question'which by common consent we have just'agieed to postpone. It seems to me that, out of courtesy, the gentleman from'Bay should withdraw his amendment, and let it come up'at the proper time, when we shall all be ready for a full discus-. sion of the main question. The chairman of the committee on intoxicating liquors, (Mr. BILLS,) who presented an amendment to this article'on the legislative department, was tenacious for its consideration this afternoon. But out of courtesy to the opposing sentiment, he waived his desire to bring up the whole subject before the committee at this'time. Although I have no doubt that the friends of prohibition 2 I ,url i CONSIfiLT -. 0'T, COllqVENTION. Thur's'd-av, - - I -2 July 18, 1867. DEBATES AND POCEEDI. 205 would be ready for a discussion at any moment, I think, in -view of the considerations presented by the gentleman from Wayne, ('Mr. McCLELLAND,) X regard to the gentleman who was theauthor of one of the reports upon thissubject, we should defer this part of it for the present. Mr. FERRIS. I was about to make the same suggestion to the gentlemran from Bay, (Mr. BIRNEY,) which hasjust been made. We could in-comnmittee-to-day, act upon the proposition embraced in the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. -BT,s,) and then, upon the return of Judge GOODWIN, we could consider the proposition which the gentleman from Bay has introduced, and consider that matter separately and carefully. It would: be a gratification to me, as one of the: committee who reported upon this subject, if the gentleman from Bay would consent to withdraw his amendment to the amendment, and let the matter take the course which it seemed to be the opinion of members here it should take. The CHAIRMAN. The amnendmenat to the amendment has been entertained by the Chair, with some doubt as to' the propriety of insertinmg matter which. does not properly relate to any provis-' ion of the Constitution in regard to legislation, but one. as to the mode. of submitting the question to the people.. The Chair, however, will let..the com-n mittee judge in regard to that matter. Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to say ;that these two propositions do not, to my mind, seem to accord very well, coming as this does from one of those whom we aay reasonably look upon as friends and advocates of one measure or one course, which it is desired shall be pursued in regard to this subject at their suggestion, which was that that portion of the subject should be put over for the present, and that we should simply come to a vote upon the proposition submitted by the gentle man from Lenawee. When that agree ment has been concurred in, right upon the heels of it, one of those who took the initiatory step in having that agree ment made, moves the same proposi tion to provoke discussion now, which they asked to have postponed. There is something singular in that action; I do not understand it. Mr. PARSONS. As far as I am concerned, I am as much opposed to bringing up this question now, as:I was at the start. I hope the gentleman from Bay will withdraw his amend menit, and let it come up in the Con vention, ss has been suggested. Mr. BIRNEY. I offered this amend ment with a great deal of reluctance. I had hoped that the delay requested would be granted. But I see no use in-m corporating this provision as a part of this article, and making it, as it were, a substantive part of the Constitution, and then acting substantially upon the same question afterwards. It appears to me a matter of expediency as to whether we should incorporate into the Constitution a provision which might prevent its adoption, and would detract attention from the merits of the Constitution as such. It seems to me the only question we have to discuss Here was not upon the merits of the proposition of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) but the question of a separate submission of this provision to the people for their action. I have no desire, personally, to press my amendment. As a numberof gentle.men feel-anxious to delay this matter, I will withdraw my amendment. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. BLLS. Mr. ROOT. The- gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. PARsONs,) seems to have the idea that this motion to postpone was for the express object ofmaking this subject a special order for some day. I am opposed to making this subject a special order, and I understood that we did not yield for any such purpose. Mr. CONGER. All that has been done so far has been done out of courtesy to gentlemen who are now absent, and to those gentlemen who desire that this matter might go over for the present. It seems to me that we need have no further discussion of that matter; let each one entertain his own opinion. It is sufficient for my purpose that I know that every gentleman will have the right hereafter to approve or dis approve, concur or non-concur, in the amendment of the committee of the Whole, and that opportunity to do so will come at the proper time, when we can, without depriving ourselves of the privilege of extending ordinary cour tesy, such as has been extended heretofore to absent members, put this proposition in here as an amend ment -to this article. We can after ward give it its proper place in the Constitution, or make it a separate clause to be submitted to the people, or reject it altogether. I submit to gentlemen on either side, whether that may not be done now without any injury to any interest, without any pre sumption for or against any one's views; and at the proper time this matter can be takes up, and receive the consideration which its importance merits. I make that- remark as the chairman of the committee who re-ported the article under consideration. I believe I express the views of the other members of the committee. They are perfectly willing that this amendment shall be adopted at this time, and that hereafter we may give the subject such consideration as gentlemen of any views may see fit to express. By doing that, we can complete thie consideration of this article in committee of the whole, and then give way for the consideration of other articles, and progress with the business of the committee, without doing any wrong to those who are absent, or to the feelings of those who are present. I request gentlemen, whatever their different views may be, that they will'i this matter at any rate, suspend all discussion in regard to the place which this proposition shall occupy, each one-being- at liberty hereafter, in whatever mode the committee -shall order, to express his views upon-the subject. That, I think, can be done without injury to the/feelings-of any present. Mr. HOWARD. For the purpose of saving the -time of the committee, I wish to adopt the language of the gentlem:an from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) sofar as it goes. But I want to go further, and say that in taking the pOsition I do, I do it merely out of courtesy to gentlemen who are absent, not committing myself as an indivicfual member of this committee, to any particular time for taking up the proposi-tion. Without making that statement it might be implied that we had agreed upon some particular course upon this subject, when we merely desire to extend usual courtesy to absent members. I do not commit myself to any particular time. Members will understand, of course, that we do not wish to be lacking in courtesy to those who are absent. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr.'BILLS, and it was agreed to. TIME~~~~~ FO'H OPEI; PBIRA). TIME FOR THE COMPLETION OF RAILROADS. Mr. LEACH. I move to farther amend section thirty-one, by adding the following: "Nor pass any act extending beyond the 3d day of June, 1874, the time for completing the railroads provided for under the act of Congress, making a grant ot land to the State ~~~~~~~~~~~~..ress, ma for railroad purposes, approved June 3, 1856. For myself, I do not propose to discuss this amendment at any length, for the reason that the same subject has already been before the Convention, and on that occasion I took the opportunity to make some remarks in regard to it. There are but one or twb id'eas which I wish now to'suggest. It is eleven years since Congress made this grant of land to the State of Michigan for railroad purposes. What has been accompIshed in that time we all know. The time has been extended for the Grand Rapids and Indiana railroad by DEBATES AND PROCEED'IX-G-'s" ."205 8 - 'I-" 1 1867. 206 CO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TITUTIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AL CO~~~~~~~~~~~~V~~~~~~~~TIO~~~~~~~~~. Thur~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day,~~~~~~~ act of Congress to the 3d of June 1874, for the completion of that road. Hence, I have named that time as the limit beyond which I propose that the Legislature shall not extend the time for the construction of these roads. That leaves seven years for completing these roads, or eighteen years from the time the grant of land was made by Congress. I submit to the good sense of the members of this Convention, if eighteen years is not as long as these lands should be kept out of market for the benefit of any railroad company. The evils which the northern portion of this State has suffered from these grants, and the delay in constructing these roads, are really very grievous. I apprehend these evils will continue, unless this Convention shall adopt some measure to force the building of the roads, or the'restoration of the lands to market. My conviction is very decided, that if we should incorporate a provision of thisl kind in the Constitution of the State, these roads would be built within the time fixed, because the grants of land have become so valuable that no one of these companies will permit the lands to pass out of their grasp. But so long as they can come here year after year, and secure the extension of the time, the roads will not be built, or at least their construction will not progress with any degree of rapidity. But if the Constitution shall say to these companies that they shall have only seven years longer within which to complete these roads, my conviction is that they will build them in that time, and people in all portions of the State will be benefited by a provision of this kind. As I remarked, I do not propose to take up the time of the Convention in discussing this amendment. There may be other gentlemen who may desire to speak; if so, I shall be glad to hear them. For myself, I am prepared to vote for this amendment. Mr. CONGER. I question whether all the members of this committee understand the full force of this amendment. I question whether they are prepared now to vote upon it. I submit to the gentleman, that although his amendment may be well for a particular railroad running through the district of country which he represents, and where he desires that the lands shall go into market for sale or settlement, yet there are other railroads running through other parts of the State, where no such thing is desired. At all events, I submit to the gentleman that the time should be arranged, with at least some regard to the consecutive order in which these roads shall be built. If the gentleman de sires that the road from Grand Rapids to Grand Traverse, or any of the roads running to Grand Traverse, should be compelled to place in market the lands granted to them, or that portion of the lands which is within ascertain distance of Grand Traverse, wvithin a certain time, I have no objection to it. But lands have been granted in the Upper Peninsula, where there is no desire to have them in market; and I should be very much opposed to any such provision as this in regard to those lands. I am perfectly willing to go with the gentleman if he will make his provision apply to some particular distance from Grand Traverse; say thirty, forty, or fifty miles. But I am unwilling to agree to any proposition, by which, because the railroads are not built by 1874 along the lines proposed -a thing which it would be impossible by any human effort whatever to accomplish-I am unwilling to agree to any proposition by which these companies shall lose the benefits of these lands. I do not believe it is necessary for this Convention to place a restriction in the Constitution, which will prevent the people of this State from enjoying the benefit of these lands in all parts of the State, just because the lands around Grand Traverse have been already so far taken up, that there is no place for people to go there to settle. I submit that a proposition affecting all parts of the State, the Upper Peninsula as well as the Lower, the eastern part of the State as well as the western part, ought not to be adopted hastily or carelessly by this Convention. If the gentleman from Grand Traverse will draw up a proposition in a different form; if he will do as the State has done-limit it to place and time in proportion to the possible construction of these railroads, in proportion to the possibility of enjoying hereafter the benefit of these grants, I venture to say that the committee and the Convention will agree with him, and adopt some provision which will relieve his immediate constituents from what undoubtedly is a great disadvantage to them. But Iam not willing to agree to a proposition which will extend to parts of the State not settled, and which cannot be settled for years to come. As long as Congress is willing to extend the time in which these roads shall be built, I am not willing to adopt a proposition which will take from the people of this State for years to come the privilege of these lands if they wish to have it. There are other parts of the State besides Grand Traverse, which are greatly interested in these grants, where the people do not desire this restriction, and where the grants might be permitted to remain and be ex tended if Congress shall consent. Therefore, I say to the gentleman, as I have a right to say to him, that his proposition may be very well for his immediate constituency, and yet be very perilous to the State at large. Having submitted his proposition, the attention of members is called to the subject. I would desire some time to examine it, and see the effect and bearing of it upon other parts of the State. If he will withdraw his amendment at this time, with the understanding that he may submit this or some other amendment, at some subsequent time, I think he will accomplish the object he desires better than by presenting it at this time. I may say there are millions of acres of land, six sections to the nmile, on several lines of projected railroads in this State, one, two or three of which may pass over territory contiguous to the region from which the gentleman comes; but in the Upper —-Peninsula there are several projected railroads, four or five different roads, to which Congress has granted lands, and where there is no desire, so far as I have heard, that there should be this restriction upon the extension of time. I know there are roads running from Saginaw in the direction where the gentleman resides, where they do not desire this restriction, because those lands are not needed for settlement. It is impossible to judge how far the interests of this State might be affected by such a provision as this. This is too great an interest to throw away in this manner. A provision of this kind should be carefully examined, and properly restricted. With- such restrictions as are proper I have no objection to adopting any provision which those who represent that part of the State may desire. I speak of this, because I was myself for several years a member of the board of control of railroad lands, and I think I know something of the direction and extent to which these immense grants of land were given. I do not think it would injure the gentleman's project at all, if he should withdraw his, amendment at present, and offer it afterwards, when members have examined this subject, and are more prepared to vote intelligently. Mr. LEACH. Very much that the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CoNGER,) has said, I heartily subscribe to. But I think he is in error in regard to many statements which he has made. I apprehend that he is in error in regard to the feelings of -the people in the Upper Peninsula; but I will not raise that question now. But I think he certainly is in error, so far as his remarks relate CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 206 .Thursday, July 18, 1867. DEBATES AD PROOEEDIG 207 to either of the three great lines of railroad provided for in the Lower Peninsula by these land grants. However, I wish to consult the wishes and feelings of every gentleman who is willing to assist us in the matter. Consequently I am not disposed to press this subject at' the present time. I will withdraw my amendment, taking occasion to say that at some future time I will renew it, or something equivalent to it. No further amendment was offered to section thirty-one. STYLE OF LAWS. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 32. The style of the laws shall e, "The people of the State of Michigan enact." No amendment was offered to this section. The CHAIRMAN. The consideration of this article by sections having been completed, the article is now open to amendment by way of additional sections. MUNICIPAL AID TO RAILROADS. Mr. PRATT. I offer the following as an additional section: "The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to raise money by taxation for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad to an extent whereby the tax raised, or to be raised, exclusive of interest on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to raise money by taxation for any such purpose, except in the Upper Peninsula. The question of such taxation shall be submitted to a vote of the city or township to be affected thereby." It will be observed that in section twenty-seven, which has been adopted by this committee, there is no restriction whatever upon the power of the Legislature to authorize the several townships and cities to tax themselves in aid of these railroads. We were informed by the chairman of the committee on the legislative department, (Mr. CODGER,) that if any member desired to offer any provision to restrict or restrain towns in the exercise of their powers of taxation, he should bring it forward as a separate proposition. In accordance with that suggestion, I now offer this section. I desire to make this entire article as acceptable to my constituents, and the people in my part of the State, as I can. I do not wish, neither do I intend, to enter upon any discussion with regard to the merits of the proposition which I have submitted. I have adopted the language of the section which has already been passed by this committee, except that I have substituted in-the place of the words, "to pledge its credit," the words, "to raise money by taxation." Mr. CONGER. Will the gentleman from Hillsdale allow me to ask him a question? Mr. PRATT. Yes, sir. Mr. CONGER. I would ask the gentlemen whether the section he offers proposes to restrict, during all time, the amount to be raised by tax to ten per cent., or whether it is intended to restrict the amount to be raised at any one time to ten per cent.? Mr. PRATT. As I have drawn this section, it restricts their power for all time. It is competent, of course, for the committee to make any amendment in that respect they may desire. Mr. CONGER. Some townships have already voted a tax to that amount, and they might perhaps still feel able to aid other railroads. I have no objection to the principle of this proposed section, if it applies to the tax at any one time, or to any limited period of time which might be considered desirable. But I submit to the gentleman that it would not be quite what he himself would desire, to have it cover all time, the past as well as the future, and to extend to what we may hope will be the life-time of this Constitution. Mr. PRATT. I will say in answer to the gentleman, that I would be satisfied with the words used by the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) in the proposition he submitted some time ago; " in any five years or at any one time." Mr. CONGER. If the gentleman will make that modification, I do not know that I would have any objection to his section. Mr. PRATT. I will modify my section in that way. Mr. LIJCE. I would like to suggest an amendment which would suit me, and may possibly suit the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Ir. PRATT;) to provide also that townships shall not be allowed to assess a tax to exceed two per cent. in -any one year. Mr. MIILLER. I wish to inquire whether this proposition now under consideration is an amendment to sec tion twenty-seven, or a new section? The CHAIRMAN. It is offered as a new section. Mr. MILLER. Then there is a credit section in one place and a tax section in another. It seems to me that this is doubling up on us rather strong. Mr. PRATT. I will say to the gen tleman from Saginaw,'(Mr. MILLER,) that without the restriction I propose in my section, there will be no limita tion upon the power of the Legislature to authorize towns to raise money by tax to any amount, in addition to the authority given them to pledge their credit to the extent of ten-per cent. That has been fully conceded in this debate. I have offered this section by way of restriction upon the power of the Legislature to authorize towns to impose taxes. Mr. MTILLER. That is the very thing which I proposed as an amendment to section twenty-seven, and the Convention refused to adopt it. Mr. WILLIJIAMS. I do not know that I understand the full force and effect of the additional section proposed by the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT.) But it occurs to me that it will include the money raised by tax, and the credit which may be pledged. In other words, it includes all indebtedness; if so, it must cover both questions. I do not see the force of the words, "at any one time." Mr. PRATT. I had more direct reference to the amendment offered by the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) SO far as restricting the credit is concerned. I find that the words "at any one time," have no particular bearing upon the section which I have offered. I will, therefore, omit thosa words from my section. At the suggestion of the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LucE,) I will insert after the word" exceed," the words "two per cent. per year," and strike out the words "ten per cent.," so that that portion will read, "two per cent. per year, in any five years." Mr. McCLELLAND. I would like to ask the gentleman from Hillsdale, a question. The question was propounded some time since to one of the members of the committee on the legislative department, but I did not understand the answer,,if any was given. I would inquire what is the meaning of the expression "vote of the city or township?" Does that refer to the regular electors of the city, or township, or to the land owners, or the owners of personal property,- or what does it mean? We know that the city as a general thing is represented by a common council; a township is represented by a township board. Now, I should like to know what would prevent the Legislature from submitting this question to a township board, or to the common council of a city? Mr. PRATT. I can answer the gentleman by giving him my understanding of those words. I understand them to mean that the vote shall be taken in the ordinary way of voting at other elections on other questions. Mr. BLACKMAN. I ask for the reading of this additional section as it now stands; there have been several changes and modifications made in it since it was first offered. The section as modified was read as follows: July 18, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 207 20 O~IUI~LC(.ETO rdy The Legislature shall not authorize any city ortownship to raise money by taxation for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad, to an extent whereby the tax raised, or to be raised, exclusive of Interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed two per cent. per year in any five years, of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to raise money by taxation for any such purpose except in the Upper Penin sala. The question ol such taxation shall be sumbitted to a vote of the city or township to be affected thereby." Mr. BLACKMAN. I would like to ask the gentleman from Hillsdale what is the effect of the words "in any five years?" If this tax cannot exceed two per cent! per year, I do not see the use of the words "in any five years." Mr. LOTHROP. If it is in order I desire to offer the following substitute; for the section proposed by the gentleman from HTillsdale, (Mr.t PRATT:) No county, city or town, which has been authorized t9 pledge its credit to aid any railroad company or companies, shall while such authority exists, be empowered to raise any additional money by taxation in aid of any railroad company." Mr. BIRNEY. I would ask the gentleman from TTillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) if we are to understand his section to mean that a city or township can raise by taxation ten per'cent., and at the same time pledge its credit for ten per cent.? Mr. PRATT. I suppose that is the effect of it. Mr. BIRNEY. Then there might be twenty per cent. raised and pledged. Mr. INGALLS. I would like to ask whether the substitute of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) .would not prevent a city or town from raising money to pay the interest on the bonds issued? Mr. WILLIAMS. It appears to me that the word "authorized," is not the word desired. The Legislature may authorize a township to assist a railroad by loaning its credit to it, but the township may not act upon that aulithorization. I think the word "authorized" superfluous, or the expression, "while such authority exists," should not be used. M-r. LOTIIROP. Of course I do not know that my proposition will be acceptable, but it expresses my precise meaning. I mean that when a city or township elects to come to the Legislature and obtain authority to pledge its credit, while that authority continues, it shall be prohibited from further aid by taxation. In other words, that as long as it chooses to retain that authority, it shall be prohibited from assisting by taxation. If it shall choose afterwards to assist by taxation, instead of by loaning its credit, then it must have its authority to pledge its credit revoked, and thus regain its authority to assist by taxation. The intention of my substitute is to prohibit the two means being resorted to in any town? Mr. LUCE. I desire to offer an amendment to the section proposed by the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT.) I move to strike out the words "in any five years;" also to strike out "two," and insert "one;" so that it will read, "exceed one per cent. per. year." Mr. PRATT. I accept the amendment. The question was upon the substitute of Mr. LoThRnoP, for the section offered by Mr. PRATT, which substitute was as follows: " No county, city or town, which has been authorized to pledge its credit to aid any railroad company or companies, shall, while such authority exists, be empowered to raise any additional money by taxation in aid of any railroad company." The question was taken, and upon a division, ayes 21, noes 31, it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the section as modified. Mr. CONGER. I ask that the section as modified be now read. The section as modified was read as follows: " The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to raise money by taxation for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad to an extent whereby the tax raised or to be raised, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed one per cent. per year of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to raise money by taxation for any such purpose, except in the Upper Peninsula. The question of such taxation shall be submitted to a vote of the city or township to be affected thereby." Mr. WILLIAMS. It occurs to me that the necessary effect of adopting this section, would be to postpone the payment of bonds that may have been issued for a longer time than ten years. I cannot see how - those bonds can be paid if this section shall be adopted, because they must be paid by raising taxes. Mr. CONGER. Of course I cannot tell what the effect of this section would be exactly, when I consider the source from which it comes.' Timea Danaos et dona ferentes. If this is a proposition which contains more than is upon the face of it, and is intended as such, then I do not know that I am prepared to vote for it. I do not have it before me, and I can only judge from the reading of it what will be the effect of it. I d. not know that I have any great objection to it, if I understand it correctly from its reading. If it is intended to go any further than to apply to the tax which may be raised for the purpose of aiding railroads, iff it is intended to ap-ly to the tax which will be necessary to pay the bonds which may be issued, then I submit it is a proposition which I could not have expectedl from the gentleman from Hillsdale. I will move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again, so that we may have an opportunity to see this proposition in print. We have already worked about the time which the most strenuous gentleman here desires to work. Mr. SHEARER. I would like to understand-.. The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the motion that the committee rise, which question is not debatable. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the chair, Mr. PRINGLE reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Legislative Department," had made some progress therein, and had directed him to ask leave to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. HENDERSON. I move that the Convention now adjourn The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at twenty minutes before 5 o'clock: p. m.,) the Convention adjourned-. FORTY- FIFTH: DAY. FRIDAY, July 19, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mr. STRAUB. The roll was called and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. WOODHOUSE. My colleague, Mr. LONGYEAR, has been suddenly called to Detroit. I ask leave of absence for him until Monday morning next. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. M. C. WATKINS asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. FERRIS, during the forenoon. Mr. SHEARER asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. W. A. SMITIE, util Wednesday next. Mr. F. C'. WATKINS asked and obtained leave of absence for himself, for an indefi,lnite time. Mr. MoCLT,TELTAND asked and obtained leave of absence for himself, until Tuesday next, on account of indispensable business. Mr. CORBIN asked and obtained leaveof absence for himself after today, until Wednesday next. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 208 Friday,, DEBATES AND PROCEEDIiNGS. Mr. LAMB asked and obtained leave of absence for himself, for an indefinite time, on account of important business. Mr. HOWARD asked and obtained leave of absence for himself after to-day, until Tuesday morning-next. Mr. WITtiEY asked and obtained leave of, absence for himself, after to day, until Tuesday morning next. Mr. HIXSON asked and obtained leave of absence for himself, after to day, until Tuesday morning next. Mr. HENDERSON asked and ob tained leave of absence for himself, after to-day, until Tuesday morning next. Mr. YEOMANS asked and obtained leave of absence for himself for an in definite time. Mr. MUSGRAVE asked and ob tained leave of absence for himself, after to-day, until Tuesday morning next. Mr. BURTCH asked and obtained leave of absence for himself, for an iu definite time. Mr. STOUGHTON asked and ob tained leave of absence for himself, after to-day, until some day next week, on account of important business. Mr. WRIGHT. I ask leave of ab sence for myself, after to-day, for one week. The circuit court of my county commences its sessions on next Tues day, and my presence is required there. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. STOCKWELL asked and ob tained leave of absence for himself, after to-day, until Tuesday next. Mr. HOLMES asked and obtained leave of absence for himself, after to day, until Tuesday next. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I think we had better post the books and ascer tain how the account stands. If we are to have a less number here than a quorum, I think we had better adjourn until next Tuesday. I think we have granted leave of absence to about enough- members. Mr. LAMB. The leave of absence which I asked for myself, I wish to be from and after to-morrow morning. PETITIONS. Mr. HOLMES. I have here the memo rial of the board of trustees, the faculty of Albion College, praying that section 47, article 4, of the present Constitu tion, be retained in the new Constitu tion. I ask that it be printed in the journal, and referred to the committee on iatoxicating liquors. The motion was agreed to. , The memorial was as follows: To the Honor able, the Constitutional Conven lion of the State ef Michigan: GENTLEMEN-We, the Board of Trustees, the Faculty and the officers and visitors of Albion College, charged as we are, with grave responsibilities in.connection with the edu cation of the youth of this State, cannot be Vol. 2-No. 27. indifferent to any movement by which the organic law of the commonwealth shall be so changed as to multiply the-perils otour youth or increase the difficulties of wholesome discipline in the institutions of learning; and believing as we do, that the striking from our Constitution of section 47, article 4, will have a tendency to increase the sale and use of intoxicating liquors, thereby adding to the perils of our youth, as they are exposed to the demoralizing influence of increased traffic in intoxicating liquors; and believing that said provision is most wise and just, we pray your Honorable body that it may be retained in the new Constitution of this State. Mr. COOLIDGE. I have here the mnemorial of Hon. N. Bacon, R. C. Paine and others, citizens of Niles, praying the Convention to prohibit the Legislature from granting special charters for the promotion of'insurance companies.' These memorialists request me to ask the Convention to allow the memorial to be spread upon the journal. It is a short memorial, and I move that it be printed in the journal, and referred to the committee on corporations other than municipal. The motion was agreed to. The memorial was as follows: To the Honorable, the Constitutional Conven tion of the State of Michigan: The undersigned, citizens of Niles, would respectfully request that a positive clause be inserted -in the Constitution you are now framing, prohibiting the Legislature from granting special charters authorizing the formation of insurance companies. The frauds which are likely to arise, if no such prohibition is placed in the Constitution, of a character similar to those perpetrated by the Michigan Central Insurance Company, either through the imbecility or rascality of its officers and managers, admonish the undesigned to make an effort to prevent the people at large from such an imposition in the future, which can only be done by Constitutional safeguard. Mr. STOCKWELL presented the petition Qf Samuel E. Hart, A. B. Palmer, R. W. Ingalls and 190 others, legal voters of the city of Adrian, min favor of prohibition; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. ALTDRICH. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRIxGLE.,) who has been acting as chairman of the committee of the whole for some days past, is not now present. In his absence, the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) will be kind enough to take the chair.' The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. LAMB in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Legislative Department." MUNICIPAL AID TO RAILROADS. The CHAIRMAN. When the com mittee rose yesterday, it had under consideration the additional section moved by the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) as follows: "The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to raise money by taxation for the purpose of aiding in the construction oft any railroad to an extent whereby the tax raised, or-to be raised, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed one per cent. per year of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to raise money by taxation for any such purpose, except in the Upper Peninsula. The question of such taxation shall be submitted to a vote of the city or township to be affected thereby." Mr. ROOT. I move to amend by striking out the word" one," and inserting the word "two," so that it will read two per cent. per year of the assessed valuation of such city or township." The amendment of Mr. ROOT was not agreed to. Mr. WILLIAMS. The committee having refused to strike out "one," and insert "two," the effect of this additional section will be that, in those townships which have already voted under thd law authorizing the issue of bonds, they will be prohibited by this clause from raising the necessary tax to meet those bonds. I apprehend that townships in my own county voted yesterday to issue bonds which would require a tax of two per cent. a year to pay them; and this additional section would prohibit them from doing so. I would prefer to have the amount to be raised in any one year increased from what it is here, or I shall be obliged to vote against the entire proposition. Mr. BRADLEY. I move to amend this proposed section by striklng out the words, " one per cent. per year" and inserting the words, ", tenper cent. in any five years." I think that would accomplish what is desired better than the section now does. It will enable the townships to raise more money at any one time, but still limit them to about the same amount for any five years, and thus obviate the difllcuty raised by the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS.) It will not, as I understand it, interefere ~t all with the issuing *of bonds to the extent of ten per cent as already provided for. The one provision need not interfere with the other; and the friends of the credit system will not be interfered with by those who desire to limit taxation. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. BRADLEY; and upon a division, ayes 7, noes not counted, it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. PRATT, to add a new section to the article. Mr. WITHEY. I should be glad to support this new section, if it contained July 19, 1867. 209 , l -.U. a provision that. there should be no greater amount of indebtedness at any one time, includ'mg bonds and money to be raised by taxation, than ten per cent. for any and all railroads. But T cannot vote for this new section as it now stands. I can hardly tell what its construction should be,' when taken in connection with the other section. If, however, it could be extended so as to include credit and taxation, but limit both toten pr cent., I should be entirely satisfied to vote for it. As it now stands, I cannot vote for it, and do not think it should pass. While I think the majority of this committee would be willing to pass it in the form I have suggested, I do not feel inclined to vote for it in this form. -- Mr. PRATT. I'would have no objection to the proposition suggested by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) On the contrary, I have voted consistently and continually for that proposition heretofore. But we were told by the chairman of the committee on the legislative department, (Mr. CoNGER,) that he did not desire any such amendment offered to the section as reported by the committee. He said that if gentlemen were in favor of any proposition limiting the amount of taxation, they should bring it forward as. a separate proposition. Therefore, in order to get this matter before this Convention, to suit my own views, and those of my constituents, I was compelled to offer this additional section. I stated yesterday, when I'was interrupted by certain questions, that I desired to make this section acceptable to that part of the State which I represented. Wewere told during the discussion of section twenty-seven, just passed, that it was a section limiting the power of towns and cities, to impose taxes in aid of railroads. I have examined that section carefully, in connection with other portions of the Constitution, and according to my judgment it is not a section limiting the power of townships to grant aid; but it is a section ex.pressly conferring upon them a power to grant aid, which they do not now possess. Section six, of article XIV of the present Constitution is as follows: "The credit of the State shall not be granted to, or in aid of, any person, association or corporation." I hold that that section by fair implication prohibits the State from authorizing any municipality,:or any subdivision of the State, to grant aid for the construction of railroads. While section twenty-seven of this article as passed professes to limit the towns so far as their power to grant credit is concerned, my construction of it is, that it is a grant of power to them to pledge their credit, and as a necessary consequence to raise taxes in aid of railroads, which they have not heretofore possessed. If there is one thing settled in the minds of the people of my part of the State, it is that the towns should be limited in their power to raise taxes in aid of railroads. And on that account I have offered the section which is now before this committee. As the matter now stands, without the section I have offered, it would.be competent for the Legislature to authorize towns to pledge their credit to the amount of ten per cent. for an indefnite period of time. That is to say, they could pledge their credit to the amount of ten per cent.; and, after paying that.amount by taxation, they could go on and re-pledge their credit, pay it again by taxation, and thus go on for an indefinite period of time. Hence, I say, there is in that section no limitation whatever, upon the power of towns to raise modney for the purpose of constructing railroads. Without entering upon any general discussion of this question, because it has been ably handled by gentlemen who have preceded me, I simply want to say that the constituen:ts I immediately represent are in favor of a limitation upon-'the power of towns in that respect. I think they are decidedly opposed to the whole scheme obf railroad bills passed by the Legislature last winter. They are opposed to them for the reason that they believe they will defeat the completion or construction of railroads in this State which they are in favor of having constructed. They believe that if this scheme of building railroads by township taxation, without any limitation whatever, is carried out in this State, it will so completely and effectually destroy the credit of this State, that roads which ought to be built, which we all want built, will fail to be built, on account of the entire loss of the credit of the State. Theyare opposed to it for'another reason; they believe that if this scheme of taxation is carried out, it will impose upon the people a large burden of taxation which they will have to pay, and in the end they will not realize thelie expectations in the completion of these ~roads. Instead of opening up thoroughfares in the newer portions of our State for the purpose of inviting immigration, they believe that this will create such a burdensome taxation, that it:wilt drive immigration from our borders. I am desirous that the Constitution which we shall form, shall be acceptable to the people of this State, and be approved by them. This Constitution we are now making, will have load enough to carry, in reconciling the various conflicting interests which are represented upon this floor, even if this scheme of building railroads is controlled and kept within reasonable bounds. I am not here to -make any threat. I say that I desire and expect that the Constitution which- will be formed by us, will command my support and approval, and the support and approval of the constituents whom I represent. What I desire to do here, is in good faith so — to arange this matter now before this committee, as to make it acceptable to that part of the State. Gentlemen have said that we have a railroad running through our county, and through the southern part o'f the State of Michigan, and on that account we are not disposed to furnish aid to the newer portions of -.the State. I want to say to gentlemen there'is no part of the State more interested in building railroads, and more desirous of constructing —-these -th6roughfares, than the part of the-State romwhich I come. I desire to call the attention' of this committee to the fact, that in 1856 we attended a railroad con.vention in. the State of Ohio, for the purpose of procuring these very land grants which have.been given by Congress to the State of Michigan, and other'States, for the' purpose of opening up these thoroughfares. We, in Hillsdale. county, claim.the credit of being the'first. to move in that scheme, so. far as the State of Michigan is concerned. So'far as Iknow, the delegation from Hillsdale county were the only representatives -from Michigan who attended that convention. That convention inaugurated the movement, memorialized Congress, and carried throu-gh the scheme of donating lands for railroads in our State. The representative in Congress,from our county was active in supporting that-scheme. The termination Of'one of those roads is in that county; I refer to the Lansing and AAmboy railroad. We applied here to the Legislature in 1857, and sought to have that [and grant made over to a company organized for the purpose of constructing a railroad from Amboy, through Hillsdale and through Jackson, to Lansing, and thence northward. We were defeated by what was called the "Ram's -Horn Railroad Company," by a'railroad excitement which; pervaded that Legislature, and which has had no parallel until last winter. Ii my opin-e ion, if that grant had been conferred upon a company to cbnstruct a road by way of Hillsdale, Jackson-andL'ansing, and thence northward, a railroad would have been opened to Lansing long before this road was constructed. 210 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Fridfty, I July 19', 1867. DEBATES A-D PROCEED, I~GS. 2I. I will not detain this Committee with any further remarks upon that topic. I only refer to it for the purpose of showing that we have always been interested in railroad grants, for the Burpose of constructing railroads in the northern part of this State. We are not only interested in the construction of railroads, but in the pure fame and name of the State of Michigan, in its credit, and in maintaining its credit on a good basis. We are' interested in that, because without credit no railroad can be built. These measures, which are sought to be carried through here without the credit of the State of Michigan being maintained unsullied, will entirely fail. I submit that when gentlemen say that we are selfish and not in favor of these schemes, those charges do not apply to our part of the State. We are anxious to have railroads constructed which are feasible; but we are opposed to entering upon a scheme which we believe will result in disaster to a great portion of the schemes sought to be carried out. Mr. LOTHROP. To meet the suggestion made by the gentleman from Kent, ( Mr. WITHEY,) I offer the following amendment, as a proviso to the new section proposed by the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mlr. PRATT:) "Provided, That the amount of money so raised by taxation in any city or town in any one year shall not, when added to the amount of credits of any such city or township already pledged, and then outstanding exceed ten per centurm of the assessed valuation of such city or township." Mr. CONGER. I rise to a point of order. There was a substitute proposed for this proposition after it was amended, a vote was taken upon the substitute, and it was rejected. I claim that that precludes any amendment to the section for which that substitute was offered. I hold, therefore, that the proposed amendment to this section is out of order. If this amendment had been offered while the substitute was pending, it would have been in order. But the substitute for the section having been rejected, I submit that no amendment can now be made to the original proposition. The CHAIRMAN. According to the understanding of the Chair, no substitute would be in order now for this section. Mr. LOTHIIOP. I will not discuss the question of order., Although I might err in that matter in judgment, I never design to discuss any matter that I do not know anything about. And parliamentary law I am entirely ignorant of. Mr. CODGER. While I think my point of order is well taken; I will with draw my objection to the consideration of this amendment. The question was upon the amendment of Mr. LOTHROP to the additional section proposed by Mr. PRATT. hr. WILLIAMS. I do not — know that I filly understand the effect of the proposed amendment. I will move to strike out the word "credits," and insert the word " indebtedness." Mr. LOTIIROP. I used the word "credits," because that is the word used in the section already adopted by the committee. That section provides that a township may pledge its credit. I use that precise term, "I credits already pledged;' Mr. WILLIAMS. This additional section has nothing to do with credit; it has no reference to credit at all. The word" credit " used here might have a very different construction from what it would have in a section referring alone to the credit of townships. Mr. LOTHROP.' I should regard with the utm6st attention any legal suggestion of ny legal friend from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS.) But he will permit me to suggest to him that both of these sections have relation to aiding railroads, the one by taxation, and the other by pledging of credit. When the same term is used in both, by the most ordinary rule of construction they must be construed together, and wouldordinarily be construed to mean the same thing. Mr. WITHEFY. I hope the chairman of the committee, (Mr. CONGGER,) who reported this article which we are now considering, will have no objection to the principle which is contained in the proviso, or amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) I apprehend from what has been said by him, and other friends of this section twenty-seven, which we have considered and passed, that there is no desire to have the indebtedness of a township or city, for aid to a railroad, exceed ten per cent., for any one or all of these projects for building railroads. While I have, as I think, consistently voted for this section twenty-seven, e all the votes that have been taken, trying to preserve that section so as to give to the State the benefits, if any benefits can be derived from it through the powers and limitations it provides, I have never from the start, been in favor of allowing cities and towns to vote aid to railroads by taxation, or by way of credit, or in both ways, to exceed ten per cent. I believe ten per cent, to be as far as we ought to go. I, therefore, hope the amend ment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) will prevail. The views which I entertain upon this subject have, perhaps, been suf ficiently expressed in the debates which have already taken place. My reason for supporting the section which we have passed as amended, is that railroads can, seldom be built without; money. We have no railroads which have been built without money, and we probably never shall have, unless they can be built in some way unknown to the people of this State. Credit never will build'a railroad, except as it obtains money. Now it is true that-there are some railroad projects in this State, that do not promise sufficient profit to capitalists, t6 induce them to invest their money in the enterprise. Therefore, to secure an important road, it becomes necessary that there should be sufficient encouragements held out, through the aid which townships and cities may give if they will, to induce capitalists to take hold of the enterprise and carry it forward to completion. Without some such power in townships and cities to vote aid, these roads would remain unconstructed, and we would be without the benefit which a railroad.gives to the community through which it- runs. By means of this aid frequently some important line would be built, and it would be a blessing to the people of all the State. But it seems to me that we ought not to give such an extended grant of power here-through the Legislature to our towns and cities and municipalities, as to induce them, or to give them the liberty, to place upon themselves a debt which will be onerous upon them in the many years that are to come. I believe the limit of ten per cent., as provided by the original section in reference to credit, should also be the limit when direct taxation is added to it. Both by credit and by taxation, ten per cent. is all the Legislature should authorize these municipalities to vote in. the way of aid to railroads. I hope the chairman of the committee who reported this article, (Mr.,CoNGER,) will be willing to accept this proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP;) if not as a proviso to this new section, then let it be added as a proviso to section twentyseven, as amended, which I apprehend could be accomplished through the consent of the gentleman; for I presume the committee of the whole would agree to his views in that respect, if he would be willing to attach it as a proviso to the original section. It seems to me that this is a wholesome restriction. As we stand now, under the Constitution as it now exists, there is unlimited power inl the Legislature to give this authority to munic ipalities to raise any amount by b6nds or credit, or by taxation. This is sim ply a question of restriction. Shall we restrict the Legislature in its power or Jul 19, 1867. 1 y ". DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 211 k 21 COSIUTOA COV-~IN Frd .not? If we shall, to what extent shall that restriction go? That is the only question we now have before us. It seems to me that this provis) covers the true principle on that subject. Mr. WILLIAMS. I would most heartily indorse what has been said by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) in reference to the propriety and necessity of imposing a restriction upon legislative action, in granting power to municipalities to aid railroads, not only by. credit, but by taxation; and I would most heartily endorse the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) if I under stand it fully to coincide in terms with section twenty-seven. But as I under stand it-I may be mistaken, and there fore I rise for the purpose of obtaining 'an explanation from the gentleman from Wayne-it limits the ten per cent., so that in no case could a town ship loan its credit to the extent of ten per cent., because the accruing inter est must be included within this limi tation of ten per cent. Or if a town ship shall have voted ten per cent. in bonds, there will accrue a certain in terest which could not be raised under the proviso offered by the gentleman from Wayne; at least it so seems to me. If I am correct, then I would ask the gentleman from Wayne, to so modify his proviso as to cover the accruing in terest. Mr. LOTHROP. The language which I used was intended to cover the point precisely, so that it shall be free from misconstruction. I do not understand it to reach the accruing interest upon the credit pledged. If bonds are issued to the amount of ten thousand dollars, that is the credit pledged; the interest accruing thereon is different. A town votes to pledge its credit for ten per cent., which will amount to ten thousand dollars. It is that ten thousand dollars which is credit pledged, and not the interest ac cruing upon it. Mr. WILLIAMS. Does not the gen tleman use the words, "amount of outstanding indebtedness?" Mr. LOTHROP. No, sir. Mr. WILLIAMS. I so understand it. Mr. LOTHROP. I use the words " credit pledged and then outstanding," so that if any portion is redeemed, then that is the amount to be raised by tax. Mr. CONGER. When I suggested to the gentlemen that the friends of this system of pledging credit to rail roads, desired to have their section complete in itself, and to express its own objects, and that if any gentleman had' another proposition which did not affect that, which was independent of it, they could bring it in separately, I did not dream that any gentleman of this Convention, after the Convention by repeated votes'on this subject had expressed their determination to maintain the principle of section twentyseven just as it stood, would come in with q pretended new section, to destroy the vitality of the section adopted by the committee. The gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) admitted in his place on this floor, that his proposition was to have the direct meaning expressed in it; that if a town had been authorized by the Legislature to loan its credtit, whether it had loaned it or not, it could not raise anything by taxation until it had obtained a revocation of the credit authority. That is fair fighting; that is what I like. The gentleman without any covert hidden meaning, by a new section proposes utterly to destroy section twenty-seven; that is legitimate warfare. He did not claim what the chair'man 6f the committee on the legislative department had said as a shelter for it or anything of that kind; but he took his own stand in his own way, which we met in the same way. That was fair. The gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) offers a proposition here, which he acknowledged was to restrict section twenty-seven as adopted by the committee. Without having his proposition printed before me, of course it was impossible for me to tell what the exact meaning of its language would be; and I asked that it might be read the third time, so that I could understand it. And I once asked the gentleman from Hillsdale distinctly, whether he intended his proposition to affect section twenty-seven; and I think I understood the gentleman to say that it referred to taxation only. Now, that is a fair way enough to attack our section. I do not find any fault if gentlemen choose to come in a round-about way, and attack section twenty-seven. Now, what is the real effect of this additional section proposed by the gentleman from Hillsdale? Its effect, as modified by the gentleman, who has accepted sundry amendments suggested to him, would be this: a town pledges its credit to the extent of ten per cent., and agrees to pay five per cent. in five years, and the other five per cent. in ten years, or five per cent. next year, and five per cent. the year after, or ten per cent next year. By this additional section it is limited ab solutely to raising but one per cent. a -year by tax, to say nothing of interest. I understand that to be the legal construction of this new section. Now, gentlemen of the committee in favor of this section twenty-seven, we have worked and labored here for many days, to satisfy all the members of thi's committee of the whole, by adopting such amendments as we thought would not destroy the force of our section; to satisfy them as far as we could, and yet retain the principle of the section. We labored successfully and passed the section. The work was done, and was acceptable then'and is now to a large majority of this committee. Now, why should we allow covert and insidious efforts lo destroy what we have determined to adopt? Why should we put alongside of our section which we desire, another section which prevents its execution, which restricts it entirely, and which destroys its vitality? I have said, and I say again, although I have not heard one single gentleman on this "floor say that he had any fears whatever, where the taxation was direct and the payment immediate, the money to be taken immediately upon a vote by a direct tax-I have heard no gentleman on this floor say that -he feared- the people would be misled. The gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) who is pressing amendment after amendment here, the legal effect and construction of which I believe to be to defeat section twentyseven; at least to bind it about in such a manner that the courts might defeat it by a construction of the section-the gentleman himself said, when ho desired a substitute providing for direct taxation, instead of a pledge of credit; that he had no fears if the payment of the money was to be immediate. I hold the gentleman to that; I do it in order to do away with the necessity of any of these other amendments. I submit to all who now hear me, that no gentleman on this floor has ever asserted, or dared to assert, that there was any danger of a township I. I. - ".... n running into extravagance, where they voted for the immediate payment of the amount of aid, by an immediate tax to be raised. Has any gentleman made such a statement? Dare any gentleman make that assertion? Sir, it is contrary to all our knowledge of human nature, of the action of the people in townships or cities, or any where else. There is no danger of any such thing. And, therefore, it was that the committee on the legislative de partment did not deem it necessary to place any restriction upon taxation where the money was to be raised immediately. The committee were unanimous in that opinion; this Convention is unanimous in that opinion, because no member has ventured to assert that there was any danger that the people would vote too much, where the tax was to be immediately levied, and the money to be immediately paid. e t s 8 1 .i t f e 0 0 t CONSRYITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Friday, 212 July 19,v1867. DEBATES A~D PROCEEDINGS. 213 Now, I submit that these various propositions to amend and to insert new sections are intended to defeat section twenty-seven as adopted by this committee. I submit that that is their sole object, that is their legal effect. And gentlemen have admitted it, too, so that I have the right to assume that such is the base. The gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) admitted that that was the object of his substitute. The gentleman from Hillsdale, (ir. PRATT,) admitted that the effect of his proposition would extend over to the raising of money to pay off the bonds. Now, my proposition yesterday was, that if any gentleman desired an independent restriction upon taxation, that should not affect at all this question of credit, or the means of raising money to pay off the loan, or the interest on the loan, I would have no objection to such a proposition, nor would any friend of section twenty-seven. But this proposition which has been offered here by the gentleman from Hillsdale, and which is supported by the gentleman from Wayne, does not meet my proposition at all. If adopted, it will stand there, absolutely destroying and defeating section twenty-seven. Mr. FARMER. Interrupting the gentleman for a moment, not to break in upon the thread of his remarks, I desire to say, that I propose to offer just such a proposition, when I have the opportunity. Mr. CONGER. I wish if it was possible, that there might be an arrangement with those gentlemen who have voted so persistently and entirely throughout, against our measure, so that they might consult with the friends of our measure, and see if any satisfactory proposition can be drawn up. The gentleman who has just inter rupted me, (Mr. FARMER,) has submit ted to me a proposition which he pro poses to offer, to which I cannot ac cede. As I said before, if gentlemen have an independent proposition in re gard to taxation, which does not affect our favorite measure, I have no objection to it; I would aid in perfecting it. But when these propo sitions are avowedly offered for the purpose of crippling and curtailing the measure which the committee have adopted, the necessary legal import of which being to that effect, then I sub mit to the friends of section twenty seven, that until we have a proposition which is at least friendly to ours, we have but one duty to perform, and that is, to stand by the' section we have adopted. If we can agree upon such a proposition, having time to see it and examine it, and ascertain what its legal construction will be, if the friends of this measure, or anybody else in this Convention are desirous of having another proposition which can be so worded as not to destroy the effect of section twenty-seven, I have said repeatedly, and I say again, that I have no objection to it. But that it shall come in under a pretense of being a proposition to restrict taxation, and then shall control and regulate our bonds by cutting off the means of paying them, I do not propose to be deceived by any such thing; I do not propose to follow any such lead. I propose as long as I can ask my friends to resist it, to resist it until the majority of this committee shall pass it. The object of the substitute for secti9n twenty-seven, offered yesterday, as the gentleman from Wayne himself argued, was to cut off entirely any tax, to provide that after the Legislature had given authority to pledge credit, while that authority remained, whether exercised or not, the township could not raise anything by tax, although they might prefer to raise by tax instead of by credit. I said that was fair; I meant that it was fair in one who was hostile to our whole proposition. Yet I submit that after this committee have by repeated votes shown that they intend to maintain section twenty-seven as it now stands, there should come a time when attacks upon it should cease, and when gentlemen should not attempt to do that indirectly which the rules will not permit them to do directly. I submit this proposition: that the proviso of the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTHROP) will just as absolutely and effectually destroy what we have attempted to establish here, as it is possible for anything to do; for by the terms of it there' can be raised by tax but one per cent. per year, either for paying bonds, or for the aid of railroads in any way. Let gentlemen meet this subject fairly and say what they ask. Mr. PRATT. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him one question? Mr. CONGER. Yes, two of them. Mr. PRATT. What objection does the gentleman have to the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) toe raise ten per cent. in any five years? Does the gentleman wish to pledge the credit of municipalities to an extent exceeding ten per cent. in five years? Mr. CONGER. I will discuss the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) when it is before the committee, if I choose. I am now discussing the proposition of the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT.) I say that it is illusive; that it will restrict the raising of money to pay for the bonds; that it does destroy;; the vitality of section twenty-seven; that is, the proposition of the gentleman from Hillsdale, with the amendment to it proposed by the gentleman from Wayne. The propoposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) was to raise by taxation in addition to the bonds; that was fair and honest. The proposition of the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) is to raise but one per cent. per year; if townships have pledged no bonds, they can raise only one per cent. a year under his proposition. Now, if railroads are to be built at all, they must be built in less than ten years from the time the townships begin to give aid. No town will give one per cent. a year for ten years running. It is to help the road along more immediately, to give such assistance as will be beneficial, that we desire this section twenty-seven. Now, if the friends of section twentyseven are willing that it shall be crippled, then the section must go. If there is to be an amendment in regard to restricting taxation, which nobody on this floor has argued, unless by way of offering amendments to cripple our section, then let it come up when we have -time to consider it, when the proposition is fairly made and can be fairly met and examined. But this proposition I object to absolutely and entirely. I assure those gentlemen who are in favor of section twentyseven that this proposition, with or without the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) utterly saps the vitality of section twenty-seven. I do not propose to speak again upon this subject. I have watched unweariedly this section twenty-seven through the most terrific fire that any provision or section has ever met in this Convention. I have watched it for three or fourlong days, with the addition of commencing our sessions at an earlier hour in the Convention, in order that it might be subjected to more frequent attacks. We have carried that measure triumphantly through all opposition, and we thought we could rest from our labors on that subject. Yet no sooner do we rest, than from behind hidden and covert ways, attacks are made upon our action in that respect by a new section, apparently introduced for another purpose. My friend from Wayne attacks our measure because it is too strong; the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) attacks it because it is too weak, and does not express what it ought to. Now, we had supposed that we had put this matter at rest, at least until we should get into Convention with it. i t I July 19, 1867. -DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 213 i t ~14 COSIUTOA COVwI~ rd Our measure is something like the roast pig, in the nursery rhymes, that was set upon the table. Notwithstanding one gentleman has one objection to it, and another gentlemananother, it would seem that the entire section must disappear. The old nursery rhyme, if I can remember it, was this: "The pig was not so very fat, Nor yet so very lean And yet a finer crisp roast pig, Has not been often seen. Now Mr. Spratt could not eat fat His wife could not eat lean; And yet between the two it chanced, They lickedthe platter clean." That is the way with our section twenty-seven. Some gentlemen do not like it-because it is too lean; others do not like it because it is too fat. But between the two, I do believe they intend to wipe it out completely; and I do not know but they will be successful. There are so many of our friends gone this morning, that I do not know that enough are here to stand by the section as it is'. But those of our friends who left this morning, told me that they would come back again next week. I shall not make any more fight now; the committee may change or not change, adopt or not adopt. But I submit that having fought the section through, those gentlemen in favor of it, who have gone away, might well have supposed that it would stand without being attacked by amendments to it, or by any sections intended to destroy it, until we could get into Convention with it; and then it must run the gauntlet again. I must say for myself that not feeling well, not desiring to go over the ground again, I take this position now, because when it comes up in another place, and in the proper place, I will undertake to meet it more soberly anid more carefully than I have to-day. Mr. LUCE. I can very well sympathize with my friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER;) I have felt at times very much as he feels this morning. I shall not address to him any remarks that would tend to excite him. But I have a suggestion to make, and I will make it so mildly that I think it will not excite anybody. I am favorable to the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) I have been voting steadily with the gentle. man from St. Clair; still I believe there should be some restriction in regard to taxation. But as it is attached to this proposed section of thei gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) it seems to me that it leaves it somewhat mixed. tBut I do not see why the gentleman from St. Clair should be opposed to that proviso being attached to section twenty-seven. Its effect would be that a town might issue its bonds, say for eight per cent., and levy a tax for two per cent., by having a bill passed by the Legislature to authorize the townships and cities in certain counties to grant aid to railroads to the amount of ten per cent. upon their assessed valuation, either by a pledge of credit, or by tax, or both, as the townships may choose. The Legislature would be left at liberty to pass such a bill as that; and I cannot see why the gentleman. from St.- Clair should object to such a proposition. I would suggest that. we let this matter go over until we get into Convention. I think we can there arrive at a conclusion by which we can all agree to adopt an amendment, something like that offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) permitting towns to raise, if they choose, five pe' cent. by tax, and five per cent. by bonds. They could then pay off the five per cent. bonds, and raise five per cent. more. I think this is a sound financial proposition, and will meet with the approbation of a great many of the gentlemen of this Convention, who are desirous of restricting the total amount somewhere. I am desirous of that myself, and so are my colleagues. We have all along voted with the gentleman from St. Clair, but with some reluctance. I can, see no objection to this proviso. I would suggest that either with or without a vote, we should pass this matter out of committee into Convention,where we can considerit and arrive at some satisfactory conclusion. - Mr. WITHEY. In addition to what I have said, I would call the attention of this committee, to the fact, that in reference to the new section offered by the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) I said this morning that I did not like it and could not support it. When taken in connection with section twenty-seven, already adopted by this committee, I think it is inconsistent with it and ought not to be adopted. ~ I said I could not and should not support it. When the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) was offered, I said to the committee, not that I was in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Hillsdale, but that I was in favor of the proposition submitted by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) In- the remarks which- I made I simply asked the chairman ofthe committee on the legislative department, (Mr. CONGER,) if it would not be entirely satisfactory to him to incorporate into this article, either as a new section, or in connection with section twenty-seven,- a part of the proviso submitted by the gentleman from Wayne. That principle, I think, is desirable and wise, and I think that this Convention in its wisdom, will adopt it in some form..-'#. If it is necessary to part company with the gentleman from St. Clair, for one I will do so, and if necessary I will go with the gentleman from Wayne so far as my vote is concerned, when my judgment is convinced; and I apprehend every member of this Convention will do the same thing. I do not think it is very graceful in my friend from St. Clair to say, that the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) has introduced this proposition covertly, or that it comes in here unfairly. I do not believe that is the best way to meet questions of this kind. Now, I am in favor of limiting the power of the Legislature in this respect; of limiting their power to grant authority to the municipalities to give aid to railroads. I believe the restriction should be ten per cent., whether that aid is given. in the form of tax, or in the form of credit, or in both forms. I Hope that the wisdom of this Convention will exhibit itself in that direction. If it does 4ot I shall besatisfied to vote inthe minority. I hope now that this subject will be laid aside;. and that hereafter-this proposition of the gentleman from Wayne will be incorporated in this article,- not with the proposition of the gentleman from Hillsdale, but independently, or as a proviso to section twenty-seven. In that form I trust it will meet the approval of this Convention. It ismfor this reason that I hope this discussion may end here, and that this matter will be passed over until we go into Convention, where we Can decide upon something which will satisfy us all, as suggested by the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LucE.) Mr. CONGER. I submit that there was no occasion for the reproof of the very learned gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) I submit that my only proposition was, that if my friends who had stood by section twenty-seven were now willing to adopt a proposition which-would destroy it, then we should have to part company. That is what I said, and I still say it. I did not say that I should part company with those friends,_but that if they were in favor of adopting a proposition which would destroy section twenty-seven, I must still stand by that section. Now, what is there wrong in that? Or why should I bec called to account for saying it? Or why should the gentleman regret that I used such expressions.? When I do wrong I am perfectly willing to be forgiven; but I meant what I said then. Mr. WITHEY. I did not refer to that statement of the gentleman. I referred to the reflection which he cast upon the person who introduced this additional section, as introducing it coverfly. CONSTITUTION-AT, CONVENTION. Friday, 214 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. Mr. CONGER. FMy remark was, that instead of its being a-proposition to which I had always been- ready to assent, instead of its being a proposition applying solely to a limitation of taxation, this was a proposition which attempted to destroy section'twentyseven, not directly, but covertly;- and no gentleman will deny that it is such a proposition. I impugn no mans motives. I do not intend,:either as chairman of —the committee on the legislative department, or-as a member of this Convention, to say anything that is unworthy of myself, or of others. But I do say that if the:friends of section twenty-seven vote'in'favor of: adopting this new proposition, which I really believe would defeat the objects we sought -to secure by our measure, then I could not go with them; that however much we had gonethrough'the struggle together, we:must part: there. I said that the necessary effect, not the plain effect, but the indirect effectk of adopting the proposition of'the gentleman from Hillsdale, (]Mr. PRATW,,);the covert meaning of it was, to destroy the. vitality of section twenty-seven.'That is so; I say it now; it is true. I spoke earnestly, because I had been somewhat earnest in.the defense of the section which -it is now sought to destroy. I spoke earnestly, because I have labored for thiat as one of the objects for which I am here in this Convention; first, to aid railroads, and second, to restrict that aid so that it shall not be dangerous to the State. The other proposition in regard to restricting taxation, I -consider practically of no value, because I -have not heard it asserted here, nor do I believe that any township or, city will ever vote an immediate tax to'its detriment, Whether there is a restriction or, not. But I have said, and said it so distinctly that I could not have been misunderstood, that in a proper form of restriction to a proper extent of taxation, which -did not affect section twentyseven, I have always been willinrg to accede. And I would support that proposition if it was in such a form, that neither by-the construction of the courts, nor by its own language, it would conflict with section twentyseven. Hence, I said that the-idea of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) put ito the proper shape, either as a new section, or as a proviso to sectibn twenty-seven, would not be objectionable to m:e, and would not be to other gentlemen..I:meant just what I said, and I' will stand by it. If the report which has'been- made by the chairman of the committee on the judicial department, (]ir. WITXEY,) shall go through such a fire as:the legislative article has gone through, hewill learn, I think, that every word which he may say in favor of his article is not' to be criticised against the speaker, so:that he means right, and is honest "in his purpose. Mr.- McCLELLAND. I did intend to enter into this discussion, and take a part in it; but I have given up that idea long ago. My own impression has always been against giving the aid of the State, or of any township, or': county for any such. purpose as this. In consequence of that, I was in favor of the provision that is contained in the Constitution of 1850, prohibiting the State from giving aid to -any such corporation, and I believe that'the same- experience which justified our. action then in regard to the State, will apply to counties and townships now. But I am not going to discuss:that question. - When I see that the majority of this committee, or of the Convention, are in favor of some such proposition as this, I shall support a proposition in favor of direct taxation. As has been well said, when you take the money directly from the pockets of the people, they will pay more attention and regard to measures that are about to draw the money from their pockets, than when they arecalled upon merely to loan their.credit. That is the case with individuals, and it will be the case with the people of a township, county, or State. We have realized that heretofore,:in regard to the State, and I am afraid we are about to realize it in regard to townships and cities. However, I will not discuss that. I desire to say that I concur in the remarks of my colleague, (Mr. LOTHROP,) and the gentleman- from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) in regard to the necessity of throwing around this section 'twenty-seven some safeguard, and hedging it about in some way or other, so as to-protect our people from being !plundered.- I look upon this- system as a system of plunder and nothing else. I admit that if this money could be expended properly, it would be in a great many cases of vast benefit to the towns and' cities affected byit. But I have not the slightest idea'that as a general thing it will be properly expended, oriin many cases used: at all for-the purpose contemplated. When I look at the State taxes:and the county and township taxes in this State, ten or fifteen years ago, and then look at the State taxes which we are obliged to pay every year now, it surprises and astonishes me, and at the same time it alarms me., In 1852, our State tax was only $10,000; in 1853, it was only about $30,000, embracing fthe expenses of the Legiislatur~. Now, sir, our State tax alone, separate and apart from the county, township and city taxes, amounts'to $581,922.97. The United States tax upon this State for 1865, was $783,578. Now, sir, I ask what State, what people under the canopy of heaven, with all the prosperity which we have had, or which we can expect, can long bear such burdens as these? Mr. MUSSEY. Will':the gentleman allow me to ask'him a question? -Mr. McCLELLAND. Yes, sir, certainly. Mr. MIUSSEY. How much did the State debt increase during the rears 1852 and 1853? Mr. McCLELLAND.'Very little. I know-: that when I went out of the Executive chair in 1853, we had a large surplus in the treasury, which should have been applied to'the State debt, and would have been, if a sinking fund had been established, as I think -would have been done by the Legislature, if every member had considered himself bound by his oath to support:.the Constitution'.. Mir. MUSSEY. Did the State pay its interest on the bonded debt, during either of those two years.? Mr. McCLELLAND. They paid a portion of it. There was a very good reason why it was not all paid. The State at that time was nearly bankrupt. But that is not the thing. I 1,m not comparing the expenses at' that time with the expenses now, in order to show these things for party purposes, not at all; that is not my object. But even admitting that the debt was increased then; subsequent to that, and previous to that, the State tax was very small compared with what it is now. Besides the increase of our State tax, our township,- county and city taxes have increased in about the same ratio. Add to this the United States tax, and'you have an enormous tax in this State. - If you do not guard in some way or other the provisions of the section which has" bedn so long under discussion here, what will prevent townships from levying a tax of ten per cent. in. almost every township or city of this State every year, if you can ~et a majority to vote for-it? I take the ground, and I think that ground is maintainable, that the Legislature is not bound by this section to submit the question of granting aid to railroads to the vote of the electors of the township or city. They can authorize the board in a township or the common council in a city,- to grant-this'aid without a"-vote' of the people. "At:all events,'there is a doubt:in regard to this matter, and that doubt ought to be removed in some way or other. - ~ Again, suppose'that" the question is '215 -J -U-1y, 19 1867. I 216 COTITUTI()AL COVETIO. Friday, to be submitted to a vote ill the township; will you confine the vote to the electors of the township or city? Are any others going to vote in that township or city than electors? I will explain how many of these measures have been improperly carried in the townships, if I can rely upon the information I have obtained upon the subject. Numerous trials have been made to secure a vote in favor of granting such aid in several of the townships. Where the effort was not' successful on the first or second trial, the strong probability is that it was because the proper appliances were not made. But I will guarantee that they will eventually succeed in all such cases, if in no other way than by importing voters, which has been done in other States, and it can be, and it is said that it has been done here. Now, I am opposed to this whole system. I think it would be disingenuous in me to argue a question of this kind, or to pretend to argue it without admitting that fact. I want to be candid with gentlemen. But I arose not to enter into any discussion in regard to the amount of taxes that was paid in 1853, or in any other year, except to show the large increase of taxation that has taken place since that time; but to put members on their guard in relation to section twenty-seven, and to warn them that if they are in favor of the project, they should guard it so as not to ruin the townships and cities in this State. Mr. PRATT. I think the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONER,) must be, as he confesses, somewhat nervous and excited this morning, or he would not have indulged in the language he has used here. He charges this section of mine as being a covert proposition to defeat section twenty-seven. The gentleman is too good a lawyer not to understand the import and meaning of this section of mine at the first glance. I contend that it can be made to operate in entire harmony with section twenty-seven, and was so intended. I am not tenacious about the amount which is incorporated in my amendment. I did not myself propose one per cent a year; I proposed ten per cent. I changed it at the suggestions of gentlemen who have been acting with the gentleman from St. Clair. Now, if you put in "ten per cent in any five years," which is the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) and which I voted for, then a reasonable amount of credit can be pledged by the townships. That is to say, if the gentleman only desired to pledge the credit of townships to the extent of ten per cent. for any period of five years, he can do it even if this proposition of miners adopted. But if the gentleman wishes that townships shall be allowed to pledge their credit to an amount exceeding ten per cent. in any' five years, then I admit that this amendment of mine would limit that credit. My view is that the first point to be established is the amount of tax to be levied in any one year, or in any given time in any township, and then make the credit depend upon that amount of taxation. I want the townships to fully understand the amount of liability for taxes imposed upon them, and the credit can be made to correspond with the amount raised by tax. That is to say, if the towns can be taxed ten per cent. in five years, and they do not wish to immediately levy a tax, then let them pledge their credit to the extent they desire, and raise the tax afterwards.;. There is nothing delusive in my proposition. On the contrary, when the gentleman got i]p here and said to his friends that his proposition was to limit the towns, the embarrassment we have seen here this morning shows to me most conclusively that his own friends were deluded. He said that his proposition contained a plan for limiting the credit of the townships, yet. when you come to examine it there is no limitation whatever. And the embarrassment that has prevailed among the friends of the gentleman this morning satisfies me that he deluded his friends. I do not say that he meant to do so, but this is the fact. There is no limitation in section twenty-seven; the townships can go on and pledge their credit to the extent of ten per cent. ad infinitum. Now, I do wish to limit that credit; I do nothesitate to avow it. My section will limit that credit; but I do not mention the amount. I am willing to accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr BRADLEY,) and say that the townships may be taxed to the extent of ten per cent. in any five years, or twenty per cent. in ten years. Then gentlemen who wish to have bonds issued by the townships can issue them up to the extent of the tax to be raised. That is afair proposition, which the gentleman could have understood if he had not been so excited this morning. I make these remarks'tQ show that nmy section is in entire harmony with section twenty-seven. I have not insisted upon limiting the amount to one per cent. a year. I voted for ten per cint., and am willing to put in ", ten per cents in any five years." Then my section will be in entire harmony with section twenty-seven, only there will be the limitation which I designed, of the extent of the tax -which the townships are authorized to raise. Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not know that I fully understand the gentleman in reference to his first position, or his construction of the restriction imposed upon section twenty-seven. If I did" understand him, I should certainly be compelled to take issue with him upon his construction of the provision in the old Constitution, and of section twentyseven. I believe it has been conceded by every lawyer on this floor, except the gentleman who has just taken his seat, (Mr. PRATT,) that section twentyseven is restrictive in its features, and that that was the object of embodying it in the Constitution. It was to protect the rights of minorities, about which so-much has been said here, by imposing a restriction of ten per cent. upon loans or credits. I do not see .how they can go on and add ten per cent. upon ten per cent., ad infinitum, at least until the first ten- per cent. has been paid up and disposed of. If the gentleman means that it is not restrictive in time, but only as to amount, I will concede that. I do not apprehend it is claimed upon this floor that it is restrictive for all time, or in other words, that no township having loaned its credit once and paid it, could again do so. Mr. PRATT. But they could do it to the amount of twenty per cent. in any five years if they saw fit. Mr. WTTILLTIAMS. Having paid their first ten per cent., they might, and I think could do it, even with the proviso of the gentlenmn from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) But with the proposition of the gentleman as it now stands, I could not vote for it with the construction which the gentleman himself places upon it, and which, in my opinion, is a legitimate construction. There might be a difference of construction by the courts, but I do not desire that. It does appear to me that this new section would seriously interfere with the obligations incurred by township's, the bonds of which have not yet been issued. In other words, it would interfere with the citizens of townships in my own county, who may have voted~ yesterday to issue their bonds, payable in one, two, three, four or five years to the extent of ten per'cent. of their assessed valuation. With the construcbioe which the gentleman places upon his section, allowing only one per cent. a year to be raised, these bonds could not be paid. I should certainly object to putting that limitation on townships. I would say to the townships that if; they wished to pay their bonded indebtedness within two years, they I CONSTITUTION.AT4 CONVENTION. 216 Friday, 11 Jul y 19 87 EAE -DPOEDNS 1 might do so, that the nearer they could bring their transactions down:to the principle of "pay as you go," the better. For that reason I cannot favor the amendment of the gentleman. I would favor a limitation, not only of the right of loaning credit, but of raising money by tax. I would be in favor of a limitation at ten per cent. I believe that would be a just and proper restriction, when applied in the proper way; but I cannot favor it as the gentleman proposes to introduce it in this new section. Mr. CHAPIN. In reply to the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) I desire to say that I can hardly see how the friends of section twentyi-seven could have been misled, either by the chairman of the committee on the legislative department, (Mr. CONGER,)i or by any other individual, in regard to the restriction contained in the section. It was announced by all the advocates of that measure that it was calculated to restrict the Legislature from authorizing municipalities to vote more than ten per cent. at any one time. But after having voted that ten per cent. and paid it of, then if they liked the speculation well enough, they might vote another ten per cent. That was understood, and it was so announced :by the friends of the measure during the first discussion which we had upon this question. I think it was generally understood by all the members of this committee that such was the distinctive character of that proposition. I cannot see how anybody could have been misled in regard to it. It does seem to me that gentlemen are to some extent, as was intimated by the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) mistaken in regard to the character of this propo sition. It is not an enabling clause; it is purely restrictive in its character. It does not authorize the townships to raise this amount of ten per cent.; but it restricts the Legislature from author izing the townships to — pledge any more credit than ten per cent. until after the first ten per cent. is paid. It strikes me that this is a sufficient re striction, particularly when you take in - connection with it the fact, that after having raised this ten per cent. after having voted, collected and paid it, they are permitted to raise only ten per cent. afterwards, and that, too, by a vote of the township. Mr. PRATT. Is there anything in section twenty-seven to prevent the towns from levying a tax of ten per cent. in addition to pledging their credit to the amount of ten per cent. in any one year? Mr. CHAPrN. I do not care Vol.2-No. 28. whether there is or not; I am not particular that there should be. I apprehend that there is no sort'of danger that a township, after having voted to raise one ten per cent., after having voted, collected, and paid it, will embark in another enterprise to the extent of ten per cent., unless they are satisfied that they have had a quidpro quo. I think this section twenty-seven is as it should be. I am satisfied with it, and I propose to vote for it. Mr. MUSSEY. I do not wish to take part in this discussion, neither do I wish this Convention or the people at large, to be misled..by anything that may go upon our records of debates in regard to the indebtedness of the State, or the serious taxation we are now laboring under, or which we may be compelled to labor under, by reason of any of our acts here. When the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) was speaking inm regard to the rapid rise in our taxation, as an argument against providing by taxation in aid of railroad enterprises, he alluded' to the great difference between the taxes in 1851, 1852, etc., and the present time. -I asked. him at that time how much the State debt was then increased, and whether the interest on it was then paid. I wish to call the attention of the gentleman and of this committee, to the facts. I find by the joint documents of 1851, the year he selected, that the Funded or fundable debt was...$2,529,872 87 Due to trust funds............ 210,465 43 By my footing up I make it $2,740,338 30; but by the book it is $2,809,905 83. The Governor, in his message in 1855, gives this statement: The funded and fundable debt.. $2,531,545 70 Trust fund................... 681,699 73 Total...............$3,221,245 43 The difference between 1851 and 1855 was $905,395 34. Now, I think that nine hundred thousand dollars was a nice little sum to be added to the State debt in that time. Now, I ask if we proposed to raise nine hundred thousand dollars for these enterprises, by which we would have improvements which would be of more value to the State, that-would open up and develop this State and prepare it for that development which should be secured, would there not be a howl raised about increasing taxation, or the State indebtedness in that short time? I. apprehend that if this Convention proposed to..provide that there should be nine hundred thousand dol lars, in an equal length of time, appropriated to this very object, it would re ceive some opposition on the part of gentlemen of this Convention. Mr. McCLELLAND. My object as I stated before-and I will relieve my miscellaneous friend from- Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) from going to the trouble to which he has gone-.was simply to state the tax levied in 1852 and 1853. The gentleman mentions the tax for 1851. I did not say anything about 1851... Mr. MUSSEY. I have the tax here for 1853, if the gentleman wishes it. Mr. McCLELLAND. It makes no difference; I suppose the gentleman was desirous to show his acquaintance with the affairs of the State. I wanted to show that the tax at that time was ten thousand dollars one year, and thirty thousand the next.. Everybody who knows anything about the collection of taxes in 1852 and 1853, knows that it was a very difficult matter for the people of this State to pay those taxes.'My object was merely to show how those taxes were increasing; the people -could hardly bear the taxes then. And if there sha-llbe the slightest retardation in the prosperity of the State, I cannot for the life of me see' how they are to pay the ordinary taxes now, separate and apart from the extraordinary taxes which we propose to heap upon the people. I believe the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MussEY,) has been in the Legislature since 1850. I think the Legislature of 1853 cost the State only about twenty-seven thousand dollars. I think the Legislature now costs the State more than three times that amount each session. They have run up the expenses of the State in that respect,' just as the expenses of every thing else in the State has been run up. Mr.. VAN VALKENBURGH. I rise to express my astonishment at the po sition taken and the sentiments uttered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND.) He tells us explicitly, that he looks upon this whole system as one of plunder, and nothing else. That, to my ear, sounds very strange. I never heard of a man, or a commu nity, a municipality, town or city, plundering'themselves.. The gentle man tells us that this tax can be raised without submitting it to the people of the municipality. Now, this section twenty-seven provides expressly that the question shall be submitted to the people. Mr. McCLELLAND. In what part of the section is that? Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I will tell the gentleman, if he has not seen it, ~.. Mr. McCLELLAND. I have not seen it. Air. VAN VALKENBURGHI. An DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 217 July 19, 1867. le 21 COSIUI-LC~ET~N rdy amendment was made to the section providing expressly that no tax should be imposed upon the people without its being submitted to them. Mr. McCLELLAND. Where is that amendment? Mr. VAN VALKENBIJRGH. It is attached to the section. Mr. McCLELLAND. The section says "the vote of the township." As I understand the proposition of the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT, ) Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I am not referring to the section of the gentleman from Hillsdale, but to the section twenty-seven which has been adopted by this committee. Mr. McCLELLAND. I would ask the Secretary to read section twentyseven as it has been amended. The Secretary read the section as amended, which was as follows: " The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad, to an extent whereby the outstandiug indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to pledge its credit for any such purpose except in the Upper Peninsala. The question of such aid shallbe submitted to a vote of the city or township to be affected thereby." Mr. McCLETiLAND. Where is "the people" there? Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I do not understand the question. Mr. McCLELLAND. I thought you did not. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. "The question of such aid shall be submitted to the vote of the city or township to be affected thereby." Of course no tax can be raised without submitting it first to the city'or township; they have to pass upon it. And it is strange if any city or township should be dis posed to plunder itself. It is objected by gentlemen upon this floor, that a tax can be raised and paid this year, and again next year, and so on ad infinitum. I admit that. What is the objection to it? If I make an invest ment this year and find it profitable, may I not make a similar investment next year? But gentlemen treat these cities and townships as though they were yet in leading strings and were not competent to decide what was for their benefit. I apprehend there-is no danger in trusting the people to say how much they will pay, or when they will pay it. I apprehend they are as competent as individuals are to judge of their ability to pay. I' say then, I hope the section as amended will be adopted. It appears to me that the attacks made upon it, are for the pur pose of destroying its vitality and effi cacy. I trust the friends of the section will stand by it. Mr. PRATT. I desire to make a verbal correction in my amendment, in order to meet the objection which has been made here. I desire to insert the words "qualified voters of," so that it will read, " the question of such taxation shall be submitted to the vote of the qualified voters of any city or township to be affected thereby." That is undoubtedly the object which we all have in view. Mr. PARSONS. I do not wish to occupy much of the time of this committee. But it seems to me that the arguments of the opponents of aid to railroads have been inconsistent and in opposition to each other all the way through. In the first place the position they took was this; that it was dangerous to allow a township to vote aid to railroads, because it was running them into debt, which would stimulate or induce repudiation. It was said that after the'townships had voted this aid, and had got themselves into debt, they would seek to repudiate those debts; they would become so em barrassed, that they would be ruined by those debts. It was claimed that if they had to pay as they go, there would be no danger, because townships would not vote money which they must pay immediately, unless it was advisable for them to do so. It has been said that when they were voting credit, there was the great dan ger. Now, after this committee have determined to restrict townships to ten per cent., so far as voting credit is con cerned, all at once we discover that the enemies of this measure, who have fought it from the beginning, have changed their tactics. They now hate arrived at the conclusion that the peo ple, after having gone into debt, and after having paid off that debt, which these gentlemen at first argued they never would pay, would then go right into it again the next year for ten per cent., pay that off; and then go into debt the next year for ten per cent. more, and so keep going on in that kind of style. Now, there is no consistency in that kind of argument, or in the position taken by the enemies of this measure from the beginning. If they were consistent and right in the position they first took that there was danger that the townships would run into debt, and then resort to repudia tion, then there certainly can be no danger of their running into debt a second time; hence restrictions of this character are entirely unnecessary. I do not believe that a township that has voted. ten per cent. and paid it off, will be induced to vote another ten per cent., or even five per cent., unless they find it is beneficial for them to do so. If they are satisfied with the experiment they have tried, and believe they have derived a benefit from it, then I ask who will object to their voting ten per cent. more? Gentlemen who were, in the first place, opposed to allowing this credit, but who were willing that the people should vote the tax directly, now propose that they shall be limited not only in regard to their credit, but in regard to taxes. They discover danger in every direction. Has there been any danger heretofore? Every lawyer upon this floor, with the exception of one, has admitted that it has heretofore been within the power of the Legislature of this State, to grant authority to townships and cities, to vote not only a tax, but their credit to any amount in aid of railroads. The friends and the enemies of this measure have united in restricting the amount of credit to be so voted, to ten per cent. Some, it istrue, have been in favor of putting a prohibition upon their granting credit, and allowing them to vote a tax if they see fit to do so. But the question so far as credit is concerned, has been settled. Now, there is no danger of their voting too much tax. No man on this floor has any fear of that. I do not believe that those who have cried "debt! debt! debt!" all the way through this argument, and who have talked about the danger of repudiation, have any fears that after ten per cent. has been voted by any township, they will again engage in any such enter prise, unless it is profitable for them to do so. If it is profitable for them to do so, then I ask, who is there here, or who is there anywhere, who will object to their again engaging in such an enterprise? I for one cannot see that we need have any fears with regard to this section twenty-seven as. it has been amended. I believe that the friends of the measure can unite upon that sec tion, and can vote for it safely; and that the people of the State will be in no danger if that section is incorpo rated in the Constitution. Mr. LOTHIROP. I desire to say a very few words, to show the effect of my proviso, as I understand it. Sec tion twenty-seven, as adopted by the committee of the whole, gives the Leg islature power to authorize townships and cities to vote credit to aid railroads to the extent of ten per cent. of their assessed valuation. There remains still open the question of voting money to be- raised by taxation. The two things are entirely distinct. The sec tion proposed byl the gentleman from Hilisdale, (Mr. PRATT,) simply pro poses to limit the amount of money to be voted by tax. Here are the two 218 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Friday, i Jul 19 87 EAE -DPOED~S methods of aiding a railroad; on the one hand by credit, on the other by taxation; both will impose burdens on the municipalities. The question is, shall the townships be permitted to vote both kinds of aid, either to a limited or an unlimited extent? The amount of credit is fixed at ten per cent. Shall the money to be raised by tax be in addition to this ten per cent., or is it the intention of the Convention that the two together shall be limited to ten per cent.? We do not propose by this additional section to restrain the town from voting credit to the amount of ten per cent., if it shall please to do so. But if it votes ten per cent. credit, then we propose to say that it shall not vote an additional sum in money. If it votes seven per cent. of credit, then it may vote three per cent. of money. I wish to say to the gentleman from St. Clair, (fMr. CONGER,) that I made no covert attack whatever. I mahe no covert attacks of any kind here or elsewhere; I am no bush-fighter, I am no guerrilla. I may not at all times understand the full import of all I do, but I intend plainly to indicate what I desire. If the towns, under the authority that may be given to them by virtue of this section twenty-seven, choose to vote ten per cent. credit, they may do so; my proviso does not attempt to restrain them in that. But after they have voted their ten per cent. credit, I desire that they shall not be allowed to go on, and add to the burdens of the township, by voting five, ten, twentyfive, or any other per cent. in money. In other words, when they have selected one mode of aiding a railway, they shall be precluded from resorting to the other. My excellent friend from St. Clair is unduly sensitive in regard to this matter; we do not profess any friendship for this section twenty-seven; but he has carried that section through this committee. The gentleman has got his section twenty-seven duly installed in this article, and he~ seems to regard it as an Ottoman ruler; it will bear no brother near the throne; there can be no other section alongside of it. If we propose anything else that has any relation to it, it becomes at once to his jealous eye an intruder upon his domain. He should not regard this section in that light. It is true we are not friendly to his measure. But we only desire to limit another measure, which, if not limited, will impose too much burden on the township. We have attacked his measure, and would have destroyed it if we could. B~ut the committee of the whole have adopted it. And now we ask for a limitation running in another direction, in regard to the matter of taxation. I believe the good sense of this committee will come to the conclusion that if seven per cent. of credit is voted, there should not be more than three per cent. of money; if ten per cent. of credit is voted, there should be no money voted. Mr. CONGER. I find no fault with personal allusions, or attacks upon myself, not at all. I can bear them all with christian equanimity. The gentleman from Waynre, (Mr. LoTHROP,)says that he is willing that the measure which we have carried shall stand, but ,that I am jealous, like the Sultan, if there is a brother near the throne. Sir, I am jealous only when I know the brother is there to assassinate the ruler, and to usurp his power. I thank the gentleman for his suggestion; that is just what this proposition is; that is what it is there for, and only for that purpose. Does the gentleman tell me that when he proposes to limit the amount to be raised by taxation in aid of railroads, to one per cent. a year, he does not mean to limit the issuing of bonds for that purpose, so that it must take over ten years to pay those bonds and the interest upon them, although the municipality may want to pay them in five years, or even in three years? One per cent. per year would only provide for the principal without the interest, and the gentleman knows it full well;' and yet he says that it does not run against our measure, that it is a mild and loving brother near the throne, who would support instead of destroy it. . I say that the proposition of the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) with the proviso, restricts the amount to be raised by taxation, for any purpose connected with aiding a railroad, to one per cent. a year. Suppose that under this section twenty-seven, a municipality shall issue-its bonds for ten per cent., payable in three years. Then, if this new section is adopted, the municipality must repudiate its debt, for it can only raise one per cent. per year by taxation to pay it. There is no use in trying'to cover up this restriction of one per cent. The gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) charges me, not veiy gracefully, being perhaps a little offended with me personally, with having at-: tempted to delude the committee by not placing in the section a limitation which should prevent a municipality after paying one indebtedness from incurring another. Sir, I have said, in an-: swer to questions over and over again, until my voice became wearied with repeating it distincfly, that when one indebtedness had been'paid oil, there was no restriction in this section against incurring another. There has teen no delusion; there has been no deception. I take the charge upon myself as a little per'sonal attack, that the gentleman desired to indulge in against me. I ask him not for his sympathy. I do not ask him to spare me. When I cannot stand a vigorous push from one who has a personal motivein attacking me, I will keep my seat. Mr. PRATT. I did not charge the gentleman with any intention to delude any person. But I said that from the exhibition made this morning, it was evident that his friends were deluded. IMr. CONGER. I had rather be charged with a deliberate attempt to delude, than be charged with the infinite ignorance that would be imputed to me, if I could not construe the meaning of this section twenty-seven. Smartness, with the attempt to delude, might be endurable; but such ineffable ignorance and stupidity as the other charge would imply, I pray the.gentleman to spare me from. Now, let it not be asserted here, until it can be proved better than it has been, that this additional section, with the amendment of -the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) does not absolutely restrict the power of a municipality which has issued its bonds for ten per cent., whatever time they may have to run, to the raising of only one per cent. in each year, for any purpose connected with aid to railroads, either to pay the principal or the interest, or to pay both the principal and interest. It is time to speak right out. If it does not mean that, what does it mean? The gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LoTHROP,) is a sound and discreet lawyer, shrewd above most other men. Does he mean to assert here that this is merely a restriction upon the power of taxation, leaving section twenty-seven to execute itself? It is not so; no member of- this committee can deem it to be so. When the gentleman says that he attacks our position openly and above-board, I give him the credit of doing that; I give him credit that his language shall mean in law what he, as a shrewd and acute lawyer, designs it to mean. And if we will examine this proposition, we can after a time, in our dnllf way, comprehend what the gentleman, with his acute intellect, would perceive at a glance. The gentleman does not assert that this proposed new section, with his amendment to it, does not interfere with section twenty-seven; but that I am unduly sensitive or jealous in this matter. But I submit to the gentleman that, wits the interpretation put upon this additional section, by the mover of it, we would be restricted to the raising of one per cent. of tax in i t e e e f July 19, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 219. 22 OOSIUTOA COVqi~ Fria any one year, for any and for all spur poses connected with railroads. If we in any town have pledged our credit for ten per cent., and have issued our bonds to be paid i'm one, two, or three years, this additional section would render the payment of those bonds impossible by means of any money to be raised by tax. Let us come up to this question fairly and openly. We have spent a great deal of time in beating around the point at issue, without coming up to it. Does the gentleman from Wayne deny the proposition that if ten per cent. of bonds can be issued, then by the first part of this proposed section, we are absolutely bound to the raising of one per cent. per year? If he does, and is right, then I submit that I am unfit to judge of the meaning of the English language, and unfit to construe it for myself or for any body else. But if I am right, then I am justified in being jealous and sus picious. I would drive away from the neighborhood of the throne - this brother who would assassinate the ruler and usurp his authority. I call upon the friends of section twenty seven, not to allow it to be destroyed. This is a plain question, which can be settled by anybody who can read the proposition now presented. If I am right.in my position, then those gen tlemen are utterly and indisputably wrong, when they say this proposed section does not affect section twenty seven, and take away its utility. And my learned friend from. Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) who wavers in his adhesion to section twenty-seven, is wrong in supporting this proposition, because it will destroy the favored measure of his friends. Mr. WITHEY. I do not support the measure when the two things are coupled together. Mr. CONGER. Then the gentle man will not part company with me, nor I with him. Mr. WITHEY. Not on this ground. Mr. CONGER. Well, that is all that is pending. And I am glad to be with the gentleman and all other friends of this measure, and there I desire to stand, until this contest is ended. Mr. PRINGLE. I have heretofore taken no part in this discussion. And I do not now propose to go over the en tire ground, though gentlemen seem to be hinting here and there, at most of those of the subjects which have been discussed during the last four or five days. The whole controversy here shows how much dignity and importance may be attached to a man of straw, when you take due care in the dressing up of that man of straw. Ordinarily a man of straw is a mere bundle of old clothes sufficient to scare black-birds. I suppose, however, it is possible to add so much clothing as to make the imitation so perfect that the old women and children will be frightened by a mere man of straw. But when. as within the last six months inthis State, there has been an attempt, not confined to this hall, to frighten the electors of this State out of their propriety-by this man of straw, which has been raised in regard to municipalities voting aid to railroads, it is proper, perhaps, that -the matter should be investigated. There has been inthis debate great care taken in dressing up this man of straw. The gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LIoTHROP,) is a great deal of a railroad man, and has had no difficulty in importing some old. clothes from Penn sylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin. Other gentlemen of this Convention have contributed their old clothes; and now this morning the oth er gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. Mc CLELLAND,) adds to the accouterments of this man of straw, some old clothes from the time when he was Governor of this State. I do not know how much dignity or importance they will finally attach to this man of straw, be fore the people of this State. And yet it is but a man of straw after all. Go to any of the States which have been named, and instead of bad results following the building of these railroads by public aid, as is proposed here, good results have followed. The roads have been built, and the States have been populated and made wealthy, under systems far more liberal than any which have been talked about here. There is perhaps a single danger,such as occurred in the contest between Allegany City and Pittsburg, that municipalities may be induced to give too much aid for the purpose of aiding some particular rail road. But beyond some such danger, I assert that there is absolutely nothing as the basis of that fear which has been carefully instilled into the minds of the people of this State, within the last six months, by certain interested parties. The men who control the old railroads, and menwho have their rail roads built, and men who have-an in terest in not having other railroads built, are the men who have an interest [11 making this man of straw'look like a real man. But it is still nothing but a man of straw. There is not a case in the State of michigan, which can be specified, of rival towns, or jealous counties, or places where there is likely to be- any great excess in the voting of aid to railroads. There is no population in the State of Michigan, inhabiting any city or county, who will be likely to give too much aid to railroads. We have heretofore voted bonds, and we have redeemed them. There is nothing in our past history to invite or justify this aspersion upon the people of this State. And yet, although this was but a man of straw, although we knew it was clothed only in the old rags imported by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHRO.,) and bestowed by the other gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) we were willing to treat it as a real personage. And, therefore, we have placed in this article the restriction contained in section twentyseven. Gentlemen say that these towns will become so involved in debt, that there will not be property enough in them to pay their debts; and there-will be ruin and woe, and I do not know how many bad things; they are all to be found enumerated in the veto mes sages of our Governor last winter Well, we will guard-against this; we will restrict our cities and i towns to ten per cent. upon their assessed val uation. We will do this, infall view of the fact that in such a conservative State as New York, they have just passed a law allowing towns on the road between Oswego and New York, to vote the sum of thirty per cent. We will do so, in view of the fact that other towns and cities by the hundred, have prospered by voting twenty-five and thirty per cent. aid for these pur poses. We will limit our aid to ten per, cent. for another reason. We will do it for a purpose personal to our selves a little, if we are friends of rail roads. We want our bonds to stand well in the market; and we know that the men who dressed up this man of straw, have power to injure our bonds, if there is any doubt, or any doubt can be raised in regard to them in any way. Hence, we will limit the amount to ten per cent., believing that these new roads can be built by that aid. We will:accept that limitation; we willtake this medium amount, and plaee the matter beyond the possibility that any of the predictions of the gentlemen from Wayne, and-of certain other gen tlemen, will come true. Now, that we have done that, now that we have treated that man of straw as though he were a real personage, now that we have accepted almost their own terms in this matter, and have guarded against the evils which they have predicted, these same gentlemen are now trying to dress up another man of straw for us. Where all the old clothes are to come from I do not know; where all the parapharnalia is to come from with which they will frighten anybody, I do not know. I 220' .CONSTITUTIONAL — CONVENTION. Friday, July~~ 1,16.DBESADPOEDNS 2 venture to assert that'there is not on this round earth a case that can be quoted to show that any community ever ruined itself by voting money to be paid forthwith to aid in the building of railroads, or in constructing any other public improvements. I do not think the prospect of this second man of straw is quite so good as that of the other man of straw. I do not think the prospect that this second man of straw will be received as a real personage is very good. No gentleman rises in his seat and says that there is the slightest danger -that any city or township within the borders of this commonwealth will ask more money by taxes than they are able to pay for public improvements. That was not suggested in the Legis lature last winter; it has not been sug gested in the newspapers. It was not suggested here in this discussion until these gentlemen, seeing the dignity and importance accorded to their first man of straw, set themselves to work preparing and appareling a second man of straw. The gentleman from Wayne, who was formerly the chief executive of this State, (Mr. MCLELLAND,) very mildly and forbearingly calls this whole sys tem a " system of plunder." The other gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) did me the honor yesterday to hurl-a latin, phrase at me-non hcec infcedera veni-or something of that kind. "I have not come into that com pact." He referred to the case of an individual buying property in a town ship, and assqrted that he did not enter into any agreement to take part in any such operation as the building of rail roads. Now let us examine that a little; let us look into it and see whether he came into that compact. Let us look at history and see what it teaches. I will not go over the history in re lation to all such matters. But I might challenge all history, ancient and modern, to show that from the be ginning of civilization to the present time, in all ages and in all countries, it has been the main part of the duties of government to provide for the com mon weal in all things that advance the common interests of the people. Governments have built canals and harbors for the improvement of navi gation; governments have built great highways. The old Roman highways, the highways of the continent of Eu rope, highways in England and in America, highways everywhere, have been built by the government and the people. That is the rule; or else high ways are built by corporations who get their compensation by charging a toll, as upon gravel and turnpike roads. But it is the public substantially that does all this, either directly through its own agencies, or mediately through corporations or individuals, as the case may be. Governments have always done these things.. The Erie canal in New York, was built directly by the State. And in that State there has been assistance rendered from time to time to almost all the railroads that have been there constructed; only ten thousand -dollars, or perhaps six or eight thousand dollars per mile, to the New York and Erie railroad; half a million of dollars here and half a million of dollars there. It was given with a view of'developing the State. It has been these public works that have built up that State to its present commercial greatness; it has been so in all States and countries. And it was undertaken in Michigan, when, with perhaps eighty or a hun dred thousand people, with an assess ment roll for' the entire State footing up about half as much as the assess ment roll of Wayne county alone to day, without so much surplus wealth in the entire State as is now to be found in any one of fifteen of our larger counties, the State projected those great lines of railroad across the State, and spent a great deal of money in the construction of them. They finally passed into private hands, be cause it was supposed they would be better conducted in that way. The State made great sacrifices in that way, but it has been largely the gainer. But it was finally discovered-in what State might it not be discovered -that the State was too large, that there were too many interests here and there, scattered all over the State, to make it entirely safe that' such im provements should be made by the au thority of the State; the State cov ered too much territory, and some of the improvements might be of very little value to some parts of the State that would be taxed for their con struction. And hence seventeen years ago, under the leadership of the gen tleman who has been so kind this morning as to contribute his old clothes for this man of straw, a pro vision was put in the Constitution of 1850, prohibiting the State from being interested in any work of internal im provement. Now, we do not complain of them for that; we agree that the State is too large a municipalty to be interested in such works of internal improvement; we agree that the aid should not come directly from the State. What next? The next division is counties. But the committee of the whole struck the word "county" from the section, for the self-Same reason, that the improve ment might not benefit all parts of the counties. I think that was a mistake; I think the word "county," should have been retained in the section. I think there are some cases in our Lower Peninsula where it would be for the benefit of the county to engage somewhat in aid of such works, but that is stricken out of the section. Now, what remains? The State was too large to engage in such works, and so was the county. Then comes the city and the township; and they, forsooth, are too small, gentlemen say, to engage in such works. The arguments of the gentlemen agree exactly with the feelings of certain interested parties, who desire that no municipality, no public body, in any shape or manner, shall be allowed to aid in the construction of these railroads. Mr. BURTCH. There is too much confusion in this hall to show proper respect to any member speaking, even to the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRNGaLE.) Mr. PRINGLE. The committee are paying at least ordinary attention to what I am saying. It is false that there is that neglect of what I am say ing, that would be insinuated by the remark of the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BURTCH.) He has once before interrupted me in the same manner. Whether it is in his brain to conceive so much of logic, and so much of rea son, as to intend to put upon me what may look like an insult, what, in view of the fact that our debates here are recorded, is an insult to me, I do not know. Whether he does or not, I have no quarrel with him. But I was saying that the parties who own existing roads, (I need not specify them,) have an interest in hav ing no other roads constructed. They have an interest in saying that the State is too large a body to aid in the construction of railroads; that the coun ties are too large bodies for that pur pose; and that cities and townships are too small bodies to aid in the con struction of railroads. Now, I do not understand that the Constitution of 1850, or this article here, was intended to operate, so that our people should abdicate this impor tant power of government, the right to take care of the internal improvement of our towns, counties, or State. I do not believe that our Constitution will be so made that it will be found that there is no public body, State, county, city, or township, that can in any way render aid to what is as evidently for the-public weal as any other local im provement. Let me apply a little of the argument of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LoTHROP,) as expressed by his Latin DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. July 19, 1867. 221 i .1 22 CO-IUI~LC~V~I~ rdy quotation, saying, as a citizen of a township, that "I did not come into any such compact." Suppose I live in a city and upon a street eighty, a hun dred, or a hundred and twenty feet wide. The city without my consent, indeed against my wish, chooses to put down a cobble stone, or a Russ, or a Nicholson pavement, in front of my house, and imposes a tax upon me to pay for that pavement. The Nicholson pavement costs more per mile a great deal than a railroad in any country reasonably well adapted for railroads. And yet, taxation for such purposes is constantly imposed upon persons who do not own carriages, who do not go from the sidewalks or crossing places, and who are not benefited personally by that improvement. Is every man at liberty to answer in such cases " I did not come into the compact to pay for such things as these?" Not at all. Let me carry out the idea still further. I go into the wilderness and buy eighty, one hundred, or one hun dred and sixty acres of land, and put up a house on it. There are no roads and bridges there. By-and-by others come there and buy land around me, and after a time they want roads and bridges. Can I defeat the building of those roads and bridges by assaulting the supervisors, township commissioners, or whoever come to me to demand my share of taxes for those purposes; can I defeat them by assaulting them with the Latin quotation of the gentleman from Wayne? Can I defeat them by saying, I did not come into the compact to pay for these things? There used to be some State roads across the State; one, two or three roads run through my own city. One was the Detroit and St. Joseph road; one was the Clinton road. They were built at the public expense to some extent. A railroad has happened to follow in the direction of each of. these different roads; railroads now cross the State about where those old roads crossed the State. When those old roads were built, the main purpose was to facilitate the taking out the products of the country, and the bringing in of the merchandise, and other things needed in the country; that was the main object of the Detroit and St. Joseph road, built at the public expense; that was the object of the Clinton eroad, built at the public expense. And yet, with the aid of the State in both instances, with the helping aid of the people of this commonwealth still continued-for the debt is not yet entirely paid which was contracted for this purpose-railroads have been built over both of those routes. And it is practically found that they have added ten and fifteen cents to the price the farmer gets for each bushel of his wheat, and at the same time sugar, starch and other articles are furnished to the people cheaper than they would be, if we had not substituted railroads in place of those old highways. Now, no one will deny:that railroads are a public benefit, that they far transcend in advantage to the people any mere local highway. We should consider these matters, in a Constitutional Convention, where we are forming an organic law. And when we want to get down to the bottom, when we want to find out the principle which we are to support, we may if necessary overrule decisions and laws, and fix the organic law upon the right principle. These gentlemen assert that all this system of aiding railroads is a system of plunder, by which the majority take property away from the minority. Yet it is the fact that always, everywhere, where railroads have been built, there have been great aggregations to the value of real estate; not, merely to the selling value, but to the using value. An additional value has been given to every spear of grass, to every kernel of wheat and corn, to every potatoe and apple; and at the same time the price has-been diminished for everything brought into the country for the consumption of the people. Railroads have been advantageous in every way; they have made the people richer, they have made the community larger, they have distributed the burdens upon more shoulders, and made the taxes lighter instead of heavier. I might appeal'to the example of my own city, which has voted, at two different times, $50,000 to each of two roads. And following upon this, a consequence which can be directly traced, is that of the taxes paid there yearly, at least $14,000 a year come from the new property that has been brought there by reason of these internal improvements. We are paying $7,000 a year interest on the $100,000 advanced to railroad companies, and we are saving money by reason of the tax on the new property. We have two, or three, or four thousand more people, and several millions more wealth in- the aggregate, although it is assessed of course at a lower rate; yet we have at least a half a'million of assessed values on this account. And that increased property pays two or three times more taxes than we have to pay yearly on account of aid to these railroads. This always~follows; it is the rule. I might instance cases where the roads have not yet- been built; yet in anticipation of them, three to five dollars an acre have been added to the valuation of farms. Of course, the benefit is but anticipatory, and not real, in such cases, and yet it goes to illustrate my argument, that if a common highway, turnpike road or plank road benefits a locality, a great deal more do railroads benefit the saie locality. But the gentlemen would have us abdicate the power everywhere to help these railroads in a public way the power to pierce the wilderness qf the north, the power to help the State in a public way. That would follow their effort, if successful, to get in the restriction which they assume it needed, which the man of straw they are engaged in drawing up assurmes to pretend is needed; this idea that it is necessai-y to restrict the people from voting money outright, to be paid at once in aid of these improvements. Sir, there is not a sane man, woman or child in the State of Michigan, or out of it, who seriously apprehends, that here or anywhere, there is any great or proximate danger of any community voting too much money outright in the improvement of that locality for railroads or otherwise. There is no ground at all for any such fear. I do;not wonder my friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNdER,) felt as though this was an indirect attack upon the section already passed by the corhnmittee. I do not wonder that he felt that here was -an attack upon it, intended to injure it to a certain extent, if not to throttle it, for its effectif successful will be to cripple it. There is one consideration more. There is no power whatever given to cities and townships. There is, indeed, a recognition of what nobody, but a few old grannies, I was going to say, ever doubted before, the constitutional right of the Legislature to give their authority to the townships and cities to do this thing. That is recognized here, and then the power is limited. No further recognition, no further limitation is necessary, or shown to be necessary, either by the facts adduced here, or by any reasons which can be adduced here; unless, indeed, we are to assume that the gentleman, who-was kind enough this morning to put in his final contribution of his old clothes, is right in saying that this is all a system of public plunder. Mr. LOTtIROP. I desire to say that having conferred with the mover of this section, (Mr. PRATT,) and finding that there is some little difference of opinion as to its effect, I think it proper to withdraw the proviso I offered to it. At the proper time I will embody that proviso in an independent section to stand by itself. I desire to say further to the chair 222 CONSTITUTION-AT4 CONVENTION. Friday, t July 19, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 223 man of the committee on the legislative department, (Mr. CONGER,) in answer to his personal appeal to me, that although it is quite probable my opinion may be incorrect, I really entertain no doubt whatever that a provision in these words —" The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to raise money by taxation, for the purpose of aidin in the construction of a railroad "-would not forbid at all the raising of money by taxation to pay either the principal or interest of bonds of any kind, whether issued to aid in the construction of a railroad or not. I answer him frankly and fully on that point, that I entertain no doubt whatever that such a provision would not restrict the levying of a tax for that purpose. I desire to be perfectly open and frank on that subject. Mr. WILLIAMS. What would be the effect of the gentleman's proviso, when coupled with a section relating to taxation in aid of "the construction of any railroad?" MIr. LOTHROP. I did not express an opinion in regard to those words. Mr. CONGER. I did not ask the gentleman's opinion in regard to the words which he referred to, but in regard to the other words. I want him to answer my question in regard to them. Mr. LOTHROP. I had previously supposed that they did not prevent the raising of money by taxation to pay any indebtedness of a town; I should not favor the proposition if it did. I now say that the words to which I have referred, and which were the words which attracted my attention, would not, in my judgment, impose any such limitation. But now finding that there is a difference of opinion upon the subject, I withdraw the pr6viso I offered. Mr. CONGER. I asked thd gentle man the distinct question, whether the words in this new section, "on account of aid to any and all railroads shall exceed one per cent. per year," do not limit the amount to be raised by tax for all purposes in connection with aid to railroads, to one per cent. per year? That is the question to which I wish an answer. Mr. LOTHROP. I have replied, that I find a difference of opinion upon that subject. Mr. CONGER. It is the gentle man's opinion: which I desire; not the opinion of others. Mr. LOTHROP. I say that previous to my conference with the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) after he spoke before, I had not supposed that there was any difficulty upon that point. On examining those words, I find that an opinion like that expressed, - by the gentleman might be based upon them. Therefore, not desiring to connect my proposition with the question, - I withdraw the proviso I 6ffered. And now, with reference to the un fortunate Latin quotation I used yes terday; I wish simply to tell a story. A very witty counselor was once ad- dressing a court and jury in the State of Vermont, in defense of an unfor tunate client. He likened his client to a ship at sea, beset by tempests and threatened with being engulfed in the waves beneath, or overwhelmed by the elements above. Wvhile painting the picture, the unfortunate counselor broke down in his address to the jury. Turning to the bench, with the most L pathetic and entreating' air, he said: "May it please your honor, if you will let me get ashore this time, I will never go to sea again in my my life." [Laugh ter.] And iif this committee will let L me get out of the shadow of that un fortunate Latin quotation, I will never subject myself to another such an on slaught as the gentleman from Jack son, (Mr. PRiNGLE,) has- made on this occasion. The question was upon the addi tional section proposed by Mr. PRATT, as follows: The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to raise money by taxation for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad, to an extent whereby the tax raised or to be raised, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed one per cent. per year of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to raise money by taxation for any such purpose, except in the Upper Peninsula. The question of such taxation shall be submitted to a vote of the qualified electors of the city or township to be affected thereby." Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was not agreed to. The question was then taken upon the additional section offered by Mr. PRATT, and it was not agreed to. Mr. PARSONS. I renew the motion that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agred to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the chair, Mr. LAMB reported that the com mittee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had un der consideration the article entitled "Legislative Department;" had made some progress therein, and had in structed him to ask leave for the com mittee to sit again. The question was upon granting leave to the committee of the Whole to sit again, for the purpose of consider ing- the article entitled "Legislatvive Department." Mir. LOVELL. If the Convention refuse to grant this leave, will it have the effect of bringing the article back into the Convention, without any further motion? Mr. PRINGLE. I would submit that the article would then be placed upon the order of unfinished business. The PRESIDENT. In that event, the article would come up on the order of unfinished business. Er. LUCE. It would be out of the committee of the whole. Mr. MIcCLELLAND. Where would the amendments be, which have been made by the committee of the whole? The PRESIDENT. The amendmnents, of course, would not be pending. The article would go upon the order of unfinished business, and when that order is reached, the article without the pending amendments would be before the Convention, for such action as they might deem proper. Mr. McCLELLAND. Have the committee of the whole reported back any amendments? As I understand, they have merely reported progress. Mr. MORTON. Would it be in order to move to discharge the committee of the whole from the iurther consideration of this article? If so, I will-make that motion. Mr. MUSSEY. I think that would not be in order until we have reached the order of motions and resolutions. The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon granting the committee of the whole leave to sit again. The question was taken; and upon a division, ayes 42, noes 10, leave was granted. Mr. ANDRUS. I move that the Convention now take a recess. Mr. CONGER. I move to amend that motion by adding the words " un til three o'clock p. m." I think we may indulge ourselves that. much to-day. The amendment of Mr. CONGE.R was agreed to; and the motion as amend ed was then agreed to. The Convention accordingly, (at fif teen minutes past twelve o'clock p. m.,) took a recess until three o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at three o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. LOTHROP. I ask leave of absence for myself, after to-day, until Tuesday next. 22 ~ ~ COsIUI~LO~V~I~ rdy Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. DANIELLS. I ask leave of absence for myself, after to-day, until Monday next. Mr. FARMER. I do not like to oppose granting leave of absence to any member,when he asks it. But I would call the attention of the Convention to the fact that we have now in attendance here but very few more than a quorum. If we grant leave of absence to a few more members, we will be left without a quorum. I merely rise to call the attention of the Convention to this fact. I do not think that it is desirable for us to be left here without a quorum, unable to do business. Mr. DANIELLS. I have not asked leave of absence before, since this Convention first met. I have some business which it is important I should attend to to-morrow. I had half a mind to move that leave of absence be granted to the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) as the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) has invited him to make a visit to Grosse Point, so that his cacoethes loquendi might have a little chance to rest. [Laughter.] The question was taken upon granting leave of absence to Mr. DANIELLS, till Monday next; and leave was accordingly granted. Mr. McCONNELL. I ask leave of absence for myself, after to-day, until Tuesday next, and perhaps longer. I have received a message from home, informing me that a member of my family is very sick. Leave was accordingly granted. Ir. PARSONS. I ask leave of absence for myself, after to-day, until Tuesday next; unless it will reduce the Convention below a quorum. Mr. PRATT. The gentleman asks leave of absence on condition that it shall not reduce the Convention below a quorum. I would inquire of the Chair how the fact is in that regard. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary informs the chair that sixty-six members will be left, if leave of absence shall be granted to the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. PARSONS.) Mr. FARMER. I understood today noon that there were then but fifty-eight members, who had not got leave of absence. Mr. PARSONS. I feel quite unwell, but I will remain here, if my presence is necessary-in order to make up a quorum. The question was then taken upon granting leave of absence to Mr. PAR SONS until Tuesday next; and leave was accordingly granted. DIAGRAM OF THER HALL. Mr. INGALLS. I ask consent to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the committee on printing be requested to cause 300 additional copies of the diagram of the Hall of the Convention to be printed for distribution to the members. No objection being made, the resolution was entertained. Mr. INGALLS. I have offered this resolution at the request of some members who desire to have-more copies of the diagram of this hall than they are allowed under the former resolution. This..resolution will give members two or three each, while under the other resolution they would have but one apiece for their use. I think myself it would be proper, as I understand they can be printed at very little expense. Mr. HENDERSON. I should be willing to favor this resolution on condition that a great many changes are made in the diagram. We want to have something on the face of this diagram which will indicate to any one who does not already know the fact, that it is a diagram of the hall in which this Convention is sitting. And it will also be observed that the names of the counties, and the names of the members from those counties, are not printed so as to correspond correctly with each other. Mr. MaCLELLAND. There are several of us who are going away this afternoon. We would like to go into committee of the whole on the article on the legislative department, and vote upon the amendments to it, and have it reported to the Convention, so that we may know before we leave the day for which it may be set down. Mr. CONGER. I think the gentleman does not understand the question before the Convention. It is upon a resolution in regard to printing extra copies of the diagram of this hall. Mr. McCLELLAND. I know that; but I would ask the mover of that resolution to allow it to be laid upon the table for the present. - Mr. CONGER. I suppose we-can pass it at once. Mr. INGALLS. I move that the resolution be laid upon the table for the present. The motion to lay the resolution on the table was agreed to. ,LEGISLATIY DEPARTMENT. Mr. McCLELLAND. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole upon the general order. Mr. LOVELL., I desire to offer a privileged resolution, going in the same direction, I think, that the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) desires to travel. I will read the part of the rule under which I propose to offer the resolution, so that the Convention may understand it. It is a part of Rule twenty-three, and is as follows: "That the Conventoin may at any time, by a vote of the majority of the members present, provide for the discharge of the committee of the whole from the further consideration of any subject referred to it, alter acting without debate on all amendments pending, and that may be offered." The resolution I desire to offer is as follows: Resolved, That the committee of the whole be discharged from the further consideration of the article on "The Legislative Department," under the provisions of Rule 23. MA McCLELLAND. I will withdraw my motion for that purpose, if the gentleman will not discuss it. Mr. LOVELL. I have no desire whatever to discuss it. I desired merely to read the rule thlat gentlemen might understand the pertinency of my resolution. I now offer it, trusting that it will be adopted. Ir. LUCE. What will become of the amendments made to the article in committee of the whole? The PRESIDENT. The effect of the resolution of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOvELL,) if adopted, as the Chair understands it will be this; immediately after the adoption of the resolution, or at some subsequent period, the Convention will resolve itself into committee of the whole, and resume the consideration of the article entitled "Legislative Department." At that time all amendments to the article must be considered without debate. After the consideration of the article has been concluded in committee of the whole, it will be reported back, with the amendments to it to the Convention. Mr. WILLIAMS. Does not the rule apply to amendments which may be pending, and not acted upon? Could we go into committee of the whole under this resolution, when there are no amendments pending? Mr. McCLELLAND. My under standing of the matter is just as the President has decided it; that any amendments may be offered to the article after we go into committee of the whole, but they must be acted upon without debate. Mr. PRINGLE. In my judgment, it would be better, all things consid ered, to vote down the resolution and discharge the committee of the whole, then adopt the other motion to go into committee of the whole, and as soon as we shall have done that, it would be in order to move that the committee rise, report the article with amend ments back to the Convention, and ask concurrence in the amendments. Mr. MeCLELLAND. I beg the gentleman's pardon; that cannot be done, as long as there is any member who desires to move an amendment to the article in committee of the whole. Mr. LOVELL. I offered the reso 224 CONSTITUTION.A T., - CONVENTION. Friday, July 19, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDIS. 25 lution, not because I desired to cut off debate, but because I believed we had discussed the matter fftlly. But if any member should offer an amendment, I am certain we should inevitably be drawn into a discussion. Mr. McCLELLAND. As I understand it, if this resolution is adopted, when we go back into committee of the whole, and resume the consideration of the article on the legislative department, the question will-be taken without debate upon any amendment that may be pending; and then if any member desires to offer any other amendment he can do so, and it will be acted upon without debate. The resolution only cuts off debate in committee of the whole; that is all. The PRESIDENT. That is the understanding of the Chair. Mr. MUSSEY. Understanding the rule as I do, I must vote against this resolution. The rule, as I understand it, prevents the committee of the whole from being discharged, until they have acted upon all amendments which are pending, or which may be offered. I shall, therefore, vote against the motion. The question was then taken upon the resolution offered by Mr. LOVELL, and upon a division, there were, ayes 33, noes 7; no quorum voting. Mr. CONGER. Before the question is again put, I desire to say that I have no doubt the objection on the part of members to the adoption of this unusual course, is that they wish to have this article disposed of, just as other articles have been, and not be bound to vote upon amendments without any discussion upon them. I am unwilling to put myself in that position, and I presume other gentlemen feel as I do about it. I do not wish to have any proposition any gentleman may choose to offer put to vote without discussion, except on the previous question, ordered with immediate reference to each proposition. So far as I have conversed with members, there seems to be a willingness to have this article reported back to the Convention from the committee of the whole, and there is a desire, at least on the part of some of them, that it may be made the special order for some day next week, by which time all the amendments which members may desire to offer can be prepared. Those who are opposed to section twentyseven, I hope will be able by that time to bring forward some proposition which will meet the views of the majority, if not of all of the members of the Convention. With that idea, therefore, that we may go into committee of the whole, and have this article reported back to the Convention, and have it Vol 2-No. 29. set down for some day next week, by which time those who have asked leave so generally will have returned, I mnove to amend the motion of the gentleman from'Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) so that we may now go into committee of the whole on the general order. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that the Convention may at any time, by a vote of the majority of the members present, provide for the discharge of the committee of the whole. The question, therefore, must be first taken upon the resolution offered by the gentleman from Genesee. Mr. LUCE. I call for the yeas and nays on that resolution. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken upon the resolution of Mr. LOVELL, and it was not adopted; yeas 29, nays 47, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Birney, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Duncan, Duncombe, Germain, Howard, Lothrop, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Miller, Morton, Ninde, Pratt, Sawyer, T. G. Smith, Thompson, Walker, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winsor, Withey, Yeomans and the President-29. NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Bills, Burtenshaw,Chapin,Chapman,Coolidge, Conger, Crocker, Daniells, Divine, Estee, Farmer, Eerris, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Hixson, Holmes, Holt, Huston, Ingalls, Kenney, Lamb, Lawrence, Leach, McKernan, Miles, Parsons, Pringle, Rafter, Richmond, Root, Shearer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Stoughton, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Yan Riper, Van Valkenbugh, P. D. Warner, Williams, Woodhouse.-47. Mr. HENDERSON. I now renew the motion that the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole, on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. LAIB in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Legislative Department." The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose this forenoon, it had disposed of all the amendments which had been offered to this article. Mr. LOVELL. I move that the committee now rise, report the article with the amendments back to the Convention, recommend that the amendm,ents be concurred in, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of this article. M'UNICIPAL AID TO 1AILROADS. Mr. LOTHIROP. I desire to offer the amendment which I indicated this morning. I do not desire to discuss it. Mr. CONGER. It will lead to discussion. Mr. LOTHROP. I pledge myself here not to discuss it. Mr. CONGER. We cannot ask the committee to concur in an amendment without debating it. Mr. LOTHROP. It can be voted down, or voted in; I will,;not discuss it. I offer the following as an additional section:. SECTION-. The Legislature may empower any c.ty or township to raise by tax in aid of any railroad company or companies an amount of money not exceeding ten per centum of the assessed valuation of such city or township, but every such tax shall be first approved by a vote of the electors of such city or township: Provided, That the amount levied by any such tax shall not, when added to the principal of the credits of such city or township already pledged for like aid, and then outstanding, exceed ten per centum of the assessed valuation aforesaid. MIr. CONGER. Contrary to the understanding that we should at last get together, and have a proposition written out, which we could all see together, and discuss together, which suggestion I made to the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) this morning, this is forced upon us at a time when I desired not to examine this subject further, but to allow it to come up hereafter. I can stay here and discuss this subject to-day, and to-morrow, and all days. But a proposition is now brought in here which even I do not understand upon one reading of it, yet the gentlemen insists that it shall be voted upon now, when the sole object of coming into committee of the whole at this time was to report this article back to the Convention, and have it set down for consideration at some future time. I cannot understand the meaning of this provision upon one single reading of it. I desire to examine it further, before there is a vote taken upon it. What the object of this particular proposition is, I cannot tell. If we are going into a discussion of it, I ask that it may be read again. The section proposed by Mr. LOTHnoP was again read. Mr. BURTCH. I rise to speak upon this amendment. I am opposed to it. I am opposed to all the propositions that are made here with reference to this question. First, I will speak of the proposition to amend by adding a new section, because that seems to be the only one that can now be considered. There has been a great deal said here about the "cdear people." Genltlemen get up here and state the great amount of confidence they have in the cdear people." That applies as well tothe amendment offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mir. LOTHROP,) as to the original section twenty-sever. Now, let me illustrate, if I can, what I understand to be the confidence placed in the people in this matter. We are here to make a Constitution for the people. We have the power, and it is admitted by the gentleman from Wayne that in the organization of the government under this new Constitution, if we see fit to do it, we can give the people the right to take care of July 19, 1867. DEBATES -AND PROCEEDINGS. 225 22 LOSIUTOA COV-I~ idy themselves and save themselves. When you have left that power with the Legislature, it places the Legislature in the condition of a parent with regard to an infant child. If the infant child asks for anything, and the father sees fit to give it to him, he can have it. But if the father does not feel disposed to give it to him, he cannot have it. The child asks the father for bread, butter and sugar; the father says: "That is asking too much, my child,.I do not know whether you should have any bread or not; I do not know whether I can afford to let you have any bread, or butter, or sugar." The proposition here is to place the power in the hands of the Legislature, so as to place the Legislatume in the position of a parent, and the people in the position of children; the "dear people," the people who are so intelligent, and so capable of self-government, are to be placed in the position of children asking the father what they may have. That is the very position in which this proposition seeks to put the " dear people," whom every gentleman upon this floor seems to love so exceedingly and to be so desirous to clasp in his arms. But many of those -who seem tp have such loving kindness for the people, would tie their hands, and deprive them of all power if they could. What more do they ask? They ask the people, when they present this Constitution to them for their adoption, to say that they are non compos mentis; that they need guardians; that they need to be kept under the care of the Legislature-a Legislature which may perhaps have got into the legislative hall through stealth, through polititcal machinery, wire-working, and wire pulling. That is the way we propose to protect the rights of the "dear people." That is about the sum and substance of the whole matter, with regard to all the propositions which are submitted here, under the pretense that they are necessary to enable the "dear people" to take care of and protect themselves. Now, I protest against this whole thing. Let me say, as one man-I can speak for no other-if the Constitution for the State of Michigan is ever offered to me for my vote, containing no power for the "dear people" to save themselves as towns, cities and villages, by improving their condition, I will never cast my vote for it, and I will advise my people not to cast their vote for it. The people have called this Convention together at an enormous expense, in order that they may receive some of the benefits of which they have been constantly deprived and robbed from the foundation of the government. I trust that unless they are themselves to receive those benefits, they will say, "away with your Constitution; let us have what we have had; let us be kept pinioned in the old way; let us be at no expense for any new iron bands, but let us continue to get along with those which have been imposed upon us for so many years past." That, I avow upon this floor, is the feeling and sentiment of my constituents to-day. I have said pretty nearly all that I want to say, and I believe I have hit the point exactly this time. [Laughter.] Mr., SHEARER. I would ask the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) in relation to the section he has offered, whether it substitutes taxation for loaning credit? Mr. LOTHROP. It does not; it leaves the people of a township to select either method of granting aid, by loan or by taxation, or in part by both methods; not, however, to exceed ten per cent. by both methods. It is precisely the proposition that I explained here with great care this morning. It was drawn up carefully by'me to reach that end, and no other; and at the time I stated it, it seemed to receive acceptance from this committee. I will say further, to the chairman of the committee on the legislative department, (Mr. CONGER,) that I sought to find him here, in order to show it to him, but could not do so. I showed it to two or three gentlemen who have voted with him steadily upon this matter, and they approved it. Mr. SHEARER. If that is the proposition I am not so much opposed to it, for I have committed myself to vote for five or ten per cent., according to section twenty-seven, which has been under consideration. I did this from the fact that I understand that the people in the region where I live are in favor of taxing themselves. - In fact the town ih which I live has imposed upon itself a tax of five per cent. for the Howell road leading from Detroit to this place. Thirty miles of that road are now under contract, and something like a hundred men are at work upon it to-day. We subscribed $180,000, in the first place, for the road from Plymouth to Howell; we have also taxed ourselves five per cent. in the township of Plymouth for that road. We have also passed a resolution, without a dissenting vote in a town meeting, to vote a tax of five per cent. on the taxable property of Plymouth, amounting to $250,000, for the road leading from Holly to Monroe and Toledo. There must be some $600,000 already raised on that road; at least, I so understand, and we have raised $300,000 by subscription for that road. We have raised $250,000, embracing sub scriptions and township aid. We deem that it would be an advantage to us to have that railroad, although many people regard a railroad as something horrible. We have been laboring under the disadvantage of being required to transport our produce some twentyfive miles over a very bad road. We would rather pay for a railroad than not to have it, from our place to Detroit or elsewhere. Now, in relation to the able arguments of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) and the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTREOP,) I subscribe to the most of those arguments; but there are some things that I dissent frem. I am very loth to dissent from my colleagues from the same county which I in part represent, knowing their ability, their honesty and.integrity, and their desire to mete out equal justice. But at the same time, it is no crime for men to disagree upon a particular point of policy. As we are situated in that part -of the county of Wayne, where I- -live, we wish a railroad; we are willing to pay money out of our own pockets; and we are also willing to issue bonds, and are not particular about the time of payment. We do not fancy that we are going to be distressed in this matter, but we fancy that the road will be a benefit to to us generally. It may be said that a road running from Plymouth to Detroit would not pay; but we are satisfied that even if we had a road only twenty-five miles long, the amount of produce sent from our own region would make that road valuable to us. There is a great deal of wheat, flour, etc., sent from the township of Plymouth to Detroit; and we could almost build the road and pay for it it ten years by the saving that it would be to us. The grading of the road is a mere nothing; we could grade the road, build it and run it with very little expense. We would not want to put on any fancy cars; we would want only sufficient to take our produce to Detroit. We have taken our slates and pencils and figured this matter all out. There are five or six townships that bring all their wheat and flour to our mill. We have also a great deal of lumber, in the shape of black walnut and white oak, which would pay. We have also the best country for the raising of fruits. I have abstained from ever offering any amendment which would interfere with the action of members of this Convention. But as a young man coming among you from the county of Wayne, I wish teo be plainly understood in what I say, which will be in a plain farmer style. I do not expect-to be very eloquent, but I wish to be 226 CONSTITUTIONAL- CONVENTION. Friday, Jny1,16. DBTSADPOEDNS governed by common sense principles, and to state to you the reasons why I take this course, defining my position on this principle, so that my reasons may be understood, and my vote will be understood hereafter. I dissent from my friend in one thing; that is, in relation to the governmental arrangement of townships. He claims that we should not go out of the governmental arrangement which we are intended to occupy. He argued closely yesterday that townships could not enter into banking. I acknowledge that; we do not wish to go into banking. But when we go into building school-houses and bridges, we believe that we are acting according to the principle of our organization, and should not be put into a straight-jacket in relation to these matters. Let me suppose a case. I wish to define the vote which I am about to cast. As I am slow of speech, and short of comprehension, I hope gentlemen will bear with me while I state my reasons for the vote I shall give on this important question. In the construction of school-houses, and bridges, and roads, there will always be found individuals who will oppose them, although they are strictly within the governmental organization of Athe township. For instance, a bridge may be constructed in one corner of; a township which will benefit another town as much as the town in which it is erected. - A vote is called for at a township meeting, to raise money to pay for constructing that bridge. The people in the remote corner of the township, nearly seven miles away, may not want this bridge; but the adjoining township is willing to vote a tax on themselves in order to construct the bridge, because it will be a general public benefit to the people of both townships. The people in both of these townships conclude to construct this bridge at one corner of the township. But there are always some who will find fault, because their individual rights are infringed, or their private property is taken from them without their consent. They say that because they do not wish to use that bridge, their property is taken from them for public use without just compensation. There is a great deal of private property taken for public use without just compensation, for the benefit and amelioration of human society, for the promotion of social order and public education. Now, we should not all become perfect misers, and put away every dollar that we can get into a chest, and barricade the doors and windows, so that nobody can get in, and all the-comfort that we can have is to open the chest once in a while and look at the gold. Suppose that we should all do that, what would become of us? We could open the chest and look at the gold, but we could not eat it nor drink it. And yet that is the condition we would be in, if we carry out the idea that our property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The only way we can carry that principle out to its full effect, is to put our gold into a chest, and lock it up and keep it there. But we do not propose to do any such thing as that. We suppose that we live in social society, where we have to contribute our money, and our labor, which is money, for it is the foundation of wealth, for the benefit of ourselves and others. As long as we occupy a position in human society we must contribute something to keep up human society, so that it will prosper in its agricultural, commercial and manufacturing interests. Now, I hold that it is rather a strong application of the principle of taking private property for public use without just compensation when bonds are issued for the building of a railroad. Let me explain that question a little. In my boyhood, in my younger days, railroads were not known in this country. But they now have become part and parcel of the improvements of the age. In fact, they stand, in the progress of the age, with all other like improvements. The progress of the age called these things into being for the benefit of human society. They are called into existence, and are regarded with favor by some men, and are considered as dreadful by others. But I hold that we shall progress until the railroad system will be the grand system of roads, so far as we can build them with the means of the country. Why? Because now on a common road to carry a ton of produce twentyfive miles to market, it will take a strong team and good wagon, and a good teamster two days to go and return. This may be plain talk, but it is a fact. Now we can put ten such loads on a railroad, and carry it to market twenty-five miles in an hour; so that all the rest of the time is saved. That is one advantage; as Franklin said, "time is money." If we do as much business in one hour, on a railroad, in the transportation of produce, as we can do in ten times two days with a common team, on a common road, we save that time, and can have our team at home at work on a farm. We not only save our own time but we save all the wear and tear of the horses and wagons, and all that sort of thing. I am trying to elucidate this thing, and to show that if we pledge our bonds for ten or twenty years, redeem them whenever we please, we will expect those bonds to be paid by the road itself. How? Because the road is like a new wagon; when you buy a new wagon you do not calculate that it will pay for itself the first day; but before it is worn out it has probably paid for itself ten times over. And so it is with any railroad. These railroads, so I am told by a very worthy engineer, will pay for themselves in the rise of property on the line of the road, within five miles on each side of the road. These bonds, then, will be very easily paid. Furthermore, I found in my younger days, when commencing the world with nothing, that it was very convenient to have an. old farmer say to me"Here, Shearer, you may have five hundred dollars, which you can pay back in a year or two years, as you please." I took it and doubled it the first year; and so the credit system was a benefit to me. But now that I am old I pay as I go. I calculate to give away all my property before I die, if I keep my senses, so as to have no bother about administration and judges of probate when I go. At this time of my life I pay down for everything I purchase. I pay every mechanic, every store keeper for what I get; to every man of whom I get anything I hand the money. But in my younger days, the only thing that enabled me to make a living, and to make money in the western part of New York, was credit. These men who live in the interior of our State are not prepared to pay the cash down for building a road, They are prepared to pay a certain per centage on the bonds, gradually, as they improve their farms, which they can do by means of these roads, over which they can send their produce to market quickly and without much cost. In that way they will be enabled before the bonds mature to pay them off. And the road itself will enhance the value of the land, on each side of the road for five miles, to ail extent which will pay for the road. So there is a net income of one-half clear gain. My friend from Paort Huron (Mr. CONGER) wishes to go up into Genesee county, into the rich Saginaw valley. Now, we all know that that gentleman has worked very hard here to get this measure through, and I am willing to assist him to do it. I am willing to assist any gentlemen in the interior of the State if they wish to issue bonds for public improvements. I have seen the advantage of the credit system with men in the beginning of their career in life. 6 I July 19, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGSO 227 ~~2S CO~S~iTUTIO~AL CO~~VE~TIO~. Friday, There is another idea connected with this thing; it may be said that this State, by its improvements has enhanced the value of the property of the State. Any one who came hiere twenty-five years ago, and traveled from Detroit to Chicago, will be convinced when he sees t)e difference between the lands now and then on the line of the Central Road, with all the large cities along that road, he will then see the advantage which a railroad is to this State. But when that five million loan was contracted, it was a bug-bear to the people, it was the ugliest thing in the world; they made political capital of it to break down every man they could who had entered into that loan. But you will now find that the property on each side of that Central Railroad is enhanced in value to an extent that will more than pay twice the cost of the road. Just so it was with the Erie Canal. That canal was run through a swamp, almost from Albany to Buffalo, and now it is almost a continual city from Buffalo to Albany. This Detroit and Milwaukee road that runs to Grand Haven; see the cities and large thriving villages which spring up all along that road. Now run another road from Port Huron to Gene see and you will open up the country, and there will be something similar there. Now, I wish to be understood. The Legislature can pass an enabling act to allow townships to issue bonds after the vote of the people is taken, not to exceed ten per cent.; and those bonds may run for almost any length of time that the people may'desire. Now I can not see any improvement on this section twenty-seven as it now stands. I do not believe there can be any improvement made init. My colleague (Mr. LOTHROP) says, however, that they may raise this aid by taxation, or by bonds, under his proposition. Now, I prefer bonds; I prefer the issuing of bonds to the levying of taxes, and that is why I speak. The people in the new parts of our State are not prepared to pay their money down now. There are guards and checks enough around this section twenty-seven to make it all safe. In the first place, those who wish to get an enabling - act from the Legisla ture for this purpose, must get the con sent of the majority of the members in each House of the Legislature. Then they must get the consent of the Gov ernor. After the bill has passed the Legislature, and the Governor has signed it, then they must go to the township and get it voted on by the people. I have had some little expe rience in these matters. If the people are called together to consider this matter, if they think that the road will not be a public benefit to that township, then they will vote against the proposition; if they think it will be a public benefit, they will vote for the proposi'tion andissue bonds. Mr. LOTHROP. Will my colleague allow me to interrupt him a moment? Mr. SHEARER. Certainly, with a great deal of pleasure. Mr. LOTHROP. There is no proposition made here to limit section twenty-seven. It is proposed to leave the townships at liberty to issue their bonds; or if they prefer to raise money by tax, instead of issuing bonds, they will be at liberty to resort to taxation. So they will have all the liberty which my excellent friend desires. He is making an argument which is already so fully endorsed by the Convention that it hardly needs any further expla nation. Mr. SHEARER. I thank the gen tleman for his explanation; but as I am a farmer, I am a little fearful of lawyers. [Laughter.] I do not know but they may lead me astray. Mr. LOVELL. Will not the gen tleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTIIROP,) withdraw his section and move it in Convention? We know what it is. Mr. SHEARER. I suppose you know what my argument is before hand. Mr. LOVELL. I made the inquiry of the other gentleman from Wayne. Mr. SHEARER. I may not have that ken that lawyers have. I am merely endeavoring to take a common sense view of this matter. I see it pleases my friends around me a great deal. I might be flattered by their laughter and pleasantry into believing that I was making a wonderful speech. But I do not believe I can make a wonderful speech. I am trying in my feeble manner, to elucidate why it would be an advantage to hold fast to section twenty-seven. Notwithstand ing my friend from Detroit, (Mr. LOTHROP,) and many of our friends here, would be willing to pay the money right down, it might not be the choice of the people, when they come to vote at the township meeting, to pay the money right down. I presume there are a great many men who would rather pay the money instead of issu ing bonds, and they can do that now without any permission from the Leg islature.. I am fearful if this proposition to pay taxes comes before the Legisla ture, they will not allow people to issue bonds; that is what I am fearful of- The Legislature are a very curious set of men like ourselves. They come from various parts of the State; a great many of them come to the Leg islature to attend to the business of their own localities; to represent their own counties and districts. When the proposition is made to them to raise taxes, they will say that they must not impose a tax upon these new settlembnts; it will not do to pass an enabling act to impose a- tax upon them. But they can issue bonds, and the road can help pay them off by its earnings. They can, therefore, pass an enabling act, for the benefit of our friends in the interior parts of the State, so that through their skill and industry, and the earnings of the road, and the profits they will make by carrying their produce to market in that way, they will be enabled to take up the bonds and pay them off. That is the object of the Legislature, and hence there is a safeguard in that body of men. I presume you will find very intelligent men among the legislators, that will come here hereafter. They will inquire into every particular before they pass an enabling act for this purpose. If you put taxation in, they will look upon it with;- distrust, —and say, "We must not tax our people in the interior part of the State; but we can enable them to issue bonds." When that act passes both houses of the Legislature, and comes under the scru tinizing eye of the Governor, and he sanctions it, then we must get the peo ple to convene in the township before they will vote for that proposition. They hold their town meetings before they vote the tax. They are fearful that the road would not be com menced, but after they see it com menced, they vote for it. Men change their minds in this regard. Although we have a little road thirty and a-half miles long, in one of the richest parts of the State of Michigan, we wish to come to Lansing, and we wish also to go to Detroit. We could not get any assistance from Detroit, from the fact that their charter precluded the call ing of a meeting to impose a tax. We called upon Governor Crapo not to impose his veto upon the proposition, for we wanted to get the people of Detroit to assist us. We have a great many friends there, but we could not call a meeting to get them to vote a tax. Hence, that compelled us to adopt the other project from Howell to Plymouth, and then go down and join the road that will go to Monroe. But I do not wish to leave Detroit. I presume that we will have the citizens of Detroit to assist us as soon as we can get a law passed to call upon them, but we shall never call upon them for pver two per cent. I presume. I have made a little calculation upon it; a two per cent. tax upon the city of De roit, will run the road from Plymouth to Detroit. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. .Friday, 228 4 July 19, 1867. DEBATES A-D PROOEEDIXG2_ I am in favor of issuing these bonds, because the net income of the road will help pay for it, together with the energy and industry manifested by the people on the line of the road. That, with the enhanced value of the land on each side of the road, in process of time, will give us the road at a cost which will be merely nothing. I will say nothing more now. I am slow of speech, but what I have said I mean, let it be in ever so uncouth a manner. I mean all I have said. I stand by the proposition adopted by this committee. The word "county" is stricken out, and the townships are to be taxed, not the counties. I think it would be better to have it so, because a road might run through a county, in one part of it, while another ptrt of the county in another direction might be provided with another road. The nearer you can get these industrial matters to the people the better they will be understood, and the better they will be carried out. If you fetch these roads into villages and townships, every man will understand whether it is better to hake the road there or not. Now, in reference to these industrial institutions which have been spoken of. Did you ever think what was the cost of the roads in a township? Did you ever know that private property was taken for public use for all the roads that we have in the United States? Did you not know that no man is obliged to build a highway, to turn his farm into a common? Did you ever estimate the amount of fences in a county, or a township, or a city? The farmer on each side of the road is entitled to claim the land to the centre of the road. Yet - there is four rods wide given to the public; their private property is taken for pub lic use for the road. The farmer on each side of the road cannot plow or cultivate the two rods of the road which he is entitled to claim. On every sectional line you find a public road, more or less; this State especially is laid outgo. These roads, and the fen ces along these roads, cost a great deal of labor. I presume my friends of the bar do not understand exactly how these fence-rails are split and put up. I have helped to do that business, and I know that there is a great deal of labor in it. Now, about these fences and the roads in a township, and the amount of land taken for public purposes, and without just compensa tion, they say. Is it not' a just com pensation in order to keep up human society, to have good roads to our schools, and to the churches, and mills, and all about the neighborhood? We have to sacrifice this private property for public use without just compensa tion, gentlemen say. I say we have just compensation, because we have the use of that road to travel upon, but we cannot cultivate it. We are not obliged to fence that road; we can turn our farm into a common, and it may lay there. They cannot oblige us to fence it. Under the circumstances, I will defer the rest of my speech until next Monday. I have about half a day more to talk. [Cries of -" Go on! go on!" Mr. P. D. WARNER. Which proposition does the gentleman favor; the proposition of his colleague, (Mr. LoTHROP,) or the section of the committee? Mr. SHEARER. I thought I was understood. I go for the bonding system. Mr. CONGER. I have but a single remark to make before the vote is taken. I have the proposed amendment before me now, and I see by the reading of it that there is this objection to it: if the bonds of any municipality for ten per cent. are to be paid in any given year, there is no way under this section to raise over ten per cent., and, therefore, there will be no way of raising the means to pay the interest accruing upon the bonds. Mr. LOTIIROP. I answer without the remotest hesitation, that this pro vision does not prevent the levying any tax, and paying any indebtedness of any kind, either principal or inter est, which the town owes. It does not present the slightest difficulty in the world. Mr. CONGER. I have no doubt the gentleman believes so, but I be lieve differently. I believe the effect of this provision would be to make those desiring to purchase the bonds look to see whether a town could by any construction of the Constitution avoid paying them to their full extent; and if there be any one thing we have desired all through, it is that there shall be nothing in the Constitution to prevent the bondholder from seeing that there is every provision-for the prompt payment of his bond. There are other objections to this, not in the first part, but in the proviso. I am perfectly willing to agree ~to that basis, when it is put in proper language. But I do submit to gentlemen of-this Convention that we gain nothing at all by forcing through a provision, which to many is seriously objectionable on account of the manner in which it is drawn. It was not the understanding so far as I heard any one express him self, to adopt any provision now in committee of the.whole, until those in terested on either side could agree up on the provision. I shall vote against this provision, with the understanding that whenever we get back into Convention, and take up this subject again, there shall be a carefully prepared provision which will approach substantially to what is in the first part of this. Such a provision without the proviso, can be prepared which will be unobjectionable to all. I have been asked also to yield one other thing: that there should be some provision that this aid should not be repeated each succeeding year. Lest gentlemen might say that I have not been quite explicit enough in this matter, I will say that this provision now offered allows a town, where no bonds have been issued, and no credit pledged, to raise every year this ten per cent. There is no question about that part of it. I have no objection personally to it. But I have agreed with other gentlemen who desired to restrict this ten per cent. to a certain number of years, that we would try and compromise upon ten per cent. for five years, or three years, or eight or ten years, or any number of years that we can agree upon. This proviso does not prevent the Legislature from authorizing this ten per cent. of tax every year. If that meets the views of those with whom I have agreed to meet on some ground in that respect, by a limitation to a certain number of years, I have no objection to it. But I speak of it in order that those with whom I have spoken, and to whom I have pledged myself in that respect, should not be taken unawares. Mr. WITHEY. If this new section is passed in committee of the whole, cannot we, in Convention, re form it, and put it in such a shape as we desire it, if it is not now entirely satis factory? Mr. CONGER. We certainly could do it. But I would like to ask this committee of the whole, if the objec tions I have made to it are real, why we should agree to this on any such consideration? When we can all agree upon a provision which will meet the views of more than this will, why not vote this down now, and at the proper time, in the'way I have proposed, take this matter up again, and prepare carefully a provision that will be unob jectionable? Why should the commit tee on the legislative department have forced into their work a provision which is unsatisfactory, I venture to say, to a great portion of this commit tee of the whole, merely because we will have the power hereafter to re model it? Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not under stand this section as construed by the chairman of the committee on the legis lative department, (Mr. CONGER.) As [I construe it, there is only one question -July 191 1867. D'F,P-ATES AND- PROCEEDINGS. 229 23 COsIUTOA CO EI~ rd about it involved in doubt. It is not whether they can raise a tax every year of ten per cent., but whether, after having been allowed to raise that tax, they can raise a tax for any other sum. It did occur to me, and I hope that course may be taken, that the best way to dispose of this provision, would, be to adopt it, and when we get back into Convention, we will have it before us printed in our journal, and we can see precisely what it is, and understand its full effect and import, and can then act intelligently upon it. It seems to me that is the shortest and easiest way to dispose of this matter. Mr. CONGER. The proviso of this section says-, when added to the principal of the credit of such city or township already pledged for like aid." Suppose that credit is voted, what will be the effect of this provision? The *geptleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) may possibly be right, although, inasmuch as this section twenty-seven is a restriction merely, and not the grant of a power, I can not agree with him in that construction. Mr. WILLIAiMS. The difficulty is in the language of the section itself. It says, "the Legislature may empower any city or township to raise by tax," etc. This is proposed as an express grant of power. Mr. CONGER. I know that; but there is a proviso restricting it. I submit to this committee that it is neither reasonable nor fair to themselves, or to the committee having charge of this section, that they should knowingly adopt a proposition which they believe to be wrong, because hereafter they can take the back track and amend it. I have said all I wish to say on this subject. I shall vote against this proposed section, and at the proper time I will assist in the preparation of a proper provision. Mr. LOVELL. I had hoped that we might have been saved' any further discussion of this article. Yet, if it needs discussion, I hope it will be discussed. I do not fully understand the new section that has been offered, and I am not prepared to vote for it. If 4here were no other reason, I confess that the source from which the amendment comes would lead me to fear it. There is an old saying, I will not quote it in the original, for it will evidently be out of place here, and improper, after the remarks that have been made. " I fear the Greeks, even bearing gifts." Gentlemen who oppose granting municipal aid to railroads have fought us through four weary days of discussion; they-have beset us on every hand. Now, when we have defended the outworks, maintained our position, they propose to introduce in friendly guise this Tro jan horse. Perhaps it is innocent; but' perhaps a thorough discussion of the question, a whacking of the sides of this Trojan horse with our spears, might reveal that it is hollow, and that it is a device of the enemy, who have introduced it under the guise of friendship, in order that it may give them the means of taking our position. It is said, "vote for it here, and if you do not like it hereafter, you can strike it out." I think the better way would be to vote against it here, and if after a careful consideration of it we shall be induced to believe that it is not a Trojan horse, but that it is in fact an honest, straight-forward proposition, we can join hands with them hereafter, although they have not been heretofore aiding us, in preparing a section upon this subject which will be right. We can vote it down now, and then after having seen it in print, and carefully examining it, the gentleman can move it again, and if we find nothing wrong in it, we can change front and adopt it. But why should the friends of municipal aid take a provision of this kind from this source, without time for examination or criticism? I think at this time we should vote against it. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. ILOTHROP, to add the following to the article as a new section: SECTION -. The Legislature mav empower any city or township to raise by tax, in aid oI any railroad company or companies, an amount of money not exceedling ten per centum of the assessed valuation of such city or township, but every such tax shall be first approved by a vote of the electors of such city or township: Provided That the amount levied by any sucl tax shall not, when added to the principal of the credits of such city or township already pledged for like aid, and then outstanding, exceed ten per centum ot the assessed valuation aforesaid. The question was taken; and upon a division, ayes 36, noes 32, it was adopted. Mr. McCONNELL. I move to add to this article an additional section, which I hope will receive the unanimous approval of the committee of the whole. I move to add the following: SECTION -. The Legislature shall have power to appropriate any improved real estate within this State, the Upper Peninsula excepted, and all personal property and household furniture excepted, in aid of/any line or lines of railroad which may run: from Lapland to Terra del Fuego, by way of Port Hurou. Mr. LOVELL. I move a proviso, which I send to the Chair to be read. The CHAIRMAN. -Upon examination, the Chair perceives that the proviso is in Latin, and rules it out of order, because it is not in the English language. Mr. MUSSEY. I move to include in the section "Pontiac." Mr. CONGER. I hope there will be nb objection to the proposition of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. McCoNNELL.) There probably has been something in my conduct that makes it important for the gentleman to take this unusual course to make a fling at me. Perhaps it has been some neglect on my part in the discharge of my duty, or perhaps it has been some inproper manner in which I have discharged it. I accept the reproof from the learned gentleman with becoming humility. Mr. McCONNELL. I intended nothing personal by this section. I have no reference to the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) The question was taken upon the additional section moved by Mr. McCoNNELL, and it was not agreed to. Mr. MORTON. I move to amend section twenty-seven, as adopted by the committee, by inserting in the last clause, after the word " vote," the words "of the electors,"- so that the clause will read, "the question —of-such aid shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the city or township to be affected thereby. Mr. LOVELL. - I rise to a point of order. My point of order is that we have already passed section twentyseven, and that we cannot go back to it without unanimous consent. I object to this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Whatever understanding the committee may have, the Chair understands that section twenty-seven is under consideration. Mr. BIRNEY. We have considered two or three sections since we passed upon section twenty-seven. I think the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. LOvELL) is correct, and that section twenty-seven is not now under consideration. Mr. LOVELL. Sectionthirty-one has been passed upon since we have done anything in regard to section twenty-seven. We have also adopted a new section to be added to this article. The CHAIRMAN. Tihat may have been:done; but if so, it must have taken place when the chair was occupied by some one other than the present occupant. Mr. WITHEY. I hope the question will be taken upon the amendment of the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) and that it will be rejected. It was understood that section twenty-seven as adopted should not be interfered with contrary to the wishes of the committee on the legislative department, who are entirely satisfied with it. - Mrr. MORTON. My object in offering this amendment is because I have heard some members say they could CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. .230 Friday I July~~~~~~~~~~ 19 187:EAE ~ ROEDNS not vote for that section unless it contained a provision submitting the question of aid to a vote of the electors of the city or township affected thereby. I think the friends of the provision in the Constitution will not object to its being tied up closely, if they wish to have a popular vote endorsing it. The enabling act for Holly and Monroe was a stringent act. Not only did it require the question to be submitted to a vote of the electors, but the bonds were not to be issued until the iron was on the track. The very fact that it was so guarded induced a heavy vote in our city. Unless the people shall have a right to vote upon this question, no common council could live in that town who should issue bonds without proper security. As there is some doubt expressed about the section giving the right to all the electors to vote upon this question, I think that doubt should be removed. Mr. LIJUCE. - I would like to explain one thing to the gentleman from Monroe, and then I think he will withdraw his amendment for the time being. The section as adopted by the committee provides that no bonds shall be issued until the question is submitted to the people of the township or city affected. Mr. MORTON. If that is so, I will withdraw my amendment. Mr. LUCE. I move that the committee now rise, report this article with the amendmends back to the Convention, recommend that the amendments be concurred in, and that this committee be discharged from the further consideration of this article. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the chair, Mr. LAMB reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Legislative Department;" had made sundry amendments therein, and had directed him to report the article with the amendments back to the Convention, recommend that the amendments be concurred in, and ask that the committee of the whole be discharged from the further consideration of the article. The report was received, and the committee of the whole discharged. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon concurring in the amendments made by the committee of the whole. Mr. LOVEtL. I move that the article, with the pending amendments be laid upon the table, be printed in the journal, and be made the special order for Wednesday next. The motion was-agreed to. The article as amended was as fol lows, the portions inserted being printed in italics, the portion struck out being included in brackets: SECTION 1. The legislative power is vested in a Senate and House of Representatives. SECTION 2. The Senate shall consist of thirty-two members. But after the year 1870, the Legislature may increase the number to thirty-threee, by authorizing the election of two Senators iL that portion of the State now included within the limits of the thirty-second Senatorial District. Senators shall be elected for four years and by single districts. At the first election alter the adoption of this Constitution, Senators in the odd numbered districts shall be elected for two years, and in the even numbered districts for foIur years. Such districts shall be numbered from one to thirty-three inclusive; each of which shall choose one Senator. No county shall be divided in the formation of Senate districts, except such county shall be equitably entitled to two or more Senators. SECTION 3. The House of — Repriesentatives shall consist of one hundred members. RepresentatiAes shall be chosen for two years and by single districts. Each representative district shall contain, as nearly as may be, an equal number of inhabitants, including civilized persons of Indian descent, not members of any tribe, and shall consist of convenient and contiguous territory. In every county entitled to more than one Representative, the board of supervisors shall assemble at such time and place as may be provided by law, and divide the same into representative districts, equal to the number of Representatives to which such county is entitled by law, and shall cause to be filed in the offices of the Secretary of State and clerk of such county, a description of such representative districts, specifying the number of each district, and the population thereof, according to the last enumeration. SECTION 4. The Legislature shall provide by law for an enumeration of the inhabitants in the year eighteen hundred and seventyfive, and every ten years thereafter; and at the first session after each enumeration so made, and also at the first session after such enumeration by the authority of the United States, the Legislature shall re-arrange the Senate districts, and apportion anew the Representatives among the counties and districts, according to the number of inhabitants, including civilized persons of Indian descent, not members of any tribe. But no re-arrangement of Senate districts, shall vacate the seat of any Senator. Each apportionment, and the-division into representative districts by any board of supervisors, shall remain unaltered until the return of another enumeration. SECTION 5. Every Senator and Representative shall be a citizen of the United States, and a qualified elector of [some county embraced in] the district he represents, [or of which said district shall be a part.] A removal fiom his [county, or the counties comprising his] district, shall be deemed a vacation of his office.l No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he may be elected, be eligible to any office which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have' been increased by the Legislature during such term; nor shall he be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the State, or any county thereof; authorized by any law passed during said term. SECTION 6. NO person holding any elective State office, except that of Regent of the University, or member of the Board of Education, [or] and no per son holding the office of probate judge, county clerk, register of deeds, county treasurer, sheriff, county superintendent of common schools, prosecuting attorney, or any other office to which he was appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall be allowed to take or hold a seat in either House of the Legislature. SECTION 7. Senators and Representatives shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, or a breach of the peace, be privileged tfrom arrest. They shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the Legislature, or for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session; they shall not be questioned in any other place for any speech in either House. SECTION 8. The Legislature shall meet at the seat of government on the second Wednesday of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and on the second Wednesday of January in every [second] year thereafter, and at no other time or place, unless as provided in this Constitution. The time of meeting shall be at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and the time of final adjournment shall be at twelve o'clock, noon. SECTION 9. Each House shall choose its own officers, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution; determine the rules of its proceedings, and judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its members, and may, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members elected, expel a member. The reasons for such expulsion shall be entered upon the journal, with the names of the members voting on thle question. No member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause, nor for any cause known to his constituents antecedent to his election; [the reason for such expulsion shall be entered upon the journal, with the names of the members voting on the question.] - —.-.. SECTION 10. A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may prescribe. SECTION 11. The compensation of the members of the Legislature, during tle session thereof, shall be four dollars per day for actual attendance. When convened in extra session, [their compensation shall be four dollars per day for the first twenty days, and nothing thereafter;] they shall legislate on no other subjects than those expressly stated in the Governor's proclamation, or submitted to them by special message. They shall be entitled to ten cents, and no more, for every mile actually traveled, going to and returning from the place of meeting, on the usually traveled route, and for stationery, postage and newspapers, not exceeding fitteen dollars for each member during any session. Each member shall be entitled to one copy of the laws, journals and documents of the Legislature of which he was a member; but shall not receive, at the expense of the State, books, newspapers, or other perquisites of office, not expressly authorized by this Constitution. SECTION 12. The President of the Senate [and the Speaker ot the House of Representatives shall each be entitled to six dollars per diem compensation and the same mileage as members of the Legislature, and no more;] shall receive an annual salary of five kzundred dollars, which shall be in full foJr ki8 services as Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senase. SECTION 13. In case of a contested election, each House shall determine the amount of per diem compensation and mileage to be received by each contestant, but the per diem compensation allowed to both parties shall not exceed the sum of four dollars per day. SECTION 14. Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and publish the same, except such parts as may require secrecy. The yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall be entered on the journal, at the request of one-fifth of the members elected. Any member of either House may dissent from and protest against any act, proceeding or resolution which he may deem injurious to any person or the public, and have the reason of his dissent entered on the journal. I DEBATES'AND PROCEEDINGS. 231, .'Jul 1-9 1867. y ) ...,.,,-.,, SE CTIoN 15. In all elections by either House, or in joint convention, the votes shall be given viva voce. All votes on nominations to the Senate shall be taken by yeas and nays, and published with the journal of its proceedings. SECTIoN 16. The doors of each House shall be open, unless the public welfare require secrecy. Neither House shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than where the Legislature may then be in session. SECTION 17. Bills may orignate in either House of the Legislature; but no new bill, except appropriation bills, shall be introduced after the first [fifty] forty days of a session shall have expired. SECTION 18. Every bill and joint resolution passed by the Legislature, shall be presented to the Governor before it becomes a law. If he approve he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it with his objection, to the House in which it originated, which shall enter the objection at large upon the journal, and reconsider it. On such reconsideration, if two-thirds of the members elected agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall be reconsidered. If'approved by two-thirds of the members elect to that House, it shall become a law. In such case the vote of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays; and the names of the members voting ior and against the bill, shall be entered on the jour. nals of each House respectively. If any bill be not returned by the Governor, within ten days, Sundays excepted, after it has been presented to him, the same shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature by their adjournment prevent its return; in which case it shall not become a law. The Governor may approve, sign, and file in the olfIce of the Secretary of State, within five days after the adjournment of the Legislature, any act passed during the last five days of the session, and the same shall become a law. SECTIoN 19. Every bill and joint resolution shall be read three times in each House before the final passage thereof. No bill or joint resolution shall become a law without the concurrence of a majority of all the members elected to each Hlouse. [On the final passage of all bills the vote shall be by yeas and nays, and entered on the journal.] On the final passage of each bill the vote shall be taken separately by yeas and nays, and entered on tle journal. SECTIoN 20. No law shall embrace more than one general object, which shall be expressed in its title. No public act shall take effect or be in force until the expiration of ninety days from the end of the session at which the same is passed, unless the Legislature shall otherwise direct, by a tWo-thirds vote of the members elected to each House. SECTION 21. The assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each House of the Legislature, shall be requisite to every bill appropriating the public money or property for local or private purposes. SECTION 22. No law shall be revised, altered or amended by reierence to its title only-but the section or sections of the act altered or amended, shall be re-enacted and published at length. [SECTION 23. The Legislature shall provide by law that the furnishing of fuel and stationery for the use of the State, the printing and binding the laws and journals, all blanks, papers, and printing for the executive departments, and all other printing ordered by the Legislature, shall be let by contract to the lowest bidder or bidders, who shall give adequate and satisfactory security for the perfornmance thereof. The Legislature shall prescribe by law the manner in which the State printing shall be executed, and the accounts rendered therefor, and shall prohibit all charges for constructive labor. It shall not rescind nor alter such contract, nor release the person or persons taking the same, or his or their sureties, from the performance of any of the conditions of the contract. No member of the Legislature, or officer of the State, shall be interrested, directly or indirectly, in any such contract.] SECTION 24. The Legislature shall not establish a State paper, but shall provide for the speedy publication of all statute laws of a public nature, and of such -judicial decisions as it may deem expedient. All laws and judicial decisions shall be free for publication by any person. SECTION 25. The Legislature may declare the cases in which any office shall be deemed vacant, and also the manner of filling the vacancy, where no provision is made for that purpose in this Constitution. SECTION 26. The Legislature may confer upon organized townships, incorporated cities and villages, and upon the board of supervisors of the'several counties, such powers of a local, legislative, and administrative character as they may deem proper. The Legislature shall provide by general law for organizing townships, cities aud tillages on such conditions and subject to such r2egulations as may be prescribed. SECTION 27. The Legislature shall not authorize any [county,] city or township, to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad to an extent whereby the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such [county] city or township. No county shall be authorized to pledge its creditfor any such purpose, except in the Upper Peninsula. The questions of such aid shall be submitted to a vote of the city or township to be affected thereby. SECTION 28. The Legislature shall not authorize, by private or special law, the sale or conveyance of any real estate belonging to any person, nor vacate nor alter any road laid out by commissioners of highways, or any street or public ground in any city or village, or in any recorded town plat. SECTION 29. The Legislature shall not grant nor authorize extra compensation to any public officer, agent or contractor, alter the service has been rendered or the contract entered into. SECTION 30. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious seminary, or schools under denomination7al control, nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes. But each House of the Legislature shall have power to employ chaplains to open its daily session with devotional exercises. SECTION 31. The Legislature shall not [pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; nor] authorize any lottery or permit the sale of lottery tickets; nor grant divorces; nor audit or allow any private clalm or account; nor pass special acts extending the time for the collection of taxes; nor pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors as a beverage. SECTION 32. The style of the laws shall be, "The people of the State of Michigan enact." SECTION -. The Legislature may empower any city or tounship to raise by tax, in aid of any railroad company or companies, an amount of money not exceeding ten per centurn of the assessed valuation of such city or tounship, Aut every such tax shall be first approved by a vote of the electors of such city or township; provided thatthe amount levied by any such tax shali not, when added to the principal of the credits of such city or township alreadypledged for like aie, and then outstanding, exceed ten per centumn of the assessed vaiuation aforesaid. RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS OF STATE UNIVERSITY. Mr. THOMPSON, by unanimous consent,offered the following resolution, which was adopted: Resolved, That the Secretary of the board of Regents of the University be requested to report to the Convention a statement of all moneys received and disbursed during the past year in the University, the receipts and disbursements for and on account of each'of the departments, the number of students attending the last session, the number who were not residents of the State, and the number graduated last year in each of the departments; also, the amount of all appropriations and donations heretofore made to the University. MILITARY DEPARTMENT. Mr. PRINGLE. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. WILLIAMS in the chair.) The CHAIRMAN. The first article on the general order is the article entitled " Military Department." Mr. WILLARD. I observe that the chairman of the committee who reported this article, (Mr. STOUGRTON,) is not in his seat.: X Mr. LUCE. He-hasno objection to our' considering this article now. Mr. WILLARD. Then I will make no motion. Mr. BILLS. The gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON, )who reported this article, asked and obtained leave of absence, and I am told he has gone to the depot to leave town. If that be so, I think it highly proper that we should pass over this article. I therefore move that this article be passed over for the present. Mr. NORRIS. I apprehend this article will be passed without any amendment to it. If so, I do not see any necessity for the chairman to be here. The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. BILLS, and it was not agreed to. PERSONS LIABLE TO PERFORM MILITIA DUTY. The first section of the article entitled "Military Department," was then read as follows: "The militia shall be composed of all able bodied male citizens between the ages ofeighteen and forty-five years, except such as are exempted by the laws of the United States or of this State; but all such citizens of any religious denomination whatever, who from scruples of conscience may be averse to bearing arms, shall in time of peace be excused therefrom, upon such terms and conditions as shall be prescribed by law." Mr. PRINGLE. I would like to make the inquiry of some gentleman upon the military committee, why that class of persons of foreign birth who have declared their intentions to become citizens, who have become voters under our laws, but who have not yet become citizens under the laws of the United States, are not included among those who are liable to perform mili 232 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION* Friday, JSl ~9 87 EAE ~ RGEI(S tary duties? This section is confined to citizens of the United States. - Mr. M. C.:WVATKINS. I. suppose it is well known that persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States, are voters under our present Constitution. Mr. DUNCAN. I move to amend this section by striking out the word "citizens," and inserting the word "inhabitants," so that it will read: "The militia shall be composed of able-bodied male inhabitants," etc. Mr. WILLARD. - I hope no important amendments will be made in the absence of the chairman of the committee reporting this article. I should wish, if such'amendments are to be proposed, the article might still be passed over for the present. Mr. HUJSTON. I was a member of the military committee. From conversations which I had with the chairman in reference to this matter, I-.under.stood him to consider that about the only change it was necessary to make in the article upon this subject in our present Constitution, was to strike out the word "white;" in other respects to leave the provision as it is in our present Constitution. So far as the amendment of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. DUNcAN,) is concerned, to substitute the word "inhabitants" for the word "citizens," I do not suppose we can enforce a provision of that kind. Even if we should adopt such a provision in our Constitution, I do not suppose that we have the right to compel citizens of a foreign country to become members of our army, or to serve in the militia of this State. I think that proposition is one that would get us into trouble, if we should undertake to enforce it, and to compel an alien who might be an inhabitant of this State, to serve in the militia in time of peace, or in time of war. It seems to me that the gentleman, upon reflection, will see that his amendment is contrary to the doctrine which has always been held in this country in reference to this matter. When citizens of this State go to a foreign country, yet do not become citizens of that country, they claim that they have a right to be protected by the government of this country. It is just the same here with citizens of a forbign country who may become inhabitants of our State. As to the question of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PWINGLE,) I cannot say that I heard that particular question raised, or any statement fromn the military committee in regard to it. I can only say that this provision is exactly the same in that respect as the one in the present Constitution. I can only state what were the views which ~ol.2-No. 30. the chairman expressed; they were that he did not deem it necessary to make any material changes in the provisions upon this subject contained in the Constitution of 1850. He reasoned like this: During the rebellion which has just passed we taxed our ability in that direction as much as we ever shall be called upon to do. We found the article on the military department in the present Constitution sufficient to carry us through that rebellion, and to enable us to do all that we desired to do. It was his view that it was not therefore necessary to' make any change in the article upon this subject in the present Constitution, further than to strike out the word "white;" presuming that this Convention would extend the elective franchise to men of color, and if they did so, as a matter of course,.they should bear arms. That is in substance all the change that was made by the committee. Mr. PRINGLE. I would suggest to the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. DUNCAN,) that I think he would effect his object better by inserting afterthe word "citizens," the words "and persons who have declared their intentions to become such under the laws of the United States." Mr. DUNCAN. Is a person a citizen under twenty-one years of age? Mr. PRINGLE. Age and sex make no difference in that respect. Mr. DUNCAN. - We have known men to come into our State from Canada, live here, and claim all the rights of citizenship until the draft came, when they claimed to be citizens of Great Britain. Mr. PRINGLE. My idea was simply this: the word "citizens" here must be construed to mean citizens of the United States. Mr. DUNCAN. I accept the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) in lieu of- my own. -' Mr. PRINGLE. Then the effect of this amendment would' be to include among the number liable to bear arms those who have declared their intentions to become citizens under the laws of the United States. Mr. MUSSEY. Was that the construction put upon the word "citizens," during the rebellion? Were not all who claimed to be voters considered liable to draft?:' Mr. PRINGLE. My understanding is that persons who had not'become citizens were not held to be members of our militia in the early'days of the war. But the United States Govern ment took the matter in charge, and made a rule to:apply to all who had voted, or placed themselves in a posi tion where they might vote. Mr. HOWARD. I do not see that it is necessary to make any change in the language of the section. We certainly have no control in this point of view over inhabitants who are not citizens of the United States. By attempting any such control we may involve ourselves with foreign nations, for a violation of tlthe well established'rule of all nations,; oneo which controls every nation. I cannot see the necessity of making this amendment, for the reason that I firmly believe that when a person has declared his intentions to become a citizen of the United States he is a citizen to all intents and purposes, and subject' to such regulations and restrictions as the laws impose, in regard to the length of time after such declaration of intention for him to become a voter. A man who has declared his intention in compliance with the laws of the United States, becomes suibject, in any State, not only to the draft, but to- all those regulations which govern' and control citizens of the United States. I believe it has been decided:in a very celebrated case, that he was entitled to all the privileges and protections:of citizens of the United States, even While he was in a foreign country; that the United States was bound to protect him in his person and personal rights. I therefore, cannot conceive any necessity for making the proposed change. Mr. HUSTON. I do not know how it may be with other members of thee military committee, in reference to this question. I am inclined to think that that point escaped the observation of most of the members of the committee. So fat as I am concerned, I certainly should have no objection to the amendment being adopted. I think when an alien has come to this country to make it his home, and has declared his intentions to become a citizen, there can be no objection to requiring him to perform military duty. For one, I will say I am iin favor of adopting the amendment, because I cannot see any objection to it. I believe it is'right, when a foreigner has come to this country, and signified h~ intention to become a citizen of the United States, and claimed theprotection of its laws, its rights, and.privileges, that he should bear its burdens. Mr. McCONNELL. As a member of the military committee, I desire to say that the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PR1:r,GLE,) will meet with my approbation. I can see no objection whatever to it. -Mr. HIOWARD.- The- case: Ii wasspeaking of was the Koszta case; and the opinion of Mr. Webster at that time, as will be remembered, was that it was the settled policy of this govern DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. July -19, 1867. 233 0 6 23els OOrL Ce - -......... i_.>.. ment, that an alien by birth, after having come here and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, was entitled to the protection of this government, in the maintenance and security of his personal rights and rights of: property, and all the rights which a native born citizen is entitled to. I think this amendment is surplusage and unnecessary. 'Mr. BLACKMAN. I recollect the history of the case referred to. I think it was held by our government that a person, having declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, was entitled to the protection of the'United States. But I do not understand that that decision went to the. extent of declaring him a citizen of the United States. Neither do I understand that the facts alluded to by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) that certain.individuals were held subject to draft, was upon the ground that they had declared their intentions to become citizens. If I recollect right, it was upon the ground that they had claimed and exercised the privilege of citizens and voters. It strikes me that this amendment should not be adopted; it is carrying the matter further than we ought to carry it. It will be recollected that not every one who has declared his intentions to become a citizen is a voter at the present time. In addition to that declaration, he must have resided in our State for two years and six months. This amendment would include many who are not even voters by our present Constitution. What may be the provision upon that subject in the tonsti tution we are now framing, I cannot predict; but I trust it will not extend the privilege any further than the present one.. I should be inclined to favor.the idea of having them become citizens fully before they are allowed to become voters.' It will.,take a little longer for them to do that, but in many cases not much longer. Taking the view of this matter which I do, I am inclined to oppose this amendment. Mr. NORRIS. I rise merely to say that my understanding of the law is that no foreigner can become a- citizen of the United States, unless he resides in the United States for five years; so the law expressly declares. After-he re sides here two years, he may declare his intentions; but until he has remain'ed'in this country three years longer,' he is not-a full citizen by the express terms of the act, although he may be entitled to the protection of the.gov emrnent in certain cases.- The section .of the law-is as follows: ""No person who shall arrive in the United States after February the nineteenth, 1815, shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, who shall not, for the continued term of five years next preceding his admission, hate resided within the United States, without being, at any time during the said five years, out of the territory of the United States." That settles the question as to whether a person who has declared his intentions is a citizen or not. If he is not a citizen, we have no righfto enrol himin the militia. If we do so forcibly under a provision in our Constitution, he can, even if he has declared his intentions, claim the protection of a foreign power. r.'FARMER. Can he claim the protection of two powers at the same time? Our government held; in the Koszta case, that he might have the protection of this government. 'Mr. NORRIS If he asks it. He may give up his intentions of becoming a citizen. r. FAR1MER. He can mike his election then? r. NORRIS. Thatis whatI claim. MriT. HUSTON.. I cannot agree with the-gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NoRRIS,) thatuan alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and who has exercised the' elective franchise, has any right to make his selection between the govern ment of the United States and his former government. I understand the oath of allegiance to be a-renxuciation of his allegiance to all foreign.princes and potentates, and a declaration of his allegiance to the government of this country. And I claim that when he has taken that position, he has a right to claim the protection of this government, the same as any of our citizens, and it has been so-held by our government. But I deny, to use a common expression, that he has any right to go back on that declaration. In this State, he has all the rights that any citizen of the State can have, after residing here two,years and six months; not when he has be.en a resident of this State for five years, but a resident for only two years and a half.., As to the remark of the gentleman from Van Buren (Mr. BLAaCMAN) that this might apply to persons who are not voters, we must remember that in fixing a principle in regard to those who shall be liable to serve in the militia, the question as to who may vote is not taken into consideration. We include among those liable to mili tary duty persons between the ages of eighteen and forty-five; so that objec tion is not good. Now, if such an ob jection was well founded, then we should change the ages named in this section, and say between the ages of twenty-one and forty-five. A foreigner, after he has declared his intention, and before he can vote, might be compelled to perform military duty. It d.oes not follow that because he cannot vote he should not be required to perform military'duty. If the argument that he cannot vote is a good argument, it would apply with equal force to minors. I say, as I said in the first place, that when they have all the rights and privileges which we have, I do not understand why foreigners should be exempt from'aiding in defense of this country in case of a war, simply because they were born in a foreign country. Mr. BLACKMAN. I wish simply to say, in reply to the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HuSToN,) that I do not argue here that only those who are voters should be held to perform military duty; I did not take that position. My remarks were made in reply to the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRRNaLE,) who seemed to take a position like that. The question recurred on the amendment of Mr. -DuncAN, as modified upon the suggestion of Mr.. PRINGLE, to insert after-the word' citizens," the words, "and persons who have declared their intentions to become such under the laws of the United States." The -question was taken upon the amendment; and upon a division, ayes 19, noes 32, it was not agreed to. Mr. SHEARER. I move to amend this section by striking out the following words: "But all such citizens of any religious de nomination whatever, who, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to bearing arms shall, in time of peace, be excused therefrom, upon such terms and conditions as shall be prescribed by law.".. Mr. ALEXANDER. Before the question is taken upon the motion to strike out, I move to amend by striking out the words "of any religious denomination whatever." Mr. LOVELL. I feel constrained to oppose theamiendment to the amend ment. I do not like to leaveit merely as a question of conscience. If we shall have another war, I might feel compelled to claim exemption myself under that clause. I may have consci encious scruples against bearing arms; they may not be religious, but they may affect my knees. [Laughter.] Mrr. SHEARER. According to this section it seems that all those who have conscientious scruples against bearing arms are to be excused from it in time of peace, upon such terms and'cn ditions as shall be prescribed by law. Now, I hold that no person, let his religious opinions: be what they may, should be excused from bearing arms. I remember that in the war of the re volution the Quakers stood aloof, and aided and comforted the enemy. I aam opposed to all such exceptions'; -they merely pretend to be religious, because CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Friday, 234' 0 Jul 19:87 EAE ~ R(ED~~ 3 they do not want to bear arms to save this government.' Mr. WALTKER. This section applies to time of peace. I would ask the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. SHEARER,) if it was in time of peace that the persons to whom' he alludes aided the ene/y during the revolution 2 Mr. SHEARER. They were always opposed to bearing arms, in time of peace, and in time of war. I hold that they should be obliged to bear arms the same as others. Washingtoni said that we should always be ready for war in order to enjoy peace. I hold that no man should be excused from bearing arms in time of peace. We want an effective army, that we can call out immediately, and not be placed in the condition we were in at the commencement of the rebellion; not be required to take three or four years to learn how to shoulder arms or anything about the tactics of war. I believe in the old practice of excuhng no able bodied man, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, in time of peace or in time of war either. I think we should all be ready to defend the institutions of our country. Mr. SAWYER. The subject now under consideration is rather an im portant one, if the Convention will so regard it. We have in the bill of rights something that says that all men shall be allowed to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. If an individual is -averse to bearing arms from religious principles, then-if you compel him to enter the ranks, and fight an enemy contrary to the dictates of his own conscience, you violaterthe principle of your bill of rights. I con sider this matter of conscience in re gard to bearing arms just as sacred as any other. It has been said by my friend from Wayne,'(Mr. SHEARER,) that a certain class of individuals during the Revo lution did not bear arms. There is a class who have existed under this government ever since its forma tion, whom I consider a very hon orable, worthy and righteous class of people, the Friends. That class A) citizens are averse to bearing arms. It has been their cieed from the time the denomination originated. There is no gentleman on this floor, I will venture to say, who will bear testimony to aught against that society. They.are good citizens, obedient to the laws of their Cuntry in every particular. -Although they might have been averse to bearing arms in the revolutionary war, they were also averse to bearing arms in the last war. I would ask the gentleman from Wayne if the present moral re formation in regard to slavery is not founded in a great measure upon they efforts of individuals of that society, that he seems here to delight in gainsaying? The reformation in the liquor question was one started by them, long before it entered into the minds of the rest of the people to adopt it. So worthy and honorable "and religious a society as the Friends are, should not be stigmatized by this Convention, We should not violate a fundamental principle of our bill of rights, in order that we might stab that society with a venom that is not compatible with any religious feeling. We should take this matter into consideration fully, and accord to them those rights which belong to them as good citizens, and not compel them to war against brothers, if- they have conscientious scruples against it.- - We can oblige them to bear their proportion of the burdens of war; we may put something else in-lieu of their bearing arms. However. heavy or serious it may be, I have no objection'to it. But, I do oQbject to anything being placed in this Constitution that shall force a citizen to do anything which he considers wrong in his reverence to Almighty God, and to the dictates of his own conscience. I ask this Convention to pause and consider seriously, before they compel these persons to bear arms and compel them to take life, which they believe to be a violation of the laws,of God and man. Mr. ALEXANDER. I wish to ex plain the object of my amendment to the amendment. It is, first, to make this section harmonize with the third secti'on of the bill of rights, which reads as follows: Thbe civil and religious rights, privileges and capacities of no individual shall be diminished or enlarged, on account of his opinions or belief concerning matters of re ligion." I insist that the section under con sizeration would, as it now stands, con flict with that section of the bill of rights. Ik the second place I offer this amendment so as to avoid compel ling men, in order to avail themselves of this exemption from military duty, to become members of churches. This is a bid for memberships in churches. There are already hypocrites enough in the churches throughout the land, without compelling men to become members of churches'in order to gain the privi lege of avoiding military duty. Iclaim to be as conscientious as any one il relation to taking the life of my fellow man, either in the performance of ~nil itary duty, or in any other capacity. I claim to be as conscientious in that regard as though I belo'nged to a reli gious denomination. Bat, according to this section, I would be forever de barred from any privilege on account of scrupleswf consciencee unless I was a member of some religious denomination. However sincere I,might be, unless I was a member of some religious denomination, I would be compelled to bear arms. In fact I have my doubts of the propriety of the last clause of this section any way. Entertaining the views I do, I am almost constrained to think that it is my duty to support the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. SHEARER,) to strike out all the last part of this section. I do not believe that any individual, who seeks the protection' of this government, should be so privileged under our republican institutions, as to be exempt from sustaining that government in any legitimate way. The committee of the whole will readily see the point I make. In the first place, this -section conflicts with the bill of rights, which declares that the privileges of persons shall not be enlarged or diminished on account of their opinions. Mr. ALDRICH. - I would inform the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. ALEXAX DER) that the section of:the bill of rights to which he refers was:-amended so as to make it very different from what the gentleman has stated itto be. That section now reads: "The rights, privileges and capacities bl individuals shall not be. diminished or en larged on account of opinions or belief." Mr. BIRNEY. I think the intention of my friend from Berrien (Mr. ATEX ANDER) is very good, but he overlooks one material thing in his view of this qtuestion. If he strikes out the phrase "of any religious denomination," then any one might assert a scruple of conscience, in order to escape all service in our militia. I think from the foundation of our government this scruple on the part of one or two denominations who have made it aprominent tenetin their belief, has been respected. And while I am not strenuous at all for the retention of this clause, I do not see that we would' gain anything particular'by striking it out. It is to be noticed that these persons are to belong to some re ligious denomination who from scru ples of conscience are averse to bear ing arms, and dthen the conditions Upon which they are to be excuseed are to be prescribed by law. I believe such scruples of conscience are entertained by the Friends and the Shakers. Those persons, ever since they have been known Ada sect,or denomination, have ma/that a prominent tenet-in their b6f..When ever there has been an empt to com pel them to violatenis peculiar belief of- theirs, Contss and our L~egisla tive assem+/ es everywhere have been appealed~o by petitions from them to withi/old such action. I believe — that DEBA S AND PR. OCEFJ)INGS. July 19, 1867. 235 0 236 CO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TITUTIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AL OONVE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. Friday,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ the instances would be very rare when persons would attach themselves to any religious denomination holding this peculiar belief in order to avoid mili tary service. This section relates to those who are now members of such a religious denomination, and might be held to exclude all but those who have heretofore joined that denomin ation, without reference to any ex emption they might claim on that account. I apprehend if we strike out this clause, we should have a great deal of trouble in our -Tgislatnre, on account of the petitions and entreaties of this large and respectable sect. And in order to preserve peace, in time of peace, I think we might as well let it reman. Mr. SH-EARER. In reply to the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. SAW YER,) in relation to remarks I made, I desire to say that I never said a word against that class of men. I was brought up with themn, and understand them as well as any other person. But the refused to bear arms, and to assist in saving this country during the war of the revolution, and as it was said, even supplied the enemy with food; at least I have'been credibly in formed so by those who were engaged in that struggle, I do not Wish to in terfere with the religious tenets of any man, but I believe in saving this country at all hazards. Ilbelieve every man over eighteen and under forty-ive years, should.be compelled to bear arms. I aa myself seventy-two, and I am willing to bear arms; perhaps I would do as well now as many boys. I have borne arms in defense of my country. I volunteered in the war of 1812, in the time that tried men's souls. I say that every man, religious or not, Quaker or not, should be liable to bear arms, if called: -upon, in time. of peace or in time of war; that is my doctrine. But I will withdraw my amendment, and let the- vote be taken upon the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALXANDER.): SCries of "question! question!" in all parts of the hall M3Ir.:HOWARD. I hope we will not the the question now. The Detroit Free Press said some time ago, that, we were then in deep water, and dare not wade in. We are now in shallow water, and I hope we little fellows will be allowed to paddle round a little whi'e. [Laughter.] Mr. ALEXANDER. My: amendment does no injusticeto any particular denominatidn of persons. I think it is necessary in order that no injustice may be done to others, who are not memtbers of denominations known as Shakers or Quakers. Mr. LEACH. Has the gentleman ever known any such case of hardship or injustice to occur under our present Constitution? Mr. ALEXANDER. I have known those who are called "Adventists," as conscientious a class in relation to this matter as any other denomination can be, who have not been exempt from this military service. I think they are as much entitled to the benefit if this provision as any other denomination. Why not leave this part of the section out? If it is so plainly understood as my friend from Bay (Mr. BIRNEY) says, then leave,it out. Mr. HUSTON. According to this section, as it now stands, the Adventists would be entitled to this exemption the same as any other religious denomina tion, provided it is an article of their creed not to bear arms. Mr. ALEXANDER. I understand the practice heretofore has been, and I apprehend the meaning of this section is,'that it shall apply only to those denominations that have been com monly understood to have made that a provision of their creed; who are understood to be, as a sect, not merely as, individuals, opposed to bearing arms. When a case arises the question is asked of a person claiming this ex emption if he belongs to a denomination which, as a denomination, is opposed to bearing arms. Mr. T. G.. SMITH. I notice that the committee on the military department have inserted in this section the words "in time of peace." I am not aware that there ever was a class of persons in this country, who. had conscientious scruples against bearing arms in time of peace, who did not also have conscientious scruples about .bearing arms in time of war. But this section limits the exemption to time of peace. The committee have bchang d the old Constitution in, that respect. It seems to me there is no necessity for this provision, unless the words "in time of peace'? are stricken out. I presume no one would consider it any great hardship to bear arms in time of peace..' ] presume the Quakers themselves s6metimes bear arms in time of peace; at least when they go hunting. Mr. BIRNEY. This provision is intended to exempt such persons from bearing arms in time of peace; but in case of necessity they may be compelled to serve the governmnent in time of war. I do not wish to take up the time of this committee,' for I do not deem this matte'r of any great importance. It is true that the rights of a class are involved, and those rights are very important to them. But I do not wish this Constitution to be inconsistent with itself. The question was theitaken upon amendment of Mr. ALEXANDER, to strike out the words, "of any religious denomination whatever," and it was not agreed to. Mr. SAWYER. I move to amend this section by striking out the words "in time of peace." I do not consider this section either with or without that amendment of any great importance. But I want to have this Constitution consistent with itself, and with the practice in several States of this country, from its earliest history. Even during the mighty rebellion, through which we have just passed, there was no abridgement of this right. I trust we shall not depart from that practice here, if for no other purpose than to say here that we are yet possessed of humanity, and are willing always to reverence the rights of citizens. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, Mr. SAWYER,) will not prevail. I hope that the section will pass intact, as reported by the committee, I think This section —is perfectly right; it is the same as the one under which we have lived for the last' seventeen years, with the exception that the word "white" is stricken out, and the.words "in time of peace" inserted. I think those words should be inserted there. Every man who enjoys the protection of our government, should be liable in time of war to assist in defending the government, either through himself, or through his ageds. I hope the section will be adopted as reported by the committee. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. SAWYER, and it-was not agreed to. No further amendment was offered to this section. ORGANIZING, EQUIPPING AND DISCIPLINING ~ THE MILITIA. The next section was read as follows SECTION 2. The Legislature shall provide by law for organizing, equipping and disciplining the militia in such a manner as they shall deem expedient, not incompatible with the laws of the United States. - No amendment was offered to this section. 'OFFICi~RS OF THE MILITIA. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 3. Officers of the militia shall be elected or appointed, and be commissioned in such manner as may be provided My law. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I move to amend this section by striking out the words " or appointed;" also to strike out the word "be," before the word "commissioned," so that it will read: "Officers of the militia shall be elected and commissioned in such manner as may be provided by law." I offer this amendment for the pur 236 .CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIOIN. Friday, 4 July 1e9 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDINGS. 237' pose of extending to the militia the same rights that persons enjoy in civil life. Our civil officers are now eleted, from the highest to the lowest, from the Governor to the'path-masir. Having had some experience in the militia, having progressed from a private to the command ofa brigade, I know that the militia are as jealous of their rights as we are in civil' life. I hope that this amendment may be made, so that the rank and file may have an opportunity of electing their officers: It has always been done in my experience; the officers, from the highest to the lowest, have been elected, not appointed. Mr. LOVELL. I would inquire of the gentleman if, when he was in command of a brigade, he appointed his staff officers, or whether they were also elected? Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. They are not exactly officers of the militia. Mr. LOVELL. I merely desired to suggest to the gentleman that some of the officers must be appointed. I think, if his amendment is adopted, it will. impair the organization of' the militia. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I do not think it would at all. Whether my staff officers were appointed or elected, I think it is proper that such officers should be elected, that the brigade should have a voice in the election of all their officers. Mr. MUSSEY. I think the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) has hardly looked into this matter as much as he should; I do not think he will'urge his amendment after a moment's reflection. While I agree with him in regard to the election of officers of the kind he has named, I apprehend that it is necessary that some officers should be appQinted. For instance, the quartermaster general is an officer of our militia; so is the paymaster general, and other officers of the kind. I think many officers should be elr'cted, but that can all be provided for by law. I think the Legislature will look very'closely to that matter. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH.' I withdraw my amendment. - Mr. LOVELL. I move that the committee now rise, report this article back to the Convention, and ask to be discharged from its further consideration. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the chair, Mr. WILLIAMS reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Military Department;" Ed made no amendment therein, and had directed him to ask that the committee be discharged from its further consideration. The report was received and the committee accordingly discharged. The article was then ordered to a third reading, and referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, for correction and engrossment. Mr. ALEXANDER. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at ten minutes before six o'clock p. m.,),the Convention adjourned. FORTY-SIXTH DAY. SATURDAY, July 20, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by' Rev. Mr. VANDRISS. The roll was called and a quorum an. swered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. BILLS asked and obtained leave of absence, until Wednesday next. Mr. ROOT asked and obtained leave of absence until next Tuesday morning. Mr. KENNEY asked and obtained elave, of absence for Mr..GERMAIN, for an indefinite time. Mr. BLACKMAN. I rise to inquire whether we are to be left without a quorum if we continue,to grant these leaves of absence? I would not object to the one that was last granted, because it was on account of sickness. But I shall object hereafter i; we are going to be left without a quorum. Mr. HUSTON. I ask leave of absence for Mr. FERRIs, for this forenoon. Leave was accordingly g;anted. Mr. THOMPSON. I rise to ask a question, if I may be permitted to do so. I am desirous of obtaining leave of absence for myself, until Tuesday next. But I do not wish to leave if my presence is needed to make a quorum. I would like to inquire how many members there are who will stay during today and Monday, for the transaction of the business of this Convention, and if it can be manifested by rising? Mr. CONGER. I would inquire of the Chair, how many members answered to their names this morning? Mr. THOMPSON. I understand quite a number have answered t their names who have been granted leave of absence. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary informs the Chair, that fifty-eight members responded to their names this morning. Mr. MUSSEY. I think it is neces sary that I should return home, if I can possibly obtain leave of absence. I have received a telegraphic dispatch from home, informing - me of: a fire which occurred there last night, which makes it necessasy for -me to return there. I would lik to have leave of absence until Wednesday next. Mr. LUCE. I have been. sitting here watching carefully this matter of granting leave of absence. I would appeal to the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) and -to the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. THOMPSON,) to stay here if possible. I remain here. as reluctantly as any gentleman on this floor. I have been here as steadily as anyone, and propose to stay h-er- If we are to be broken up for two or three days for want of a quorum, I think we might as well adjourn sine die. I think it is possible for both the gentlesan from Macomb, and the gentleman from Hilsdale, to remain; and I think they are sincerely anxious that the business of the Conven;tioni' shall go on. -L —X Mr. MILES. I think the, gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) is entitled to leave of absence. - I have seen the telegram to which he has referred. There is a very large amount d6f'property in which he is inberested, which lies in ruins, and he should be there to take care'of it. I do not think his patriotism should be exercised to such an extent as to require him to leave such an amount of property unattended to. Mr. LAMB. It will be recollected that on yesterday I obtained leave of absence from and after this morning. Consequently I am entitled -to be absent after ten o'clock this morning. It is my opinion, if I may be allowed; to express one, that after this morning this Conventioli will hardly find itself with a quorum until Tuesday morning. I make the suggestion now, in order that those who iptend'to remain here may take such action as may seem proper to them.*. - - Mr. ALEXANDER. I would suggest the propriety of the Secretary calling the roll, in, order that we may ascertain who will be here during today and Monday, omitting those who have obtained leave of absence, so that we may know whether we will have enough for the transaction of. business., - Mr. MILLER. I desire to make'this remark: whether there' is to be a quorum here or not, I think that when a case comes before us like that of the gentleman from Macomb,. (Mr. MusSEY,) we ought to grant him leave of absence. It is a question more material to himself than to this Conventlol. _ - It Jul. 191-1867. .y 0 DEBATES - AND- PROCP,'FDINGS. ,237 t k 238 J CONSTITUTIONl,T CONVENTION. Saturday, . Mr. LUCE. If it is supposed that I raised-special objection to leave of absence being granted to the gentleman from Macomb, I will withdraw that objection. I only appeal to him, if it is possible to remain here. The question was then taken upon granting leave of absence to Mr. MusSEY, until Wednesday next, and leave was accordingly granted. The PRESIDENT. If no objection is —made, the roll will be called as suggested by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER.) Mr. BLACKMAN. It strikes- me that that is not a very good way to secure. a quorum, if we are to have only thos -who are to answer to their names. If there are any who do not desire to remain here, it will be a very easy way for them to get leave of absence by not answering to their names. I wish to say now, while I am upon the flpor, that I shall object to any further leave of-absence being granted this morning. Mr. TURNER. I believe that the request of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXAWDER,) was -that no one should answer except those who expect to remain here. It seems to me that in that way we can quickly ascertain all that we desire. Mr. LAMB. Those gentlemen who have no leaves of absence will be bound to answer. There is no indirect way of obtaining leave of absence; they. cannot be excused except by the vote of the Convention. The calling of the roll does not give them leave of absence. Mr. BLACKMAN. If it is under stood that every one who has not leave of absence will, answer to his name, thein my objection will be obviated. But I'expected that it was understood that those who did not desire to re main here would not answer; that would leave us without a quorum. If it is understood that every one is bound to answer o his name who has not ob tained leave of absence, then I have noi objectibn. Mr. PRATT. I wish to make an ap peal to members here, to have all an swer to their names who can- possibly remain here. We have now been in session over two months. I think if we remain in session over three months, whatever our work maybe, the Con vention will become so unpopular with the people that there will be great danger that.&he Constitutioh we may frame will be rejected. I am very anxious to remain until our work is concluded. If our labors extend be yond the middle of August, my busi ness will require me to be absent. I can hardly ask gentlemen to remain here to suit my convenience, still I wish to say that I am very anxious for them to remain here till the labors of this Convention are concluded. Mr. T. G. SMITH. It seems to me that there is no necessity for calling the roll. The Chair informs us that fifty-eight members answered to their names this morning, who did not have leave of absence. I understand that those who had leave of absence, were not called. Three or four who were not in when the roll was called, have come in since. Cries of "call the roll," "call the roll." Mr. CONGER. I'have no objection to calling the roll, but I do object to that way of ascertaining what our records are. I suppose our record shows who are excused and who are not. I suppose no gentlemaD of this Convention will absent himself without obtaining leave; he will first obtain leave out of courtesy to the Convention and respect for himself. The mode proposed here is a bid for silence when names are called. If the desire is to call the roll to see how many are actually present here, or, in other words, to have a call of the Con vention, I have no objection. But I do object to calling the roll for the purpose of seeing how many would just as lief go away as not. Instead of that, I move a call of the Convention, in order that we may ascertain how many members are actually present. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) objects to a' informal call of the roll, and moves that there be a call of the Con vention. The motion of Mr. CONGER was agreed to. Mr. *. D. WARNER. If the roll is called to ascertain who are present in the Convention, I suppose those who have obtained leave of absence, and expect to take the morning train for their homes, wills not answer when their names are called. o Mr.'ONGER. I shall expect every member to answer to his name, now that a call of this Convention has been ordered. Our record will show'who have been granted leae of absence, and-the Secretary can, by reference to that, inform us how many there will be here. The roll was then called, and the following members failed to respond to their names: Messrs. Alexander, Barber, Bills, Burtch, Corbin Daniells, Desnoyers, Duncan, Elliott, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, D. Goodwin, Gulick, Haire, Henderson, Henkel, Hixson, Holmes, Howard, Hull, Lqmb, Longyear, Lothrop, McClelland, McConnel, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Parsons, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Root, W. A. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sotherland, W. E. Warner, F. C. Watkins, Winans, Withey, Wright and Yeomans-44. The PRESIDENT. Fifty-five members have answered to their names, and there are two, Messrs. RAFTER and RICHMOND, who are absent without leave. -*Mr. BLACKMAN. I would inquire of the Chair how many of those who have answered to their names, have obtained leave of absence? The PRESIDENT. Fifty-three members have answered to their names, who have not obtained leave of absence. Mr. CONGER. I desire to state that Mr. LONGYEAR expects to return to this place on Monday morning. I think we may calculate on* having a quorum on Monday for the transaction of business. Mr. DUNCAN. I now ask leave of ,absence for myself. The PRESIDENT. That motion will not be in order until some action is taken by the Convention, in reference to proceedings under the call. Mr. ALTDRICHI. I move that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with. -:L The motion was-agreed to.,: Mr. DUNCAN. I now ask'leave of absence for myself until Tuesday next. r. WARNER. Will the gentleman state the reason for desiring leave of absence? I would like to hear it. Mr. DUNCAN. I have business which will requiret me to be absent from now until Tuesday morning next. The probability is, that there will not be any very important business done by this Convention during that time. We are now right in the middle ot our harvest. I have received a letterin fornming me that it is necessary that I should be at home. For that reason, I now ask leave of absence until Tues day next. The question was taken upon grant ing leave of absence to Mr. DUNcAN, until Tuesday next; and upon a divis ion, ayes 36, - noes 16, leave was ac cordingly granted. Mr. SHEARER. Since this ques tion is before the Convention, I would respectfully say- V The PRESIDENT. There is no question before the Convention. Mr. SHEARER. I supposed there wail a question in regard to leave of absence. The -PRESIDENT. There is no question of that kind before the Con vention. Mr. SHEARER. I will ask leave of absence for myself, so as to halve a mo tion before the Convention. The PRESIDENT. For what time' does the gentleman desire leave of ab sence? Wr. WILLIAMS. Is it in order to ask leave of absence without stating the reasons? The PRESIDENT. The gentleman I . 2,_ 1. [..., will please to state the time for which he desires leave of absence,? Mr. StiEARERt. I merely asked leave of absence for the purpose -of stating - Mr. LEACH. I object to that course. I object to the gentleman's asking leave of absence merely for the purpose of making a speech. Mr. LIUJCE. I desire to present a petition. Mr. ALEXANDER. I rise to a point of order. My point of order is that we have not yet arrived at that stage of our proceedings, when the presentation of petitions is in order. The PRESIDENT. The order of presentation of petitions has not yet been reached, and the point of order raised by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) is well taken. The Chair, however, will now announce that the presentation of petitions is now in order. PETITIONS. Mr. LUCE presented the petition of Wm. S. Card, Matilda Sprague and 52 other citizens of Batavia, Branch county, praying that the right of suffrage may be extended to men and women on equal terms; which was referred to the committee on elections. BILL OF RIGHTS. Mr. PRATT. I move that the article entitled' "Bill of Rights" be taken from the table and placed upon the order of unfinished bgsiness. Mr. FARMER. I rise to the order of motions and resolutions. The PRESIDENT. The order of motions and resolutions has'been reached; and the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,.) has made a motion that the article entitled,"Bill of'Rights" be takn from the table and placed upon the order Qf unfinished business. The motion of Mr. PRATT was agreed to. DIAGRAM OF THE HALL. Mr. INGALLS. I move that the resolution offered by me yesterday, in relation to printing additional copies of the diagram of this hall, be taken from the table for the action of this Convention. The motion was agreed to. The-question was upon agreeing to the resolution, which was as follows: Resoted, That the committee on printing be requested to cause300 additional copies of the diagram of the Hall of the: Conyvention to be printed tor distribution to the members. Mr. INGALLS. I desire to move to amend this resolution -by adding, "and that the diagram be corrected before such additional copies are printed." I find by examination of the diagram as printed, that tihere are several errors in it. For- instance, I find'hat one of the tables here is assigned to Hillsdale and -Marquette, counties, and one to St. Joseph and Marquette counties, which is erroneous. I will state further that the diagram does not show that it is a diagram of the hall of this Convention. For anything that appears upon the diagram, it might,be a diagram of the hall of the House of Representatives. Other gentleman have pointed out errors in this respect; the names of the delegates are so printed', that one cannot tell from the diagram what counties they are from. I believe there are other things which need correction, which perhaps other gentlemen of the Convention understand better than I do myself. For that reason I have moved an amendment, in order that this diagram may be corrected before the ad. ditional copies are printed. Mr. CONGER. I would inquire of the gentleman from Menominee, (Mr. INGALLS,) whether the diagram can be now changed? I understand the dia-gram is printed from a plate which-has already been prepared. I Would inquire whether the words "Constitu-. tional Convention" can be put in, or any other change made without requiring a new plate? Mr. INGALLS. I am unable to answer that question, having been away sick, during the time this plate was gotten up. I think the gentleman 'from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) can give the Convention information in that respect. Mr. MORTON. When the gentleman from Menominee, (Mr. INGALLS,) first spoke to me about it, I was willing to vote for his resolution; but I believe, upon examination, that- the whole thing must be manufactured over again, which will delay the matter until these copies will be too late for our Manual, which is already printed and ready for b~iding. I think it is not proper to go to that expense. If the present plate could be made to answer, then I would have no objec tion. But I think it is likely that to make the changes suggested would re quire a new plate, and inyolve us in a cost which we should not incur. Mr. BILLS. When this:resolution was first presented, it struck me favor ably. The suggestion was then made that it would cost a mere trifle'to strike off an additional number of copies, the plate being in readiness for that purpose. But if there is a neces sity for making such alterations as will require a new plate, and thus in cur any considerable amount of ex pense, it seems to me that it would be undesirable. I am,n of course, dis posed to indulge any members of the Convention who may desire any extra copies of this diagram from the plate as it now is. For myself, I do not consider it of any very great consequence.. I hardly think I would pay three cents' for ten thousand of'them for my own use. Strn, f other gentlemen want them, I will not oppose it, if it does not require any considerable amount of expense. Mr. INGALLS. I will state that I was not aware, until the gentleman from'Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) made his ,statement, how the matter was:in relation to printing these copies. The amendment was suggested to me by friends, and I.:moved it more particu[arly on their account than on my own. I am not in favor of going- to the expense which it seems these changes would require. I would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw miy amendment, and leave the resolution.as.' I -first offere&'d it, upon which the Convention can act. Mr. MILES. I am,not myself a printer, but I believe'the State printer can put in the words "ConstitutionalConyvention," in- fancy type on some portion of this diagram, and,thus involve very little expense. It may not look as well as if it had been made in the plate, but I think it will answer every[ purpose. Mr. MORTON. I doubt if that can be done; but if the Convention wil adopt the resolution, the committee- on printing will examine the matter, and see what can be done about it. Mr..MITTLE-R. I think each member can take his,pen:- and make succh corrections as he desires. Mr. CONGER. That is an assumption that every member of this Convention can write. [LIaughter.] Mr. LEACH. I:.move that the reso ution -be indefinitely postponed' The question was taken, - and the :PRESIDENT announced that the motion was agreed to, there being, upon a idivision, ayes 30, noes 24. Mr. INGALS. I would inquire if I was-counted'in the affirmative-? I did not intend to vote that:way. The PRESIDENT. The Chair can-not state how that is; if the gentleman was counted in the affirmative'incorrectly, it would not change the result :of the vote.' - Mr. INGALLS. I think several ,gentlemen voted without understand'ing the question. I-wo'Uld askthat the vote be taken again, and I hope the imotion to postpone will not be agreed ;.to. think it would.be swell'toallow members at least three or:four:copies like those already struck 0if. o f 'M~r.'COOLSID.GE., I thin:if.any * member. desires,:another copy or,two, ,some of us can donate ours tbohim. 'i c'DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. L.. 239 Ju.ly 2.0 1867. Mb 240 COSTITUTIOAL COYETIO Saturday, Mr. NORRIS. Any gentleman can have my copy. The PRESIDENT. As there seems to be some misunderstanding among members, the vote; will be again taken upon.the motion to indefinitely postpone the resolution. The question was then -taken upon the motion to indefinitely postpone the resolution, and upon a division it was not agreed to; ayes 24, noes not counted. The question recurred upon agreeing to the resolution.. Mr. BLACKMAN. I do not myself consider the question of having additional copies of this diagram so important, as I do the question of having some corrections made in it, by which it will be made to show what it was intended to represent. I. understand, however, that additional copies of the diagram from the plate as it is now can be printed with but slight expense, while to make the corrections in it would be attended with considerable expense. We have gone to considerable expense to get up a Manual, and to have a diagram prepared of the hall, and the seats of members. I think unless we can have some correction in order to show on some part of the diagram what it really is intended for, we might as well leave it out of the Manual entirely. I think it is so very defective that it might as well be left out as put in. Mr.P.D.'WARNER. Ithinkanindividuai can readily infer what was represented by this diagram, after it is put into the Manual prepared for this Convention. I think it would be as xeasonable an inference at least that this was a diagram of the hall ofthe Convention,: as it was that the whisky was put into the corner stone of the Nasby Institute in Kentucky. I see no necessity for requiring any alteration of this diagram which is to go into the Manual of this Convention. I think any person would reasonably infer, upon seeing it in that Manual, that it was a diagram of this Convention. Mr. BILLS. I think it would be very like the whiskey in the corner stone; it would not be there after the original proprietor had visited the corner stone. 'The question was taken upon the resolution, and it was adopted. PRAYERS AT OPENING OF DAILY SESSIONS. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I offer the following resolution:. i.:Resolved, That the special committee appointed to wait upon and procure the attendance of the resident clergy of Lansing to open the daily sessions of the Convention with religious exercises, be instructed to notify the Rev. Mr. Vandriss that the members of the Convention do not rely upon the intercessions of the Virgin Mary for Divine favor and guidance, and that they expect theindi vidual officiating will include in his petitions to the Father of Mercies the members of the Convention as well as himself. Mr. HUSTON. I move that this resolution be indefinitely postponed. Mr. P. D. WARNER. While I am in favor Mr. HUSTON. Is this motion debatable? - The PRESIDENT. It is debatable within the limit of' postponement, but not upon the merits of the resolution.' Mr. ALEX4NDER. I move that the resolution be laid upon the table. Mr. P. D. WARNER. Is that motion in order as long as I have the floor? -' The PRESIDENT. The motion is not now in order. Mr. ALEXANDER. I beg pardon of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER.) I was not aware that he had the floor. Mr. BRADLEY. Will the gentleman allow me a moment? * Mr. P. D. WARNER. Certainly. 'Mr.'BRADLEY. I think it is very possible that the gentleman from Oakland labors under a misapprehension in regard to the language used in the opening services of this morning, and that that misapprehension has given occasion for this resolution. I think there were other words used instead of those which the gentleman supposes. At first I had the same impression which the gentleman seems to have had, but I now think I was mistaken. I think the words used were "holy model," instead of" holy mother." Mr. P. D. WARNER. If I am under a misapprehension, I will withdraw the resolution.' Mr. LOVELL. I think it is well for us to have the prayers of all the virgins we can get to pray for us; we may need them before we get through. The resolution was withdrawn. BILL OF RIGHTS. The Convention proceeded to the consideration of the unfinished businesss, being the article entitled "Bill of Rights." . The question was upon concurring in the amendments made by the committee of the whole. Mr. PRINGLE. I would inquire if this article has been printed in the journal as amended? The PRESIDENT. It'has not. Mr. PRATT. I move that the Convention concur in the amendments adopted by the committee of the whole to this article. Mr. WILLARD. I call for the read ing of the amendments. Mr. BLACKMAN. I would suggest that the amendments be first read, and that the sections as amended be then read.''' Mr. CONGER. I ask for a separate vote upon each amendment. The PRESIDENT. The question will be taken separately upon each amendment. FREEDOM OF RELIGION. The first amendment reported from the committee of the whole was to section two, which section was as follows: "No law shall be passed to prevent any person from worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience or to compel any person to attend, erect, or support any place of religious worship, or pay tithes, taxes or other rates, for the support ot any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion." The amfendment was to strike out the words, "no law shall be. passed to prevent any person from worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience, or to compel any person," and to insert in lieu thereof the words, " every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled;" so that the section as amended would read as follows:.. "Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of religious worship, or pay tithes, taxes or other rates, for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion." The amendment of the committee.of the whole was concurred in. The next amendment of the committee of the whole was to section three, which section was as follows:' "The civil and religious rights, privileges and capacities of no individual shall be diminished or enlarged, on account of his opinions or belief concerning matters of religion." This amendment was to strike out the words "civil and religious;" also strike out the words "no individual shall," and insert in lieu thereof the words, " individuals shall not;'' also strike out the word " his," so that the section will read: "The rights, privileges and capacities of individuals shall not be diminished or enlarged, on account of opinions or belief concerning matters ot religion." The amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in. Mr. MTTILLER. I think section three was further amended by adding to it the words " except when from scruples of conscience, they shall be averse to bearing arms." I may be mistaken in that. The PRESIDENT. No such amendment is attached to the article. Mr. WILLIAMS. The journal shows that the amendment was offered in committee of the whole, but did not prevail., TRIAL BY JURY.' The next amendment reported from 240 .1 CONSTITUTIONAL. CONVENTION., Saturday, 'k -ft 11 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. the committee of the whole was to section seven, which section was as follows: "The right of trial by jury shall remain, but shall be deemed to be waived in all civil cases, unless demanded by one of the parties, in such manner as shall be prescribed bylaw. The Legislature may authorize, in all civil and criminal cases, a trial by a jury of a less number than twelve men, in all courts not ot record." The amendment was to strike out the words, "in all courts not of record," at the end of the section. The question was upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. WILLARD. I do not rise to make any extended remarks. For one, I do not like to see the ancient right of trial by jury in any degree impaired. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. TURNER. I wish to discuss this question. I am of the same opin ion as the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WILLARD,) that it would be very dangerous at least, to provide for the trial of important criminal cases by a jury of a less number than twelve men. There has been no complaint certainly for generations, or Imight say for centuries, of this number of jurors in criminal cases. For my own part I see no reason whatever for mak ing this change. I certainly hope the amendment will not be concurred in. Mr. PRATT. I rise to say that I concur in the remarks of the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WILLARD,) and the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. TURNER,) in regard to the importance of retaining this provision in our bill of rights. I was not here when the amendment was made in committee of the whole; and I did not hear the reasons given in favor of the amendment. I have thought over the matter, and have paid considerable attention to such suggestions as I have heard made out of the Convention in regard to this amendment. I am satisfied that it is not wise to make this change. I think this right of trial by a jury of twelve is indispensable ini all cases. Mr. P. D. WARNER. There was a reason stated for the adoption of this amendment, that was satisfactory to my own mind, if it was not to the minds of those legal gentlemen who are members of this Convention. I think it was stated by the gentleman from Wayne, not now in his seat, (Mr. LOTHROP.) The reason was this: that in the trial 2f.a criminal by a jury of twelve. men, it'equired much attention and care in preparing and prosecuting the case, and after they had been engaged in the trial for a number of days Vol. 2-No. 31. one of the twelve individuals consti tuting the jury might be taken sick. Although the attorneys and all other parties, including the accused, might be entirely willing to proceed with the trial with the eleven jurors remaining, still in consequence of the requirements of the statutes and of the Constitution of this State, all further proceedings in the investigation of that case must be postponed until the twelfth juror re covered from his sickness; or if he did notrecover, a new jury would of ne cessity have to be empanneled, and they would have to commence a new trial of that case. This was the reason that brought conviction to my mind at least, that there was no necessity for retaining these words in this section. I have taken this occasion to make this statement because of the suggestion of the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) that he knew no reason why these words should be stricken out. Mr. HUSTON. I understand that the reason stated by the gentleman from Oakland (Mr. P. D. WARNER) was the one assigned by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) and it influenced the committee of the whole to adopt this amendment. I think it was a good reason. This leaves the matter with the Legislature to provide for cases of that kind. It is not unfrequent in the trial of criminals, and also of civil cases, that one member of the jury may be taken sick. Yet, in criminal causes, the parties cannot consent to proceed with the trial with eleven jurors, because, according to the Constitution, the Legislature is not authorized to provide for a trial by a jury of a less number than twelve in any court of record. It strikes me that it can do no harm to leave this matter with the Legislature, and allow them to provide for cases of that kind; to provide that, with the consent of the accused, he may be tried by a less number than twelve. I did not suppose it was the intention of the committee of the whole, when they adopted this amendment, that the Legislature should reduce the number of jurymen in criminal cases to a less number than twelve; but that they might provide for such cases, as frequently they arise, of a juryman being taken sick. It seems to me that it cannot do any harm to adopt the amendment. It struck me at the time that the reasons assigned by the gentleman from Wayne were sufficient. I believe the amendment should be adopted. *Mr. CONGER. It seems to me that the reason assigned is rather one of convenience to attorneys, who may care less what becomes of the accused than what becomes of their own time. I think this amendment, if adopted, would infringe upon the rights of the accused. In the Consti tution there is recognized for all citi zens, for everybody, the right of trial by jury, which is a jury of twelve. It is a principle adopted, I believe, in every State. I believe that in all crim inal cases more especially, a man has a right, if he is tried according to the common law of the land, to be tried by a common law jury, which is a jury of twelve. Although we vary the common law by statutory provision in regard to crime, etc., I think a man should have a right to a common law jury. I have had a somewhat extensive experience in the defense and protec tion of criminal cases, for over twenty years. I never yet knew the trial of a case to be stopped by reason of the sickness or death of a juryman. I may have had a peculiar experience, but I never knew a case that failed to proceed to a final trial and decision for that reason. I have known a case to be held over for a half a day, or a day, in consequeRce of the sickness of a juryman. But these exceptional cases, in my opinion, should not be provided for in the Constitution. If such a pro vision should be adopted, giving the prisoner the right to waive a trial by a jury of twelve, attorneys engaged in prosecuting or in defending a criminal might urge himn to a trial by eleven, ten or five jurymen, as the Legislature might provide. In that way, the very one of all the jury who might have the best judgment, and whose decision might be the very decision which would affect one way or the other the rights of the prisoner, might be left off the juro. I think there wouldbethis objection to it; that even in these exceptional cases, if the accused were convicted by a jury of eleven men, the result would inevitably be that he would have a new trial. I venture to say that where a juror should be removed from the performance of his duty for any reason, and the remainder were allowed to go on and conclude the trial, no judge in te world would refuse to grant a new trial, as a matter of course, in case of conviction; so that the argument that we would save time in this way in the trial of criminal causes would be of no importance. But that is not the argument we should consider. What we desire is to have the people and the accused feel satisfied that he has had, according to the common law of the land, a full, fair and impartial hearing, and has been protected by all the well known forms of common law, and general provisions of the law of the land applicable to the case. July 20 1867. 211 ..... -.....................JO. -.-..,, I:voted against this amendment when it was offered in committee of the whole; and I am very much opposed to' -its being concurred in now by the Convention. In regard to misdemeanors before a justice of the peace, there is no particular objection to having a jury of less than twelve, because there is no great interest of life, liberty or property involved. Ail police cases could very properly be tried with a jury or without one, or with a jury of less than twelve men. But I would for the sake of the law itself, and the administration of the law, preserve the right of trial in all courts of record by a common law jury of twelve men. Mr. LOVELL. I do not understand that the rights of the accused, are the only rights to be considered in court. I can well conceive that it is desirable enough to have a large jury in important criminal cases. But there are a great many comparatively unimportant criminal cases that are tried in courts of record; such, for instance, as an assault and battery case tried before a jury ins a court not of record, but where an appeal is had. I,apprehend that the dockets of our circuit courts are'covered with cases of that sort. Yet, as the gentleman from St. Clair, (r. CobaER,) has said, they are cases of minor importance. The common law right of trial. by jury, as was said when this question was discussed before, was not the right of being tried by twelve men instead of one or any other number; that was not the theory at all. But it was the right of a man to be tried by his peers, not'to be tried by the judge alone who sat in robes above him. Mr. WILLARD. What is the mean ing of the word " jury," in the common law? It is that we contend for.' Mr. LOVFETL. If the gentleman will refer to a legal lexicon, he will find a more accurate definition than I can give him at this moment. But the law of this State does not make a jury to consist alone of twelve persons. I do not apprehend that the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WILLARD,) meant to be understood by his question, that twelve make a jury. The jury trial means a trial by one's peers. This right took its origin from the fact, that. before its adoption, under the practice of the common law, men were tried by judges on the bench, who had, or were' supposed to have but little sympathy with them. There is in fact under our elective judicial system, much less occa sion: "in my judgment for cherishing this right of trial by jury, than when the right first originated. It was the right to' be -tried by one's peers, by those who had opportunity perhaps to be affected:-in all'points,i'f:I may'use the expression, like the criminal. It' was well said, when this amendment was' adopted,'that for the purpose of being tried in this way, a jury of six persons was just as good as a jury of twelve;'the principle of being tried by one's'peers, was preserved'in the one case as much as in the -other. Sur ely we might so far relax the stringency of this old provision, as to allow' a man, if he himself desires to be tried by a less number than twelve, to be so tried.' We are told that'this is a very sacred right. If so, will'any Legislature Con vened in the State of Michigan, say that a man charged with committing murder, for instance, shall be tied by six, instead of -twelve persons? On the other hand, jury duty is anii onerous du ty' i.may be that gentlemen who are accustomed to d'efend: criminals, who' have had much experience in that branch of professional' duty,' will find it better to defend a criminal charged with a grave offense -before a jury of twelve instead of six. Jury duty is heavy to be borne. It may be proper to allow-the Legislature toprovide in cases where the charges are not grave, that if the accused consents to it, he may be tried with a less number than twelve. Not'that I would' care about the expense, but there is a very deep-seated' prejudice against being compelled to perform jury duty..There is -a feeling in the' community against performing jury duty, that is so great that it is often very hard, to get a jury of good re spectable' men to sit upon a case. This is well known in the experience of all who are acquainted with the practice of the courts. For that reason, there has come to be a class of persons who are generally recognized as professional jurors. I speak of that by way of illustrating the statement that jury duty is regarded as irksome. When the rights of the accused- do not re quire, and his wishes do not call for, a jury of twelve persons, why shall we insist that no jury shall be authorized of a less number? To be sure, the rights of the accused are to be sacredly guarded; but do not let us destroy the accused by insisting upon a number that he may not ask. Mr. WILLIAMS. I rise to correct the statement made by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOvELL,) in refer ence to the legal construction of the word' "jury." He must have over looked the decision of the Supreme Court of this State, in the legal con struction of that word in the Constitu tion' of the State of Michigan. That court decided that when'the' word' " jury " is used: in the' Constitution, as in the case of a&V- jury of freeholders, it- means the common law jury of twelve men. The old idea was that a person should be tried by a jury ofhisi peers, that is, by men who were his peers. But that did not regulate the number; the -umber follows the'term "jury.'".. Mr. LOVELL. Is not the essence of the privilege of trial by jury, thata person shall be triedby his peers rather than by twelve men, insteadcl of one, ten or fifteen? Mr. WILLIAMS. I take it that the essence is as much of the One as of the' other. Mr. LOVELL. Are not juries of a less number than twelve provided for by the Constitution of our State? Mr. W.ILLIAMS. They are, andI have nodoubt we may providehere, by striking outthe words' inall courts not of record," that there may be a jury of less than twelve men. In fact, that is the question before the Convention I am really surprised that the gentleman should ask that questiVon, I do -not, however, favor theidea of reta'ming in the Constitution these words,, "-in all courtsnot of record." While I would, perhaps, beas conservative in that re spect as any gentleman upon this floor, Istill would leave anopportunity for a party, a defendant,, or a respondent, in court, to waive a trial by a jury of twelve men, under peculiar circum stances and4 exigencies that might arise in the case, in order that a trialmight proceed With a jury of ten or eleven, or aless number of men. But I would have the''right waived by the party himself. I think we should not put such a restriction in the Constitution as would prevent such an object being. accomplished by legislative action. Mr. TURNER., All the reason that I have heard assigned by gentlemen on the other' side of this question, for this amendment, is, that one or more jurors might be taken sick during the trial, in which case the trial would have to be postponed. It is very true that a case of that kind may occur. But, in my own experience of ten years or more upon the bench, where I have had occasion to try a great many crim inal cases, I have never known an in stance of that kind. I do not remem ber a solitary case which had to be postponed in consequence of a juror being taken sick. As the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNNER,) says, I have known One or two cases which were postponed for a day or a half a day on that account., It is true that a case might happen where a juror is ta ken sick; but the judge or the counsel might just as weil happen t6'-be taken' sick. That is all the reason I haver heard assigned for this amendment. [ am opposed to the amendment..... CONSTITUTIONAL CONVFNTION Saturday, 242 Ji 0, 16.DBTSADPOEDGS 4 Mr. PRINGLE. In my judgment a single isolated case, which'would not be likely to occur in ten tth6usand, should not control our action in this matter. I think we should continue' the old jury system. It is a pretty ancient system;'and it is'a respectable system; which hbas the endorsement of our fathers during all those times when they built up that systeinm of common law, under which our rights are substantially preserved. There are some systems of trial which are older'than this; this is not the oldest. There was a system of trial where the accused had to walk over so many burning ploughshares, and if he could es'cape unharmed, he was allowed to go free. There was a system by which the accused was thrown into the water; if he sank he was guilty,'if he floated he was considered innocent. Then there was a system of trial by expurgators, where if twelve of the neighbors of the accused came up and swore solemnly that they believed he was innocent, he was allowed to go free. And from that, if I understand history aright, succeeded the practice of bringing testimony before the expurgators, after being first sworn that they would decide according to the law and the evidence. Something like this is said to have been the origin of trial by jury; and from that day to this the right has been preserved sacred among our people. Now, the prosecution of criminals is indeed important to any community. But there are things more important to a community, than that persons accused of crime should always be convicted. About the easiest thing that is done in our courts is to convict a criminal. In nine cases out of ten criminals come into court dirty and in rags, unfriended and'strangers. There would be no imputation of anything wrong in the appearance of any member of this Convention to say that under such circumstances, among entire strangers, he would have glaring eyes looking at him to find the marks which would brand him as a felon. Therefore, it is the easiest thing in the world to convict such persons in courts. I have had some part in such trials, and I think I could testify from my little experience, and from what I have observed, that it is easier to get a verdict of guilty, against a person accused of crime, for which the sentence would be three, five or ten years in the State prison, than it would be to recover six cents damages in a civil case. In the case of a criminalthere stands the prosecuting officer; not a mere hired attorney, but a public officer, supposed to be indifferent between the people and the accused; protectig the rights of the people of the community, and protecting the rights of the accUsed; he is supposed by the jury to stand indifferent. Yet he enters into the case and prosecutes it with a vehe-d 'mence, with all the preparation and all the spirit,'that hired attorneys ever bring to the performance of their work. He comes first before the jury; he opens the case to them, and they hear him. He has the whole power of the people, the whole purse of the people, and the whole constabulary force of the people, to bring his witnesses. He is heard by the judge and ",brings on his trial when he pleases. He has the first voice before the jury, and brings his witnesses to support his theory. And it is only after twelve or twenty-four'hours,' or perhaps days or weeks have elapsed, that the prisoner can even bring forward that theory by which he can show himself innocent before the jury. He may do so then; may bring in his companion perhaps, if he'has any, dirty and in rags like himself, a stranger to the jury, suspected by them as he himself is suspected. He may bring to his aid the services of an attorney, who is appointed by the court, and paid ten dollars for the magnificent effort he is to make on the behalf of the accused, during a trial which may last for days. All this, however, will amount to very little, for that indifferent public officer stands ready to take advantage of every mistake, of every prejudice in the case, and he has the last summing up of the case to the jury. And unless the judge be more than mortal, he sympathizes somewhat with'that crowd who have been peering into the looks of the dirty and ragged prisoner, in order to find the marks of a felon upon him. Surely it is easy enough to bring ciminals to punishment for their crimes, without adding to all this the taking away from them the right to a jury of twelve men, which twelve men will be taken from all over the county, not sharing in any particular local prejudices and feelings which would be likely to affect a jury composed of a smaller number. I hope that we will not do away with this great principle of our liberty, a principle dear to our people, and which should be considered important to our selves and to our children, who may under circumstances of entire inno cence, be placed where suspicion would be thrown upon them, and where all this array of circumstances would be against them. They should at least have the protection of having the mat ter considered by a jury of twelve men. I shall therefore vote against this amendment. Mr. CHAPIN. I must confess that I do not see in what way the rights of the accused are better protected by granting him a trial by a jury of twelve than by a jury of ten or eleven men. I voted before for this amendment, and until I hear some arguments that will convince me of my error, more cogent than axy I have yet heard, I shall be obliged to vote for the amendment again. I do not know what particular taismanic charm there is in the number twelve, that should constitute a jury of that number better calculated to secure to an individual accused of crime,'a fair trial than one of ten or eleven. I am aware that twelve compose what is termed a common law jury,.: I am aware we have derived the idea of the number twelve, as constituting a jury, from the old common law. We also derived from the same source the theory of a grand jury to prefer bills of indictment against persons accused of crime, which bills were to be presented and filed, and then they wereto be tried before a traverse jury. But'we have done away with that cumbersome machinery. The old grand jury, who preferred their bills of indictment against criminals, in secret session, and upon an ex parte hearing, has has been abolished. At the time the question of abolishing the grand jury was discussed, the same arguments were used for their continuance that are now urged in favor of the number twelve to constitute a traverse jury. We were referred to the remarkable antiquity of the grand jury, and urged to venerate the old abuse with the dust and cobwebs of ages resting upon it. Most people conceived, that unless an individual was duly indicted before a grand jury, his rights would be frittered away;.they thought he could hardly have a fair trial, and have justice done him under any other system. I cannot see why the same reasons, which led to the abolition of that cumber some machinery, may not also be urged in favor of the adoption of this amendment. I look upon the idea of a traverse jury composed of precisely twelve men, very much in this light: It was *said of Dr. Johnson that he had a superstition that unless he passed over the threshhold of a door with his right foot foremost, it boded ill luck; and he would often re trace his steps so as to make his en trance with that foot first. I think there is about as much superstition in the one case as in the other. It will certainly be more convenient, and a great saving of expense in many cases, to allow a prisoner to waive his right to trial by a jury of twelve men, and -DEBATES AND' PROC'F,FDINGS. . July —20,1867. 243 0 .....TTUI~L OYETO. __ Nday consent to have his case passed upon by a jury of a less number. It is well known that instances do sometimes arise, where a jury are engaged during a long protracted criminal trial, one of great importance, in-which large numbers of witnesses are in attendance to be sworn and examined-in such cases very frequently a juror is taken sick; sometimes it may happen that a juror will die during such a protracted criminal trial. As the law now stands, in such cases the State, and the friends of the accused, will be subjected to the expense of a trial de novo, simply because one member of the jury is unable to continue in his seat until a verdict is rendered. It strikes me that this is entirely unnecessary, and is giving a degree of adhesion to the superstitions of by-gone days that is not in accordance with the progress of modern times. Mr. T. G. SMITH: The only reason I have heard for this amendment is the liability of a juryman to be taken sick, or for some cause or other to be unable to continue through the trial. It strikes me that this amendment, if adopted, will not remedy that difficulty. Whatever number of jurymen the Legislature might fix upon for the trial of causes, there will still be the same liability which is presented as an objection to the present practice, unless it is intended that a provision of law should be enacted by which a party might still be required to go on with the trial, notwithstanding one of the jurymen might be taken sick. If that be the intention of this amendment, I should certainly object to it most earnestly. I take it that the party has an interest in the jury before whom he is to be tried, or by whom his cause is to be tried. He is now called upon to state whether he is satisfied with the jury, before he is required to go on with the trial at all; and when he says he is satisfied with the jury, then the trial goes on. If this amendment is made, he might be required to go on with the trial even when he is not satisfied with the jury. The fact that a particular juryman is taken sick, might be the very reason why he would not be willing to trust his case to the rest. The gentleman from Gratiot, (Mr. CHAPIN,) asks if there is any talismanic charm about the number twelve, so that that number should not be altered? I ask him whether there is any other number that has any more charm about it than the number twelve? If there is no other number that is any better adapted for the trial of a cause than the number twelve, why change the practice that has been established for centuries, and about which I have heard no fault found? I do not sup pose it is the intention of those who favor this amendment to change the number twelve for a jury. It seems to me that the only object assigned for making this alteration, would not be accomplished simply by the amend ment proposed, unless you say that a party shall go on with his trial, not withstanding one of the jurymen shall be taken sick; and to that I should most seriously object. Mr. WILLIAMS. I desire to call the attention of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. T. G. SMITH,) to the present Constitution, in order to show that this change is a change backward; in other words, under our present Con stitution, as will be seen by reference to section forty-six of the article on the "Legislative Department," the Le gislature may authorize a trial by jury of a less number than twelve men will be found the substance of the pro position we desire to have adopted. Therefore, the proposition made here, does hot involve any such change as the gentleman stated. The point is whether a man on trial can in any case waive his right to be tried by a jury of twelve men, or whether the Legislature can authorize any such thing to be done. This right of a trial by a jury of twelve men, is not founded upon us age running back to time immemorial, because there has been this lapse of seventeen years of time; by a provis ion of our Constitution, the practice has been changed in that respect. Therefore, the theory of common law treatises does not apply here, as stated by the gentleman, so far as our State is concerned, for here is a waiver of that practice in our present Constitution. I do not know that any ill effects have resulted from that provision in our present Constitution. I do not understand that any ill effects have been claimed to have resulted from it. -If no one has received any injury from it, I would ask, why re turn now to the old practice, and inL sert a provision here which will pro. hibit the Legislature from allowing a party to waive his right to be tried by a jury of twelve men? Mr. T. G. SMITH. Has the Legis lature made any such provision as that? Mr. WiLLIAM~S. I am not positive . whether they have or not, but my im, pression is that they have. Mi-. TURNER. They have in courts not of record. Mr. WILLIAMS. I think they ought to have power in regard to courts of record, as well as courts hot of record. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Then they have not acted upon the provision of the . Constitution except in regard to courts not of record? Mr. WILLIAMS. My point is that this cannot be claimed as a Constitu tional prerogative for legislative action. Mr. COOLIDGE. I recollect when this vote was taken in committee of the whole upon the remarks made by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) as stated here in Convention this mor ning. I apprehended at the time that the committee were more influenced by his remarks, than by the remarks of any other person. To me the remarks of the gentleman were not at all satis factory. I should think that very lit tle attention was paid to the prominent object which he stated would be gain ed by striking out these words, that is in the case of the sickness of a jury man. I do not apprehend that the striking out of the words " in all courts not of record," would effect that ob ject at all. I believe it is conceded that a jury is desirable and that the custom should not be done away with. The only question before the Con vention to-day is, shall there be a jury of twelve men in crimimal cases in courts of record, or shall the number be less? It is very easy- to see that men may differ exceedingly on that point, because there is no means by which we can say, or anybody can say, that twelve is just the number, and that no other number will answer. All I have to say is, that it has been settled by the sense of civilized na tions, certainly by the nations from which we sprung, and by the practice and custom of the United States, that upon the whole, twelve is the better number. With me that consideration has more weight, perhaps, than any argument that can be made to-day in this Convention. It is not true, I apprehend, as my friend from Gratiot, (fi-. CAAPn,) states, that because the grand jury sys tem was found to be unnecessary, and perhaps improper in this age and in this State, therefore we had better make another alteration, and, for the same reason he urges, abandon the ,number of twelve in the jury system, as we abandoned the grand jury sys tem. Whatever may be said of the necessity or the propriety and safety of the grand jury system, at the time it took its rise in England, and after ward, it certainly was found here, in the present condition of our people, not only burdensome but dangerous. The argument against the grand jury, as I understand it, was this: why will you closet twenty-four men to find an indictment against a man in the dark, sworn to secresy, and not allow him any opportunity to defend himself or to explain? It was but an ex parte proceeding; and it was upon that ground that the grand jury system was abolished. Is there any such reason in I f f 8 e t s . 241 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. I Saturday, 0 July 20, 1867. DEBATE8 AD PROCEEDI( 245 this case? There is no analogy between the two cases at all, not a particle. It was conceived to be better and safer, having regard to the condition of the people at this time, in the incipient stages of the case, to bring the accused into court, to let him hear the accusation and be confronted with his accusers. I suppose no gentleman has any doubt about the propriety of that, to say nothing about the expense. But I do not want to see this amendment made; I do not believe it should be made. In regard to the remarks of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOvELL,) that it is exceedingly difficult in these days to get a jury of proper men at all-allow his remark to be true, and I am not going to controvert it at all, that it is exceedingly difficult now in ordinary cases, in cases of a high grade of crime, as well as crimes of a lower grade, to get proper men to be jurymen. Even admitting that to be so, would it not be safer and far better, and is it not an argument in favor of retaining this clause, to have a larger number of men upon a jury, because by that means you will be more likely to get some men of ability and judgment? Take those cases of a higher grade of crime, or any of these cases the decision of which is to affect a man, and perhaps blast his reputation for life, when you decide in an hour, perhaps, whether he is to live or die, so far at least as all that is worth living for is concerned; what should be the principle that should govern us? Suppose a man is arraigned upon such a charge as that. He has his wife and children around him, and if he falls they all fall. Do you suppose that in a case of that kind you could get me to be one of a jury to be composed of three or five men? Could you induce me to be a juror in such a case, to pronounce a verdict with but three or four with me? I would not take that responsibility upon me, with my present conviction, if I were to be sent to jail for refusing to do it. Mr. WILLIAMS. I would ask the gentleman how it would change his responsibility to.have more men acting with him? Mr. COOLIDGE. Does not the gentleman know that if you divide a responsibility between twelve men it is one thing, and if you divide it between two or three men it is another thing? Is there not a difference between one man deciding that a person shall die or live, and twelve men making that decision? Mr. WILLIAMS. Does not each man decide? Mr. COOLIDGE. Yes, sir; but if there are twelve men in the aggregate, that will give more confidence, and the gentleman knows it. With the feeling which I know pervades a very large class of men, who will be called upon to act as jurymen, I do not think if the number of jurymen is decreased there would be one conviction where there are now two. I suppose this is one of the leading arguments in favor of the present practice; in a matter of such importance, where the human feelings start back with dread at assuming the responsibility of bringing in a verdict upon which such immense consequen ces depend, there is strength in having twelve men to say that such a verdict must be rendered. Is it true that there are any considerable number of gen tlemen on this floor, who would say that there should be a less number of men on a jury than twelve, in cases of the highest magnitude,? I very much doubt whether there are a half dozen men on this floor who will say that. The Legislature can say there shall be so many for this grade of crime, and so many for that, and divide up the matter in that way. Of course there are difficulties about it. But I say that in the highest grade of crime, I am certainly in favor of a jury of twelve men; first, for the reason that we have the judgment of the great and good of the present day, and of the generations preceding us, that upon the whole twelve is the safer number. And secondly, I apprehend that such are the objections of the human mind to passing upon questions which shall be attended with results so vital, a less number than twelve persons is not a safe number to pass upon cases involv ing high crimes. In regard to the matter of expense, I hardly think that ought to have any great weight with us. When I take into consideration the life of an indi vidual, or all that makes life worth anything, his prospects in this world, and the prospects of his family, I do not regard the question of a few dol lars of expense as entitled to weight, in comparison with the importance of securing to him a fair and impartial trial. I have been engaged in criminal cases, now, for a large number of years. I have felt, and I feel now, that this is the best rule that we can have in cases arising in courts of record; and I should be very sorry to have this clause striken out. ]Mr. WILLARD. I rise to correct what I deem may be a wrong impres sion, which might be created by the remarks of the gentleman from Alle gan, (Mr. WILLIAMS.) It is true that the Legislature is authorized to pro vide for a jury of a less number than i twelve; but it is not said in what cases. Certainly, that is to be interpreted, or construed, so as not to impair the rights which are given to the accused in every criminal prosecution, under section twenty-eight of the article entitled-" Judiciary Department," in the present Constitution. That section provides as follows: In every criminal prosecution the accused shall have a right to a speedy and public trial, by an imparti al jury, which may consist of less than twelve men, in all courts not of record." Our own supreme court have decided that a jury is to consist of twelve men; and that when the term "jury" is used in a law. twelve men must compose that jury. I believe that in this section there is this great safeguard of a right of trial by jury to evely one accused of crime. The Legislature have no authority under the present Constitution to impair that right. I would say further, in regard to remarks which have been made concerning the number of a jury, that it seems to me to be quite important what that number is. If I am accused of crime, and there are twelve men —upon —the jury before whom I am tried, then onetwelfth of that jury can protect me. If I am accused of crime, and there are but six men upon the jury, it will require one-sixth of that jury to protect me; or, if the jury is reduced to three men, it will require one-third of the jury to give me protection. I believe it is the essence of this right that the number should be sufficiently large to give this protection; that it should be at least twelve. It has been said that the wisdom of ages has determined this number. We should not lightly change a number which has existed for a thousand years among the Anglo-Saxon race, and strike down that great safeguard of the rights of the accused. Mr. SHELDON. I wish to detain the Convention but a moment. I have been muclh interested by the arguments of gentlemen who have spoken upon this question. There seems to be a general feeling against any change in the jury system. If there had been no change among those who committed crimes, I should be opposed to any change in the system of juries. But the man who is now most likely to commit crime, does not come into court poor and ragged, and dirty, and from a low and humble condition; that is a majority of them do not. I apprehend that the majority of felons, pickpockets, knaves, burglars, etc., are as well dressed as any gentleman in the community. Therefore, the argument concerning the prejudices against the accused on account of his degraded appearance, has no weight. I am in favor of having the jury system as it is under our present Constitution; so that there may be a jury of a less number thantwelve, especially in justices' courts. t i i ,July 20, 1867. D'F,P-ATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 245 246 OO-STITUTIONAL CO-YENTIO~. SaturdI-I As has been remarked here, it is difficult to get a jury of good'men in the great majority of these trials. It is very often troublesome for those who have the trial to attend to, and it very often works injustice to the man to be tried, because he is com.pelled: now to take jurors who are not' suitable men to try cases. Mr. PRATT. I would say to the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. SHELDON,) that the Constitution and law now provide, that in justices' courts, a jury may consist of a less number than twelve men. The question was then taken upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole, to strike out the words "Iin all courts not of record," and it was not agreed to; ayes 23, noes 32, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Birney, Blackman, Brown, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Farmer, Holt, Huston, Leach, Lovell, Luce, Miller, Ninde, Thompson, Utley, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Williams, Woodhouse and the President-23. NAYS-Messrs. Andrus, Bradley, Burtenshaw, Coolidge, Conger, Crocker, Divine, Duncombe, Estee, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Hazen, Ingalls, Kenney, Lawrence, McKernan, Miles, Morton, Norris, Pratt, Pringle, Rafter, Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Turner, Tyler, Van Riper, Van Yalkenburgh, Willard and Winsor-32. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMIINAL PROSE CUTIONS. The next amendment reported from the committee of the whole was to section eight, which section was as follows: ",In every criminal prosecution the ac cused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to-be inibrmed of the nature of the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and have the assistance of counsel for his defense." The amendment was to strike out the words "of the nature," before the words "of the accusation." The question was upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. BL/ACKMAN. I cannot see the propriety of this amendment. It seems to me that these words belong very properly in this section. Certain ly no one will deny that every person accused should understand the nature of the accusation, as well as the fact that he is accused of something. "In formed of the nature of the accusa tion," is a phrase which may have a very different meaning from the phrase "informed of the accusation." As it is proposed to amend this section, the requirement would be complied with, if the accused was simply informed that there was an accusation against him. I think he should be informed of the nature of the accusation. The amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT, ETC. The next amendment of the committee of the whole-was to section fifteen, which was as follows: "Noperson shall be imprisoned for debt arising out of or founded on a contract, express or implied, except in cases of fraud or breach of trust, or of moneys collected by public officers, or in any professional employment. No person-shall be imprisoned -for a militia fine in time of peace." The amendment of the committee of the whole was to strike out the word " a," in the clause "founded on a contract;" and also to insert after the words, "breach of trust," the words "or of promise to marry." The'amendment of the committee of the-whole was concurred in. COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. The next amendment of the committee of the whole was to strike out section sixteen, as follows: "No person shall be rendered -incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief." The question was upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. PRINGLE. Before the question is taken, I wish simply to point out to the committee that what is-provided for in this section sixteen, is fully provided for in section three of this article, which has been amended to read as follows: "The rights, privileges and capacities of individuals shall not be diminished or enlarged, on account of opinions or beliet c6ncerning matters of religion." One of their capacities is to be a witness; so that this section sixteen would be merely a repetition of what is contained in section three. Mr. CONGER. I cannot see any possible objection to this section. There has been trouble about this matter heretofore, in many States. This section has been put into many constitutions, on purpose to have a distinct expression upon the subject. It is short and terse, and expresses its Own meaning without question. It may be a question whether the word "capacities," in section three, refers to the competency of a witness. The question was taken-upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole; and upon a division, ayes 28, noes 19, no quorum voted. The question was again taken; and upon a division, ayes 29, noes 28, the amendment was concurred in. RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The3next amendment of the committee of the whole was to section seventeen, which section was as follows: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the State." The amendment of the committee of the whole was to insert the word " common," before the word "defense;" also, to strike out the words "himself and the State." The: amendment of the committee of the whole was' concurred in. MILITARY TO BE SUBORDINATE TO THE CIVIL POWER. The next amendment of the committee of the- whole, was to section eighteen, which was as follows: " The militia shall, in all cases and at all times, be in strict subordination to the civil power." The am"endment of the committtee of the whole was to strike out the words, "in all cases and at all times." :The amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in. The PRESIDENT. The amendments of the committee of the whole having iSeen acted upon, the article is now open to amendment. FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Mr. ALI)RICH. I move to amend section three of this article, by striking out the words,'-concerning matters of religion," so that- the section will read: "The rights, privileges and capacities of individuials shall not be diminisbed or enlarged on account of opinions or belief The aniendment was not agreed to. RIGHTS OF ALIENS. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I move to amend section twenty-two by striking out the words "aliens who are or may hereafter become," and inserting in lieu thereof the word "all;" also, to strike out the words at the close of the section, "or native born citizens;" so that the section will read: "All bonafide residents of this State shall enjoy the'same rights in respect to the possession, enjoy3ment and inheritance of property." That will simplify the section, and make it so that it will not be in a condition to -seem to embrace a provision favorable to any particular class of citizens or inihabitants. I am opposed to class legislation in any form; I am in favor of placing every person upon an equal standing With regard to his civil rights. I think the section as I propose to lave it amended wilr cover every right sought to be protected and secured to the-citizen. r. PRATT. I think the language of the section better remain as it is. It is a notice to foreigners that they-shall enjoy in this country the same rights and privileges as native born citizens in respect to-property. In that respect it is an alteration of thelaws of nations. I know one particular case that occurred in my practice, where this provision was of some little service. An Englishman came into our county and bought considerable real estate; he afterwardshad occasion tosell some of it. 2-46 co UTIONALCONV'P4WTION. S,aturday, July~~~ ~ ~ A0 _87 -EAT~ _N,ROEIG~ _ { He came to my otffice and s"aid: s that he. had'been' inforrmed.'- that, being an'] alien, he'had no right to. sell'his reala estate. I read to him thissection, a ind it settled the question very satisfactoril. Of course the section if amended asd proposed would have the same legal effect; but after all it would noitbe as explicit, and would not be so full a. notification to foreigiiers that we had changed the common law. in' this respect. Mr. CONGER. It seems to me that by the amendment proposed, it might leave it a question, whether,the bona' fide residents in this Stat:e might snot: claim an equal right to any particular2 property. If. my'neighbor lived ini:a better house than I do, it might, unrder this section as amended, be claimed: that I had at least a right.to live there. with him. Unless it is ifntended to give each man a rightto his neighbbor'sps- sessions, I think the section would need an additional amendment...' Mr. P. D. WARNER. If the language would be susceptible of that construction, in a legal point of view, the,i I have misunderstood the force of the amendment I proposed. If that is the case, I should most certainly be,,opposed to the amendment myself. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. P. D. WARNER, and it was not agreed to.' RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY. MLr VAN RIPER. A very. serious objection was urged'by the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTHROP) and many others to section seven of this article, which section is as follows: "The right ot trial by jury shall remain, but shall be deemed to be waived in all civil cases, unless demanded by one of the parties, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law. The Legislature may authorize, in all civil and criminal-cases, a trial by a jury of a less number than twelve men, in all courts not of record." To obviate that objection, I move to add to the section the following proviso: ,, Provided, That whenever, in the trial of any cause, it becomes necessary to excuse a juror from attendance, the trial may, by the consent of the parties, proceed lto a verdict." Mr. CHAPIN. I would suggest to the gentleman from Cass (Mr. VAN RIPER) to insert, after the words " any cause," the words "civil or criminal." That will make it more explicit. Mr. VAN RIPER. I think the words "any cause," will cover the wh0ole mat ter; for, it would mean any cause, civil or criminal. I do not think there could be any doubt about that, The question was taken upon. the amendment of Mr. VAN RIPER; and, upon a division, ayes 23, noes 29, it was not agreed to. FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Mr. SAWYER. My colleag'ue (Mr.. __.._.___. _ _. _. __.. _... _. ___.... _. _____ _ _.................... BILLJs):wrot!e out, an amendment which he' desired Mme,to offer. I. therefore move'tor amend section three by strik'mg ou~t sthee word "individuals," and ins'iting.the, word "persons;" so that the section,will read: "The rights, privileges and capacities of persons shall not be diminished or enlarged, on account of opinions or belief concerning matters. of religion." The am.endment was agreed to. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSE CUTIONS. Mr. MILES. I move to amend sec-tion eight of this article, by striking out the word " have," in the last clause, sq, that it will read, "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and the assistance of counsel for his defense."' Mr; TURNER. I suppose the gentleman from St. Clair,'(Mr. MILES,) desires that the accused shall have compulsory process for his counsel. [Laughter.] - Mr.'PRATT. I-think the amend — meent would- go a little further than intended by the gentleman from St. Clair. :Mir. MILES.'-Not at all. -- Mr. PRATT. I think it would mean that the accused should have compullsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and compulsory process for the assistance of counsel for his defense. Mr. WALKER. - I: think that instead of striking out the word " have, if the word "shall" be inserted before "have, it would be all right; so that it will read, " and shall have the assistance of counsel in his defense." Mr.' LOVFTL. It- seems to me that this is a matter for the committee on arrangement and phraseology; they are abundantly able to take care of these things. The amendment of Mr. MILES was not agreed to. CORPOREAL PUNISHMENT. ........ Mr. UTLEY. I move to insert a new section, after, section nineteen, as follows: "- No person shall be subject to corporeal punishment, under the military or civil law except such as are actually employed in the army or navy, in actual service, in time of war or public danger." I find that provision in the. Constitutions of most of the States., I lookupon it as a proper prohibition in our. Constitution. Mr. BLACGKMAN. The question occurs to me, wherein this new section, if adopted would forbid corporeal punishment in cases of parental authority, or of discipline in schools. It reads, "'no person shall be subject to corporeal punishment." It does not say that no person shall be subject to such punishment for crime. It seems to me that it- covers the whole of parental, chastisement and corporeal pun ishment in schools. I do not know but that is the design of it. Mr.:PRINGLE. It would not-merely affect the discipline of our prisons, reform schools and houses of correction,but it might affect the discipline of our common schools, and perhaps, the discipline of some families.. I merely wish to point out the fact, that corporeal punishment, of some kind or other, whether by'the whip or something else,, is, used in a great many places in the State. I think this section would have a pretty far reaching effect if adopted. Thle amendment of'Mr. J UTLEY was not agreed to. PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY. Mr. BLACKMAN.- Section twenty-. one of this article reads as follows: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crime, shall ever be: tolerated in this State." I move the following as a substitute for that -section: "Slavery shall never be tolerated in this State.' I will detain the Convention but' a moment in regard to this substitute. I offered it in committee of the whole, and there stated my reasons for it. I will refer to them again briefly., This section, as it now stands, by necessary inference, authorizes the establishment of slavery as a punishment of crime; that is the legitimate construction, of the language. Nothing could possibly relieve it from that construction, unless it should be the idea that has been attached to it for a long course of time. Whether that would do it may be questionable. So far as I recollect, it has never received any legal construction on that point. I think the only object of this section is to prohibit slavery. We have among us instances of compulsory involuntary sqrvitude, where it is not for the punishment of crime; as in the case of apprentices and minors. I think the substitutejs concise, and expresses just what we intend to express by this section, and :nothing more. Mr. LEACH. I hope this substitute will not prevail, if for no other - reason than the mere fact that this section is in, the precise language used in the cel-. ebrated ordinance of 1787, which made the.' North-western Territory forever free.. We who are republicans have used this language in too many campaigns, and have become too much at tached to it,- to be willing to change it here. The, substitute of Mr. BLACKMAN was .not agreed to.0 BILL OF ATTAINDER, EXPOST FACTO LAW, ETC. Mr. SAWYER. I move to strike out section'. five, which is as follows: '" No bill of attainder,- ex: post facto law, or s I I it S. f DEBA,TES- AND. PROC, E-PT)INGSf. 24!7-. Julv - 20).1867. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed." I offer this amendment for the purpose of laying before this Convention one idea. It will be observed that in section nine of article I, of the Constitution of the United States, there is an enumeration of powers, the exercise of which is prohibited to the government of the United States. In section ten of the same article will be found enumerated the powers in the exercise of which the States are restricted. Among those powers prohibited to the States is the power to "pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts." Inasmuch as we have already, by the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, indicated our will just as strongly in that respect as we would by adopting the same provision in the Constitution of this State, and as the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, anything to the contrary in our Constitution notwithstanding, it seems to me unnecessary and not in good taste to reenact this provision again in our Constitution. It strikes me in the same light as it did Webster when he spoke about re-enacting the laws of God in our western Territories. Mr. CONGER. The Constitution of the United States might be altered; but we suppose the Constitution of this State will remain for centuries. [Laughter.] I should very much desire to have such a provision in the Constitution of this State, whether it remains in the Constitution of the United States or not. Mr. LOVELL. I would make this further suggestion, that if we strike out this provision it might be taken as an indication that we want it stricken out of the Constitution of the United States. If this section is good doctrine, it will do no harm to have it twice told. Mr. PRINGLE. In the Constitution of this State heretofore, as in the Constitutions of other States, it has been the intention to provide the machinery of a perfect government. It is sought to provide all the restrictions that may be necessary, even if the event should happen that has been spoken of, if the United States were to cease to exist as a nation, and this State were to continue as a State after that event; to put in all the restrictions and safeguards that are necessary for a perfect government. I think we ought to have this provision in our Constitution; I think it is contained generally in the Constitutions of the several States. Mr. SAW YER. I would like to suggest to the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PurIGLE,) this idea: suppose the State of Michigan should outlive the United States; would we not be under the necessity of forming another Con stitution, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States now forms a part of the fundamental law of this State? It strikes me that to insert such a pro vision as this in our Constitution, while the Constitution of the United States still exists, is saying to the gen eral government, that it is not capable of carrying out the provisions of its Constitution. Mr. PRINGLE. Not at all. My idea is that the State government would go on. If the rebellion had suc ceeded in overthrowing the national government, Michigan would have still continued as a State, until the relations had been renewed between this State and some general government. The drift of my argument is, that it is usual to repeat these provisions, in order to show their importance. Mr. CROCKER. I think the article in the Constitution of the United States, to which the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. SAWYER,) has referred, controls the action of Congress, and not -the action of the State of Michigan, par ticularly. It is specifying what Con gress may and may not do. Mr. SAWYER. I think the gentle man is mistaken; if he will look at section ten, he will find there enumer ated the powers which a State cannot exercise, among which are the powers enumerated in this section of the bill of rights. Not only that, but the State is prohibited from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or granting any title of nobility. I cannot see why we should not have the whole section as well as part of it. Mr. CROCKER. I am of the same opinion still, that the provision to which the gentleman refers is one con trolling the action of Congress. Ac cording to the argument of the gentleman, the section which we passed upon a few minutes since, in regard to the prohibition of slavery, would be still more objectionable, because in the Constitution of the United States will be found this provision: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof .the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." There is a clause which certainly is general and sweeping in all its expressions. According to the argument of the gentleman, it is unnecessary for us to incorporate in our Constitution the quotation from the ordinance of 1787, which has been so approvingly referred to here. But if we duplicate the one why not the other? My own view is that it is much more necessary to retain this section five, because it controls the action of the State Legislature, than to retain the other section, which merely controls the action of Congress, and is embodied in the Constitution of the United States. The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. SAWVYEBR, to strike out section five, and it was not agreed to. TRIAL BY JURY. Mr. HOLT. I desire to offer an amendment to section seven of this article, which section is as follows: " The right of trial by jury shall remain, but shall be deemed to be waived in all civil cases, unless demanded by one of the parties, in such manner as-shall be prescribed by law. The Legislature may authorize, in all civil and criminal cases, a trial by a jury of a less number than twelve men, in all courts not of record." I move to amend this section by adding to it the following: "The Legislature may provide by law for the rendition of verdicts in courts of record, by a less number than twelve jurymen, in cases of sickness or unavoidable detention of' jurymen after being sworn in-civil-and crim inal cases." I have but a word to say in favor of this amendment. I am in favor of the principle of the amendment of the gentleman f-om Cass, (Mr. VAN RIPER,) offered some time since. But the working of his amendment would have led, if adopted, to some difficulties. The matter has been thoroughly dis cussed, and is well understood; I be lieve no other argument for or against is necessary. I will, therefore, naot take up the time of the Convention by saying anything more. Mr. SAWYER. I have very serious objections to this amendment. It will be very easy for a man who is upon a jury, and does not desire to take the responsibility of the action required of him, to be sick, and in that way avoid the duty. It would be as easy for him, as it is for us here, to be sick, when we do not wish to vote upon some questions which are under consideration. Mr. HOLT. My amendment leaves the matter wholly under the control of the Legislature. They can throw around the subject such safeguards as they may see fit. The amendment of Mr. HOLT was not agreed to. PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE. Mr. MILES. I desire to offer a substitute for section twenty-three, which section is as follows: "The property of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation therefor." I move to substitute the following for that section: -.... "Private property shall not be -taken for public use without just compensation therefor to the owner thereof." Mr. CASE. I move to amend this section, before the question is taken upon the substitute. I move to amend 248 Saturda, I 'Y J,y 20, 1867. ~ DEBATES A~D P~oq]~EDI~G~ 249 0 by inserting after the words "taken for public use," the words "except for public highways." Mr. WILLIAMS. I wish to state in reference to this matter, that the section here seems to be mainly to enunciate a principle. — In this section the principle is distinctly and plainly enunciated. A provision in regard to the method of compensation will undoubtedly be reported in another article, by the committee on miscellaneous provisions, which committee has that subject under consideration. The amendment offered by the gentleman from St.' Clair, (Mr. —- MILEs,) would come strictly within the purview of the provision which will probably be reported by the committee on miscellaneous provisions. It seems to me that the enunciation of the principle is distinctly enough laid down here, without amendment or alteration. I think the phraseology is very good. Mr. TURNER. It seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from Montcalm, (Mlr. CAsE,) if I understand it aright, would allow private property to be taken for highways without any compensation whatever. Mr. BIRNEY. If that would be the effect of the amendment, it would revolutionize the whole system of establishing and laying out highways. Would the. gentleman be willing to have a provision in our Constitution which would permit a, highway to be laid out through a man's house without any compensation to him? The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. CASE, and it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the sub stitute for the section offered by Mr. MILES. Ir. MITTLES. I do not propose by this substitute to change the nature of this section at all; I design merely to change the phraseology of the section. If the Convention do not think that the substitute will improve the phra seology of the section, I am not at all tenacious on the subject. But it strikes me that "the property of no person" is a rather bungling expression. The substitute expresses the same idea, and, I think, in better language. Mr. PRATT. The substitute of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MiLEs,) may be an improvement on the phrase ology of this section, for aught I know. But the phraseology here used has re mained for a long time, and has been construed by our courts. It is well understood by the people of our State, and I hope it will be allowed to stand. Mr. COOLIDGE. I would inquire what is the necessity of this substitute? No compensation can be made except to the owner of the property. In all Vol 2-No. 32.' other cases it would not be compensation but a gift. The language of the section is as perfect as the language of the substitute. Mr. ALEXANDER. Before the question is taken upon the substitute, I desire to move an amendment to the section. I move to amend the section by adding the words "and such compensation shall be without deduction for benefits to any property of the owner." Mr. MILES. The Constitutionn of the United States has this language: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'" Mr. ALEXANDER. It will doubtless be recollected by those who were present, that when this article was under consideration in committee of the whole, I offered this same amendment, and I then stated my reasons for it. I will briefly state that since that time, upon an examination of the constitutions of the different States, Lfind that this is quite a general provision in the other State constitutions. I consider it very important to be placed in our Constitution. -It will establish a uniform system of arriving at damages of property taken for public use. It covers all the ground which the gentleman from Montcalm, (Mr. CAsE,) desired to cover by his amendment. Now, I am aware that there is a difference of opinion throughout the State in regard to the- assessment of damages, by different juries or commissioners, or whoever may be selected to appraise the damages; and the law fails to settle that question. I admit that my amendment is somewhat legislative in its nature, but not more so than many provisions which we are putting into this Constitution. I think it is quite as important as many other pro visions we have adopted. I hope my amendment will receive the sanction of this Convention, and be added to this section. Mr. CHAPIN. I hope the amend ment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) will not prevail. It strikes me that it is manifestly unjust. If private property is taken for public use, and that use increases the value of the property which is left, by the im provement made, then it is entirely in equitable to say. that those who are- ap pointed to appraise the value ofithe property taken, shall not, in awarding damages, take into consideration the enhanced value of the property that is left. I am opposed to the amendment on principle. Mr. WILLIAMS. I desire to state again that this whole question will properly arise when.the question comes up in regard to the manner in which private property may be acquired for public use; as it will coime up on the report of the committee on miscellaneous provisions. It seems to me that it is entirely improper to attach this amendment to a section which is a pure enunciation of a principle. Mr. ALEXANDER. I wish very briefly to answer the objection of the gentleman from Gratiot, (Mr. CHAPIN,) to my amendment. He states that if any benefit accrues to the property of the owner, by taking private property for public use, it is proper to deduct that benefit from the value of the property so taken. I think I can show to the gentleman, in a very few words, the absurdity of that theory. Suppose that a street in a village is to be widened; for that purpose they take from my property, or the property of any individual, four -hundred dollars' worth of real estate. The jury appointed to assess the damages admit that the property taken is in itself worth four hundred dollars, they say, however, that the widening of the street hals increased the value of the rest -of -'the property three hundred dollars, and therefore they will only pay the owner of the property so taken one hundred dollars. Now, does not the widening of that street increase the value of prop erty on the opposite side of the street in the same ratio, although none of that property may be taken for that purpose? r. CHAPIN. Does not the man on the other side of the street pay his pro portion of,the expense for widening that street?..... Mr. ALEXANDER. I answer that by saying that a man from whom the property is taken pays the same pro portion of the expense also. Mr. PRATT. I wish to say to the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEX ANDER,) and other gentlemen interested in this matter, that when we come to consider the article on miscellaneous provisions, that will be the time for the introduction of such an amend ment as this. The whole subject will necessarily come up again when-we come to consider the report of the committee on miscellaneous provisions. Mr. FARMER. I hope my colleague, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) will withdraw his amendment to this section. The com mittee on miscellaneous provisions have had this subject under consideration, and have spent considerable time upon it. I think the proper place for con sidering and discussing this subject is in connection witli the report of the committee on miscellaneous provisions. This section is a mere enunciation'of a principle. I hope the gentleman will withdraw his amendment at this time, and bring it up at the proper time.'~ IDEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS'. 0 . 249 JrLly 20. 1867. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. ALEXANDER. With the understanding that I may have an opportunlity hareafter to offer my amendmenti in a more appropriate place, I will withdraw it at this time. The question recurred upon the substitute of Mr. MILES, for section twentythree, which substitute was as follows: "Private property shall not be taken fobr public use without just compensation therefor to the owner thereof." The substitute was not agreed to, upon a division; ayes 17, noes 34. Mr. THOMPSON. I offer the f81lowing as a substitute for section twenty-three: "'Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefoIbr." This is precisely the language of the Constitution of the United States upon this subject, with the exception of the word "therefor." The substitute of Mr. THOMPsoN was adopted. CORPOREAL PUNISHMENT. Mr. SHEARER. I offer the following as an additional section: "Corporeal punishment shall not be inficted, until all other means of restraint for crime or disorder shall be resorted to." I understand that corporeal punishment has been abolished in the army and navy of the United States. So far as family relations are concerned, I do not believe in it; nor do I believe in corporeal punishment so far as schools are concerned. These are the views I entertain. I believe they are in accordance with the progress of the age; I think this old barbarous law should be trampled under foot. I do not go for corporeal punishment in any case whatever. The additional section moved by Mr. SHEARER was not adopted. No further amendment was offered to the article. The article, as amended, was then ordered to a third reading, and referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, for correction and engrossment. Mr. LOVELL. I move that.the Conventionh now take a recess until three o'clock. Mr. WALKER. I hope not; to-day is Saturday, and I think it would be much better to meet at two o'clock, and then adjourn at an early hour if necessary. There are some members who desire to leave in the train this afternoon. Mr. BIRNEY. I move'that the Convention now adjourn. The motion to adjourn was notagreed to. M1r. LOVEILL. I move to take a recess untill two o'clock, if it will accommodate anybody who desires to go home this afternoon. When I made the motion to take a recess until three o'clock I did not suppose there were any here who desired to leave this afternoon. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly, (at ten minutes past twelve o'clock, p. m.,), the C-onvention took a recess until two o'clock p. m. .s', ~l AFTERNOON SESSION, The Convention re-assembled at two o'clock p.m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Mr. BURTCH. I rise to a question of privilege, and ask that the President read to the Convention a communication which I have handed to him. The PRESIDENT. The paper referred ito by the gentleman from Eaton has been read by the presiding officer of this Convention, and in his judgment it is-not in order. But the Secretary will proceed to read it, in order that the Convention may also judge whether it is in order. The Secretary commenced to read the paper as follows: To the Honorable President of the Consti'tu tional Convention:: - DEAR SIR-I rise to a question of privilege. To err is human; as for divinity in the flesh, I have never been-able to see that there was 'any. Looking until -my eyes arie dim of seeing, I have come to the conclusion to look no longer, for with the natural eye man sees as the merebrute beasts, —.... Mr. LEACH. I move that the further reading of that communication be dispensed With. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BURTCi,) makes this communication as a question of privilege. Ii the opinion of the Chair, the remarks contained in the cqmmunication are not in order, an'd the communication will not be entertained, unless the Convention desire to have it read, in order that they may determind whether the judgment of the Chair is correct, or not. Mr. LOVTELL. To test the question, I move that the communication be reseived and read. Mr. BURTCH. I have the greatest respect, Mr.- President, for the large majority of the Convention. I have no personal difference with any gentleman. But I have been rather unfortunate here, from circumstances over which I have no control. I have frequently addressed this Convention; I have always calculated to treat every gentleman as I would that he should treat me. I feel no animosity towards any man; I hope and trust that no gentleman upon this floor feels any thing of that kind towards me. If there is anything of that kind, he cer tainl. has some cause for it, if it is justifiable on his part. If I have done injustice to any one, if I have insulted any member upon this floor, I would say that I now humbly ask his pardon. But while I have attempted, upon sev eral occasions, in my humble way, to express my views upon various subjects before this Convention, there has been, from some cause which I have no means of knowing, a disposition shown not to hear me. Now, this is not an unheard-of thing in the councils of men, they sometimes mistake the feelings and themeaning of their fellows; they think sometimes that a man is calculating to do somebody harm, when really his intention is to do good. That I say is not'unfrequently so. But with all respect to the members of this Convention, I say that I have not uttered a single word here that was intended to injure any one, or to which any one-could take. exception. There has been nothing of thiat sort in any language which I have ever used here; if there is anything of that kind in the communication I have made to the President, fif there is anything in that which members would consider' unjust, I will strike it out; I would not have it there. All that is contained in that comnimunication, as I have said, is merely an attempt to obtain redress for grievances. Mrr. ALEXANDER. I would inquire what is the question before the Convention? The PRESIDENT. The gentleman rises to a qnestiontof privilege. Mr. ALEXANDER. I would request the gentleman to make his re-' marks brief; our time is too precious to be wasted in this way. Mr. BURTCHI. I would ask those who do not wish to hear me, to permit my communication to be read. Mr. LEACH. Mr. President The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BuRcH,) yield to the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEAH?) Mr. BURTCH. I do not give way; that gentleman has run me off the floor time and. time again, and I do not mean to yield to him any more. some time ago I used the term in regard to that gentleman, "concentrated gentleman;" I looked upon him in that light then, but I am sorry to say my feelings have changed. Mr. LOVELL. I rise to a question of order. The gentleman is personal in his remarks towards one of the members of this Convention. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will indulge in no personalities. 250, Saturday, I July 20, 1867. DEBATES AD POOEEDIGS. 251 Mr. BURTCH. I have used no unbecoming words. I have no vituperation or feeling towards that gentleman in the least. All that I have asked of any man is to-cease striking against me, and the rights of my constituents, on this floor. Mr. NINDE. The gentleman from Eaton has retired on two occasions from this Convention to-day, and refused to answer to his name when called, and declined to vote. He has indefinite leave of absence, and I think he is entitled to no voice in this Convention until he reports,h imself for duty.. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman has the right to return to this Convention; an indefinite leave of absence does hot preclude a member from returning here whenever he thinks proper.. Mr. WALKER. After having returned and taken part in the proceedings of this Convention, is not he obliged to ask for a new leave of absence? The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that returning here ends the indefinite leave of absence. Mr. LEACH. When. I rose before, I supposed that the gentleman from Eaton had got through and taken his seat. I rose for the purpose of expressing the hope that the communication would be read through word for word. The PRESIDENT. The Chair will read so much of this communication as in his judgment raises the question distinctly that it is improper and ought not to be received in its present shape. He will then rule that the paper presented by the gentleman from Eaton, couched in this language, is disrespectfal and improper. If the gentleman at that time desires to appeal from the decision of the Chair, he can do so. To the Honorable President of the Constitu tional Convention: DEAR SIR-I rise to a question 6f privilege. To err is human; as for divinity in the flesh, I have never been able to see that there was any. Looking until my eyes are dim of seeing, I have come to the conclusion to look no longer, for with the natural eye man sees as the mere brute beasts. Without being able to comprehend God, which is spiritual, I am not astonished that they should not be able to comprehend the length, breadth, highth and depth of things pertaining to funfidamantal principles of the spirit. But I am a little surprised, and I apprehend the country will be a little surprised, when the fact must appear to the most obtuse and besotted minds, that a regard for common decency is set at naught, and inalienable rights of man disrespected, and many of the members of this -Convention whose minds are so dark as to the business for which they are here The Chair decides that this language is neither proper nor respectful to this Convention. And the Chair further decides that it would be good cause for dealing with a member. He, there fore, rules this communication out of order. v - Mr. BURTCH. There was a point raised here as to whether I would be entitled to leave of absence, but I did not understand what the decision of the Chair was. The PRESIDENT. The deqision of the Chair was, that when a member returned and took his seat, he must obtain a new leave of absence, in order to be excused properly from attendance. Mr. BURTCH. I would like to have a new leave of absence. Mr. WINSO01. I move that' the gentleman be granted leave of absence without the privilege of taking his seat here again. I will say that I do not feel at all diffident in expressing my opinion here. Being a quiet member here, and willing to sit and listen to the arguments and discussions of this Convention, I do not feel willing to sit here and have my time, as one of the members of this Convention, taken up by the foolish and disconnected remarks which the gentleman from Eaton is ontinually inflicting upon this Convention. I do not think that charity in regard to that gentleman is any longer a virtue. I think this Convention would do nothing but simple justice to its own self-respect, if it should expel that gentleman from this body. The PRESIDENT. In the opinion of the Chair, the motion of the gentleman from Huron (M. WINSOR) would not properly attach to the request for an indefinite leave of absence for the gentleman from Eaton. Mr. LEACH. I move to lay the motion for leave of absence on the table. Mr. BURTCH. Mr. President The PRESIDENT. The motion to lie upon the table is not debatable. Mr. BURTCH. I am under peculiar circumstances. I have got ready to leave; yenta The PRESIDENT. The question is not debatable. Mr. BURTCH. I understand that; I am-not debating it; I merely state the fact outside of debate. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will take his seat. The motion of Mr. LEACH to lay the motion for leave of absence upon the table was agreed to. HOUR OF MEETING ON MONDAY NEXT. Mr. WALKER, by unanimous consent, offered the following resolution, which was adopted: Resolved, That when this Convention adjourn this afternoon, it be to Monday next at half past ten o'clock a. m. DEBATES OF THE NEW YORK CONvENTION. The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the following communication from the State Librarian: MICHIGAN STATE LIBRARY, Letnsing, July20, 1867. Hon. C. M. CROSWELL, President of the (Con stitutional Convention: SIR-I have received per.express to-day, ten copies of-the debates, journals, documents and manual, Part 1, of the New York, Constitutional Convention. Said debates, documents, &c., are at the disposal of the Convention, over which you preside. Very respectfully, J. EUGENE TENNEY, State Librarian. The communication was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed in the journal. ORDER. OF BUSINESS. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I move that the Convention-resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. MoaRTON in the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. The first article on the general order, is the article en-titled "Elections," -- - Mr. FARMER. I hope- that-that article will be passed over for the present, and that we take up the article on cities and villages, which I see is a short one. We certainly cannot get' through the article on elections to-day, but we may get through the article on cities and villages. I make a motion to that effect. Mr. HUSTON. I hope that motion will not prevail. We are just as well prepared to consider and pass the article on elections this afternoon, as we will be at any other time. I am inclined to think that there will not be a very great difference of opinion among the members of this Convention, in reference to the article on elections. I may be mistaken; but I am inclined to think that we can take up that article this afternoon.and pass it. I hope that it will not be passed over. I- am opposed to this passing over an article on account of the absence of members. If members desire to,be here when articles are considered, then let them arrange their affairs so that they can remain here; I hope the motion of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. FAAMER,) will not prevail. Mr. BLACKMAN. I agree with the remarks of the gentleman who has just spoken, (Mr. HUSTON.) If it was only occasionally that we were asked to pass over articles in this way, I might not object so much. If it was not so constantly done here, I would feel more like supporting a motion of this kind. But as we are continually requested to pass over articles, because members are absent, I must oppose it. hr. FARMER. If I had supposed that my motion would have elicited DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. July 20, 1867. 251 1; 0 ;5 COSIUTOA COVNI- ardy any discussion, I would not have made it. My object in making the motion was, that I supposed we might get through the article on cities and villages this afternoon, as it is a very short one. But I do not- think there is any probability that we can get through the article on elections this afternoon, with the slim attendance we have here, and the short time we shall probably be in session. The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. FARMER, and it was not agreed to. EEECTIOS. The committee of the whole then proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled "Elections." QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS. The first section was read as follows: "In all elections every person of the -age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in this State three months, and in the township or ward in which ~he offers to vote, ten days next preceding an election, belonging to either of the following classes, shall be an elector and entitled to vote: First. Every male citizen of the United States; Second. Every male inhabitant of this State, who shall have resided in the United States' two years and six months, and declared his intention-to become a citizen of the United States, pursuant to the laws thereof, six months preceding an election; Third. Every male inhabitant residing in this State on the twenty-fourth day of JuLne, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five; Fourth. All male Indians, natives of the United'States." Mr. ING'ALLS. I move to amend the first clause of this section, by striking out the words " three months," and inserting the words "ore year;" also, by stridking out the word " ten," before the word "days," and inserting in lieu thereof the word -" thirty," so that that portion of the section will read: "In all elections, every person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in this State one year, and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote thirty days next preceding the election," etc. I should like to make a few remarks in relation to my amendment; I speak, of course, from the knowledge which I have; I cannot speak for the whole. State. But from my own knowledge, I am satisfied that this provision in the old Constitution has been productive of great evil. It has let in a class of voters who, by any strict rule of equity and justice, were not voters at all. This has been the case in that part of the State where I live. It is common there for men to come in ana work from fall till spring, or from spring till fall, who do not intend to-take up their permanent residence in the State of Michigan. But under the rule established by our Constitution, giving those Who have resided in the State for three months the right to vote, they claim that right at our township elections in the spring; and they are so many in number that 'they actually control the bona fide residents of the place by their votes. At least three-fourths of our population is of that transient character. Our mnill men number, say from seventyfive to one hundred to a mill, and the majority of them, yes, three-fourths of them, are men who- are not residents of the State of Michigan, and never expect to be; they come in to work from spring to fall in our mnills, or from fall to spring in the woods. And I believe that is the case to a great extent in our mines as well as in our pineries. I believe that is the case in the northern counties of the Lower Peninsula; but I do not know as much about that as about the Upper Peninsula. This certainly is a great evil, and one whichshould be remedied. It can work no harm to require a man to reside in the State for a year, before he can become a voter.. He cannot become well known in three months. If these men are allowed to vote, after a residence of only three months, they may perhaps control the wishes of the community where they happen to be, in a manner to greatly injure them. We have felt this where we have been organized into townships. We are desirous of having this evil abated, if it is possible to abate it, and I think the only way to do so is to require a residence in the State of one year. I believe this is the only State that allows the privilege of voting upon so short a residence; at least, I know of no other that does.'Most other States which formerly provided in their Constitutions for only three months residence, have adopted the rule of one year's residence; in other words, a residence long enough for a person to show by his acts that he is a bona fide resident of the State in which he claims to vote. I hope that the members of this committee of the whole will look upon this amendment with favor, and adopt it. I hope that, for the future, at least, they will give us the privilege of being voted in or out of office, as the case may be, by a set of men whom we know to be actual residents, and not by men who, perhaps the day after election, propose to go out of the State. We have had one contest in a township election, in that portion of the State where I live, where men were brought out of~ the woods and kept in the town until after the township meeting. The employers refused to settle with them until after the township meeting, for the express purpose of making them stay there and vote at that meeting. The day after the:neeting they were paid off, and then they at once scattered to Wisconsin and elsewhere. Now, if the rule which I have proposed was enforced, nothing of that kind would be done; for the employers could not afford to keep them in the town - for thirty days. Under my rule we would be enabled to get the vote of the actual -residents of the place; but as it is now, the voice of those residents is completely overcome by this class of the population. Mr. HOLT. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Menominee, (Mr. INGALLS,) by striking out "one year," and inserting "six months," as the length of residence in the State. - , Mr. INGALLS. I desire to make one remark in relation to the amendment of the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOfT.) His amendment will not. meet the objection which I have to the. present rule. If his amendment is adopted, men of that floating population will come in early enough to remain for six months, and then claim the right to vote at our spring meeting, and still be no more residents in fact than they are under the three months rule. Mr. McKERNAN. I hope the genftleman from Menominee, (Mr. IsALLS,) will confine his amendment simply to his own locality. The evil he speaks of does not affect the upper country, in the region of the copper mines. A man goes in there, and remains until he becomes a citizen of the State, or until he "makes his pile," as the expression is. The gentleman from Menominee lives on the State line between Wisconsin and Michigan, and may be troubled in the way he says. But I would suggest that when we are forming a Constitution for the State of Michigan we should overlook localities, and endeavor to provide for the general good of the State. It is not possible to make this Constitutions suit every particular locality; we are to make a Constitution for the State at large. I am opposed to the amendment, and also to the amendment to the amendment. I think this three month's rule is good enough. I think if a native-born citizen of any State of this Union comes into the State of Michigan, he should be entitled to vote after he has been here three months. Mr. INGALLS. I would say to the. gentleman from Houghton, (]M'r. McKERNAN,) that if his population is more permanent, then certainly the rule of one year's residence will do no harm, for they would soon become voters under that rule.. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. The committee in reporting this part of this section followed the Constitution of 1850. I apprehend that we cannot ... I I CONSTITUTIONAL CONV'PNTION'.1 252 Saturday,. I 0 J~ily 0, 867' DBATS AD POCEDINS.'25 form a Constitution to meet all exigencies. Some difficulties will occur; uinder any Constitution the same injuries may be done in some places. I believe there was no difference of opinion in! the committee in regard to the residence in the State which should be re quired. There was some little differ ence in regard to the time a person should live in the precinct where he offered to vote. As regards the amend ment of thirty days, I should not object to that at all; that is, to require a person to live in the township or ward in which he offers to vote, thirty days next preceding the election. But I think the time of residence in the State should be three months.' I think a person who comes here and resides three months should be entitled to a vote. Perhaps the other amendment would be well enough, and I would not object to it. Mr. ALEXANDER. I desire to move an amendment to the amend ment. The CHAIRiMAN. There is an amendment to the amendment now pending. The question was upon the amend ment of Mr. HOLT to strike out of the amendment of Mr. INGALLS the words "one year," and to insert the words "six months." Mr. T. G. SMITH. I call for a division, and ask that the vote be first taken upon striking out. Mr. FARMER. Would it not be in order to take the question first upon the longest time? The CHAIRMAN. That would be in order if there was a blank to be filled. The question will now be taken upon striking out of the first clause of the section the words three months." The question was taken; and upon a division, there were ayes 22, noes 22, no quorum voting. The question was again taken upon the motion to strike out the words, "three months;" and upon a division it was agreed to; ayes 28, noes 24. The CHAIRMAN. The next ques tion will be upon inserting'the words, "one year" as being the longest time. Mr. INGALLS. I will accept the amendment of the gentleman from MKuskegon, (Mr. HOLT,) to insert, "six months," if it' is in order for me to do SO. Mr..PRINGLE. I object to the gentleman's accepting the amendment. The two propositions are before us, and I think it but right that we should act upon both propositions. The CHAIRMAN. The question will then be taken upon filling the blank with the words " one year." T]e motion to fill the blank with the words, " one year," was not agreed to. The CHAIRMAN.. The next question will be upon the motion to fill the blank with the words, "six months." Mr. T. G. SMITH. I move to fil the blank with the words, "four months." I do'not see any necessity for striking out the words, * "three months." I never heard any complaint against it - in the old Constitution. I know the tendency in other States is to reduce the time in which a man shall become a voter in the State. IL New York the time was formerly one year; now it is four months. I think three months is long enough, but as that has been stricken out, I move to insert "four months." The CHAIRMAN. The question will be first taken upon inserting c six months," as the longest time. Mr. ALEXANDER. I have heard serious complaints against tlhe short time required for a person to become a voter in the State of Michigan. There has been much objection to it, for a number of years past, in my locality. It has allowed many persons to have a controlling influence in our elections, who are unacquainted with the laws of the State, and with the candidates for office. I do not think there is another State that'requires so short a time as the State of Michigan.- It seems to me that six months would constitute but a reasonable residence to make a man a voter. M%r. PRINGLE. I was opposed.to striking out the words "three months;" I thought that that was about right. I made the objection to the amendment to the amendment being accepted, because I wished this question to take the same course it'has taken; so that we might have a vote upon different times, instead of being compelled to vote upon only one time. I did this for the purpose of being able to test the sense of this committee. As the gentleman from Houghton, (Mr. M1KCERSAS,) says, we ought not to make our Constitution or laws with reference to what may be fit for the immediate interests of one single local itv; we must make them for the State at large. There come to this State, to our in terior and border counties, from New York, Ohio, New England, and other portions of our common country, men accustomed to just such institutions as ours, and who are able to coa lesce at once with our people, to take as much interest in Michigan matters as they took in matters in New York, or Ohio, or almost as much. These men from these States in the ag gregate, exceed three to one all other persons who come into the State, and exercise the right of suffrage. If we undertake to prolong the time on ..~~~~~~~~~~~~4 account of those others who come here, we will prolong the time also, so far as these men are concerned. There is no preparation necessary for these men from other States. Our laws are substantially the same as the laws in the States from whence they come; our institutions are similar; they are native born citizens.of our country, and accustomed to our institutions, and need no preparatory training. But the alien requires a different training, and he is also required to be here two years and six months. But so far as our na btive born citizens are concerned, I insist that no preparatory training on their part is needed. Where you would exclude, if this amendment is adopted, one foreign-born person, you would perhaps exclude three, perhaps ten, who are prepared to vote at once, and to vote intelligently. Hence, I hope that neither of these times will be inserted, but that we will reconsider the vote by which the words "three months" were stricken out, and reinstate them in the section. Mr. CASE.' I heartily concur in the remarks made by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE.) I am decid edly opposed to striking out the words " three months." Now, that they have been stricken out, I would prefer to fill the blank with even a shorter period. I submit to gentlemen here that if a man is a citizen of the United States he should be allowed the right to vote wherever he may happen to be. A man may come into our State, and bring with him his entire fortune and wealth, and become a citizen of our State. An election may be at hand, in which he might take a very great in terest; but still he would not be allowed to vote, because, perchance, he lacked one day of having resided in the State of Michigan three months. Judging from my experience in election matters, the great trouble is that a great many electors are deprived of the privilege of voting on this very ground, because they have not been in the State quite long enough. Some of them may lack but one day, and yet they may be men who take ten times the interest in our elections that those do who are per mitted to vote. I am decidedly opposed to this at tempt to restrict the elective franchise, or cut off from its exercise men who should be entitled to it. If these were men who came from a foreign land, then I would have no objection to re quiring of them a residence of even ten years. I think our election laws, in regard to foreigners, are entirely too liberal at the present time. Our laws require that native born citizens shall live in the United States twenty-one years before they become voters. My f 3) s i J,uly 20, 1-867.. - - DEBATES -AND PROCEEDINGS-* 253 25F' _O~IUI~LO~ETO.*audy idea is, that a foreigner should be re quired to live in the United States the same length of — time that a native born citizen is required to live here before he becomes a voter. A native born citizen who has lived in the TJUite,d States twenty-one years, who, perhaps, moves twenty rods or a mile froc the boundary line, I think should not be deprived of this privilege of voting,-, merely because he has not been a resi dent of the State for quite three ironths. There is another proposition here, to extend the time required for a resi dence in the township or ward, before a person shall be entitled to vote. I am entirely opposed to that, but as we have not that matter directly before us, perhaps it may not be strictly in order to discuss it now. The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. HOLT to fill the blank with the words ",six months;" and on a division, ayes 22, noes 24, no quorum voted. - The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inquire if it is necessary to have a quorum vote on these questions? Mr. CONGER. It is not. The CHAIRMAN. Then the amendment of the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT,) is lost.' The question now is on the motion of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. T. G. SMITH,) to fill the blank with the words " four months." Mr. HUSTON. I move to reconsider the vote by which the words "three months" were stricken out. ; LMr. LOVELL. I would suggest that when a motion is pending it is out of order for a member to move to reconsider a former vote. In order to move a reconsideration, he must obtain the floor, and'move it when no other motion is pending. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rules the motion to reconsider out of order at the present time. The question is upon the motion to fill the blank with the words " four months." Mr. PRINGLE. I move to fill the blank with the words "ninety days." ri. T. G. SMITH. I accept the amendment of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mt. PRINGLE.) Mr. LOVELL. I object to -the acceptance of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. It has been decided here time and time again, that an amendment cannot be accepted by a member after his amendment has been entertained by the committee of the whole or Convention, if any other member objects to the acceptance.' The question was then taken upon filling the blank with the words "four months;" and upon a division, ayes 22, noes not counted, it was not agreed to. Mr. HUSTON. I now renew the motion to reconsider the vote by which e words "three months" were strickoutt. The motion to reconsider was agreed to. The question recurred on the motion to strike out the words "three months; and being taken, it was not agreed to. The next question was upon the remainder of the amendment of Mr. IN.GALLS, to strike out the word "ten," and insert in lieu thereof the word "thirty,"' before the word "days." Mr. INGALLS. I will withdraw that portion of my amendment, if no ,objection is made. No objection being made, the amend ment was withdrawn. Mr. ALEXANDER. I move to amend this first clause by striking out the word "ten," before the word "days," and inserting the word "thirty," in lieu thereof; so as to require a person to reside thirty days in the township or ward in which he offers to vote. I pre ~~~~bs her ar sume many members here are aware that a great many of our municipal elections are liable to be controlled by persons residing this short time in our townships, cities, etc. There is a floating population that is accessible to political parties, and political tricksters, who can be used for controlling elections in such a way as to be dangerous to the republican institutions of this country. I believe elections in this State, especially municipal elections, have been very fre quently carried in that way. I have for that reason offered this amendment, so as to do away with the possibility of any such result. It seems to me that there can le no good objection raised against my amendment. Thirty days is as short a residence as any man can desire, who is willing to become acquainted with the interests connected with the elections of many of our municipalities. I have offered this amendment in the full confidence that there can be no good objection raised to it. Mr. CHAPIN. I shall support this amendment most cheerfully. I shal do so because I believe a provision requiring a residence of thirty days in the township or ward before an individual is allowed to vote, is necessary to secure the purity of elections. Many gentlemen upon this floor have had some little experience in this matter. I have had some expeaience myself; I have known voters to be colonized from one township to another, or from oneward to another, a few days before: an election, for the purpose of carrying a ward or township which was considered to be quite close. This can be done under a provision requiring :only ten days' residence.;But if you require a residence of thirty days, it will be rather too expensive to make it very -generally profitable. For that reason I shall support the amendment. Mr. FARMER. I advocated in the committee on elections the provision requiring ten days residence. But since that time we have changed the time for holding our township elections, which has led me to change my opinion in regard to this matter. Our town ship lines are imaginary lines, as far as principles are concerned. Oftentimes people. moving from one township thb an'other would move just prior to the elections, as they are now -held. But, since the time of -the election is changed from April to March, a period earlier than these removals are gener ally made, it does away with the objections I had to a longer residence than ten days. I am now prepared to vote for the amendment of my col league, (Mr. ALEXANDBR.) Mr. TURNER. I hope this amend ment will prevail. In the larger towns this privilege of voting, - -after a - resi dence of only ten days, has, to-my cer tain knowledge, been very much abused in certain cases. Last spring there happened to be some forty or fifty men, more or less, at work on a railroad near the little city where I liye. They, came intothe townabout ten days before the charter election: at the time of the election they all came up to the polls and claimed the privilege of voting, and did vote. It changed the result of the election, although we got some very excellent city officers, But I have known a great many cases where, just previous to an election, men would have a great deal of work to do, and would hire a great many men to work for them, whose votes would change the result of the election. I am opposed to allowing the right to vote upon so short a residence as ten days., Mr. M. C. WATKINS. There may be cases where persons may be allowed to vote, who ought not to, with a very short residence. But there are other cases where injustice would be done by requiring a residence of thirty days before they are allowed to vote. The spring and the fall are the times when changes in residences occur oftener than at any other time of, the year. It frequently happens that a man changes his residence in the spring from one town to the next town adjoining. He intends to make his permanent residenco there, and is as much interested in the result of the election as any other man. He is there perhaps ten days before the election, and according to our present Constitution he would be entitled to vote. But if we insert a provision in the Constitution requiring him to reside there thirty days, he would CON-STITUTIONAL CONVENTION. "Saturday, 254: Y# I JIlly 20, 1867. DEBATES, AD PROOEEDIGS. 255 not be allowed to vote at that town meeting. And so in the fall, changes are frequently made from one town or county to another just before election. In those cases, if a residence of thirty days should be required, many voters would be excluded who are actually residents, and as much interested in the election as any other persons, and who,I think, should be allowed to vote. I think that perhaps on the whole, we had better retain the provision which we have in the present Constitution, requiring but ten days' residence in the township or ward. Mr. LEACH. I am, myself, in favor of great liberality in all matters pertaining to the elective franchise. At the same time I am in favor of guarding %he purity of the ballot box as thoroughly as possible. Iu my own experience in politics, I have more than once seen the evil effects of permitting men to vote who had resided in a township barely ten days. I suppose almost every gentleman of this Convention, who has had anything whatever to do with politics, and ail have had more or less, has had the same experience. Now, when everything tends toward liberality in this,matter, we should at the same time be very cautious, and throw all posssible safeguards around the ballot-box. I am very decidedly in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER.) It may occasionally work hardship, when men are compelled just before an election to. change their residence to some other township. But in- the main I apprehend the effect wifl be very salutary, and will tend to prevent frauds at ou! elections. Mr. WILLARD. I really hope this amendment will not be adopted.- It seems to me we have a sufficient' safeguard now in requiring a registration of voters. Many of us who live in cities and villages move from one ward to another frequently, in the spring and fall, or are liable to do so; we just move across the street, perhaps, and in that way change the precinct in which we live. It seems to me that this amendment will impose a restriction which the people will not like. Mr. LOVELL. I shall vote for this amendment, if for no other reason than that, while we were discussing the article on the legislative department, considerable was said about colonizing voters for the purpose of carrying certain railroad projects. I do not think those attempts to colonize will be made very often. But I think they could not be successfully made if a residence of thirty days was required. Our elections will now be at a season of the year when it is not moving time, either *( in the city or'in the country. In my judgment, no practical harm can result from extending the time of residence to thirty days. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. ALEXANDER to strike out "ten," and insert thirty," and it was agreed to. Mr. MILES. I move to amend the first clause of this section by striking out the word "twenty-one," and insorting the word "eighteen," before the word "years;" so that it will read: 'In all elections every person of the age of eighteen years," etc. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I ap prehend it is not necessary to say any-thing on that subject; it certainly will not prevai. Mr. MTTLES. I hope the'amendment will prevail. With all due deference to the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN ViLxKENEURGH,) I will Say, and I presume he knows it well, that when our country needed volunteers, of those who went from Michigan, there were thousands under twenty-one:years of age. Tlfe State of Michigan at that time was very willing to receive their assistance; and gentlemen were very willing that they should go, in order to save themselves, and perhaps their .sons fro ngoing in their places. I find in the article on the militia, that it is provided that young men eighteen years of age shall be compelled to perform nilitary duty in the State of Michigan. And if gentlemen will look at our farms, work-shops, stores, and other places of business, they will find hundreds of these young men in the State of Michigan under twenty-one years of age, who are as competent to vote as any gentleman upon this floor, young men who are as well educated. Yet gentlemen will vote here in this Convention that the foreigner who has resided in Michigan for two years and six months, shall be allowed to walk' up to the ballot box and vote, while our young men who have been educated in our schools, and in the political history of our State, who have been born and brought up here, who are interested in all that pertains to the good of the State, cannot vote until' they have remai'ed here twenty-one years. I hope justice will be done to those young men, who went into our army and bared their bosoms to the foe in defense of the liberties of their country. There were hundreds who were in the army, who are not yet twentyone years of age. And there is another thimg; when the United States called for troops ~nd the draft was ordered in this State, the young men from eighteen to twentyone years of age, were not excluded from that draft. As a draft commis sioner, I have myself drawn, or had drawn under my supervision, the names of many young men who were but little over eighteen years of age. If the government compels our young men to perform military duty, to place their lives in jeopardy for the defense of the government, then I cannot see why, with their intelligence and ability, they should not be allowed tQ cast their vote at.ur elections. I hope my amendment will prevail. Mr. BURTCH. I very much regret that I am under the necessity of speak ing this afternoon; I would rather not do it. But having been compelled to stay here, and a question of great im portance having arisen, I desire to speak to it. Now, I do not mean to be rambling; I have no ability to do it this afternoon. I respond most cheerfully to the idea presented by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MLES,) with reference to -the young men of Michigan, those who have gone into the service of their country, and have done valiant duty in its behalf. They had patriotic hearts; that was shown by their valor and bravery in behalf of their country. With the intelligence possess ed by the young men of Michigan, they are better qualified in thousands of instances to express their views through the ballot box, than many men of forty, yes, eighty years of age. They know more of the history of their country; they cannot fail to appreciate its importance; they understand it better than a man whose age has brought him near to the - grave, when all that is valuable in life is soon to pass away, when his hopes are all fled. But the young man of twenty and the boy of sixteen are full of vigor,.of hope, of life, and of energy. They are subject to the laws of the land, their property is subject to taxation; give them the right to vote. It is no natural right this, but a mere political right, a mere conventional right, and is given merely for the purpose of protection. That is why we all have the ballot; it is to protect and save ourselves.- Let! the young men as well as the old men have the right to save themselves. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mir. MILES, and upon a division there were ayes 14, noes 29; no quorum voting. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I submit, as I did on a previous occasion, that it is not absolutely necessary. for those voting in the negative to secure a sufficient number to make up a quorum with those voting in the affirmative. In such a case as this where a large majority of those voting in the committee vote against the preposition, I do not July -20, 1867. DEBATES AND'PROCEEDINGS. 255 l-' 256 COSTITUTIOAL COVETIO Saturday, consider it expedient, I do not consider it essential, I do net consider it necessary, that the C,hair should take into consideration the question whether a quorum of the Conwntion-has voted or not. If a majority of those voting were in the affirmative, then it might place the question in a little different shape. But, suppose that thirty members vote against a proposition, and ten vote for it. I think it is fair to infer that the committee is.opposed to'that proposition. I think we are only wasting the time of the committee in calling in question the fact that a quorum has not voted. Mr. CROSWELL. I understand that the rules of the Convention apply to the committee of the whole, so far as they may be applicable. And I understand that it is the general practice in all parliamentary bodies, when a division is called, and a count of members is made by the Chair, to require a sufficient number to vote to constitute a quorum in order to have a decision of the question. The rule laid down by Cushing, in his Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, is as follows: A committee of the whole house consisting of all the members, the rule as to- the number necessary to be present, in order to make a house, has been extended to committees of the whole. If, therefore, it should appear, at any time, that the number of members present is less than a quorum, (to be ascertained in the same manner as in the House,) that is in the Commons, forty, and in the Lords three, the chairman must leave the chair of the committee, and the Speaker resume that of the House. The Chairman then, by way of report, for he can make no other, informs the Speaker of the cause of the' dissolution of the committee. When the Speaker is thus informed of the want of a quorum in the committee, he immediately proceeds in the same manner to determine whether there is a quorum then present in the House. If a quorum should appear to be present, the House may immediately, (and this is the usual course,) resolve itself again into the committee and proceed with the business. It a quorum should not appear to be present, the Speaker adjourns the House, in the same manner as when the number of members present tlls below forty during the sitting of the House." Now, we are making a record here, that record shows the number voting upon these questions, the number in the affirmative, and the number in the negative. That becomes a part of our record of debates; and it seems to me that it is necessary that a quorum should vote upon all these questions, when a division is called. I apprehend, if a quorum fail to vote, it is within the power of the chairman of the committee of the whole at once to direct the roll of members to be called, in order to ascertain if there is a quorum present. If upon that call it is ascertained that a quorum is not present, then the course of proceeding laid down here by Cushing must be followed. Mr. LOVELL. Will the gentleman h'om Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL,) permit me to ask him a question? Mr. CROSWELL. With pleasure. Mr. LOVELTL.: I would inquire of the gentleman whether, in his judgment, upon- a division being called, and there appearing to be an entire disparity in the number rismg ngon either side, it is necessary for the chairman to count the votes on both sides"? Suppose that fifteen only vote in the affirmative, and a much larger number rise in the negative; would it not be in order for the chairman to announce the question lost, without actually counting those in the negative? Mr. CROSWELL. I apprehend that the very purpose of calling for a division is to ascertain the members voting upon each side. The question is first taken by the voice; when the question is taken in that way, and the chairman is unable to decide, or any member is not satisfied with the decision of the Chair, if he makes one in regard to the result of the vote, then a division is called for, as a more certain method of ascertaining what the actual vote upon the question was. In Qrder to determine that fact, the House divides, those voting' in theffirmative are counted on the one side, a'd those voting'in the negative are counted upon the other. It seems to me that it is necessary that there should be a full vote of the members present; it is important that members should vote upon. these questions. If they fail to vote, and in consequence of that less than a quorum are found to be voting, then under the rule and under the practice, and more especially here where the votes are recorded in our debates, the roll should be called; and if a quorum is not found to be present, the rule laid down by .Mr. Cushing should be followed. Mr. FARMEiR.. If} upon calling the roll, a quorum is found to be present, and then, when the vote is again taken, no quorum vote, what would be done? - Mr. CROSWELL. The rules of the Convention applying to the committee of the whole, I apprehend that if members refuse to vote, that is a matter which it is the duty of the committee to present to the Convention for action. :Mr. PRATT. How is the attention of the Convention to be called to the fact that any particular member declines to vote when his name is not called? . Mr. CROSWELL. I suppose in that case further proceedings may be adopted; I apprehend the committee can appoint tellers, in order to ascertain who vote and who do not. Mr. FARMER. I noticed in the proceedings of the New York Convenvention, that a case of that kind occurred. Upon a rising vote there was not a quorum voting; and.the course pursued in that Convention was this: the chairman of the committee of the whole called the president to the Chair, without any further action. Mr. BIRNEY. It appears.o me there are two question involved here, entirely distinct. The one is the presence of a quorum; the other i' the power of the committee to compel a member to vote. It does not follow that, because there is not a quorum voting, there is not a quorum present. We do not derive a knowledge of that fact from the mere fact of an insufficient vote to make a quorum.. We might do in repeated instances what we have done to-day. We were anxious to have a quorum this morning, and I think the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BURTcEr,) was called upon to vote. He asserted that he had an indefinite leave of absence, an-d could not be required to N.vote..-. A member may be in his seat; he may have just taken his seat upon speaking to the committee; and yet from the fact that he has leave of absence granted him he may decline to vote. If this should be repeated in many instances, we might have a majority of the Convention here and yet not have any power to compel them to vote. It seems to me that the fact that the members present are willing to acquiesce in the result of a majority vote of those present, should be regarded as sufficient, without raising the question as to whether a quorum voted or not. If I keep my seat when the vote is taken, it is because I feel that a large number of those who will vote will vote as I want them to vote; I may not consider it, therefore, necessary to- vote. But it does not follow that I am not here present, participating in all: that goes on here, just because I do not happen to vote upon what may be a formal question. I have repeatedly known votes to be taken in bodies of this kind where but two or three voted upon either side. I recollect upon one occasion in another body that it was announced that the " aye" had it; but one had voted upon the question, and he had voted in the affirmative; the rest had acquiesced in that vote. Mr. CONGER. If the committee propose to go on with business this afternoon and accomplish something, then I wish to remain here. But I have no desire to remain here during the discussion of abstract questions, in which I have no particular interest. Unless we are to go on with our business, I will move that the committee CONSTITUTIONAL CON.VFNTION. Saturday, 256 I i I July~~~ ~ ~ ~ 20 187.EAE AX RCEDNS 5 rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. If we can go on with our business, I will withdraw that motion. Mr. PRATT. I wish the Chair would announce the decision on this vexed question. Mir. LEACH. Before the Chair decides, I would like to say one word in regard to what I know to be the practice in Congress. It may be that at times business is done in committee of the whole with a very small number present. When a vote is taken by the voice, I have frequently known a motion to pass by the votes of only a dozen members; but whenever a division is called for, and the vote is taken by rising, or as in the House of Representatives, by passing between tellers, then a quorum is always required. We might avoid these difficulties here very frequently if, when a vote is very decided one way by the voice, we would permit it to pass without calling for a division. A division is often called for here when there is a very decided majority one way or the other. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I desire to say Mr. CONGER. I did not withdraw my motion for the purpose of having any discussion upon this subject. Mr. NORRIS. Jefferson's Manual, in regard to committees of the whole, says: " Their quorum is the same as that of the House, and if a defect happens, the chairman, on a motion or question, rises, the Speaker resumes the Chair, and the chairman can make no other report than to inibrm the House of the cause of their dissolution." Mr. P. D. WARNER. I desire simply to make a statement in justice to myself, as I do not wish to go upon the record that is being made here to-day with the understanding that I have no knowledge whatever of parliamentary law. I do not claim to know much; but I desire to say that I was entirely aware of the rule read by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL.) But I desire to have a rule established here that shall somewhat vary from that, so as to accommodate the action of this body. If a proposition is voted upon, and a division called for, and it is decided by a rising vote, and ten members vote in favor of it, and thirty against it, I believe it to be competent for the Chair to determine that the question is lost. But, if twenty-six vote in favor of the proposition, and ten against it, then it would not carry, because a quorum had not voted. But when it is so that a majority of a quorum are opposed to the proposition, I see no injustice which would be done to any one by the Chair deciding that the question was lost. I fully understand the rule as read by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL.) Vol. 2-No. 33. The CHAIRMAN. It is not competent for the committee of the whole to atmend any rule of the Convention. Under the rule of the Convention it is necessary that a quorum should vote in committee of the whole. The Chair will again put the question. Mr. FERRIS. If it is in order, I would call for a count by tellers; that I believe requires to be supported by one-fifth of a quorum. Mr. CONGER. I move that the committee rise; report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Mr. LOVELL. I raise the question that there is no quorum voting. Mr. CONGER. There has been onehalf hour spent for no earthly purpose since I made the motion before. This is Saturday afternoon; we met at an earlier hour in order that we might have a little leisure this afternoon, and I desire to have it. Mr. BLACKMAN. I raise the point of order that the Chairman, according to the authority which has been read here, cannot make any such report as moved by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER;) he can only report the want of a quorum present. The CHAIRMAN. Thereis a quorum present, and the motion is that the committee now rise and report pregress. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the chair, Mr. MORTON reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Elections;" had made some progress therein, and had instructed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. T. G. SMITH. I move that the Convention now adjourn. Mr. BLACKMAN. Upon that motion I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were-not ordered. The motion of Mr. T. G. SMITH was then agreed to. The Convention accordingly (at twenty minutes before four o'clock p. m.,) adjourned until half-past ten o'clock a. m. on Monday next. FORTY-SEVENTH DAY. MONDAY, July 22, 1867. The Convention met at half past ten o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mr. WEED. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. PAY OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF CON VENTION. iIr. LEACH. I offer the following resolution. Resolved, That the per deem of the Secre tary and his assistants, the Sergeant-at-Arms and his Assistants, be four dollars per day each; and that the Secretary and Sergeantat-Arms be allowed the same mileage as is allowed to member. Gentlemen of this Convention will remember that no provision has yet been made'for the pay of the employees of this Convention, named in this resolution. They cannot receive pay until we determine what per diem shall be allowed them. I presume there will be no objection to the resolution which I have offered. Mr. UTLEY. I would inquire why the firemen were not embraced in this resolution? The PRESIDENT. It is the understandmg of the Chair, that the pay of the firemen has already been fixed. Mr. WILLARD. The pay of the firemen was fixed in the first resolution, inadvertently I think- at- three dollars per day. I would move as an amendment to the resolution that the words, "and the firemen," be inserted. I think they should receive the same pay as any other officers of this Convention. Mr. LEACH. I will accept the amendrenbt. Mr. THOMPSON. I had not anticipated:the presentation of this subject at the present time; hence I am not prepared as I should wish to be, to enter into a discussion of it. But I will state here that I am opposed to the same compensation to the officers of this Convention, that is received by the members. I do not think that justice at our hands requires it. I hope the resolution in its present form will not be passed, fixing the compensation of officers at the same per diem allowance that members receive. And I hope some distinction will be, made between the Secretary and some of the other officers of this Convention. I do not wish to offer any amendment now to this Convention. Mr. CHAPIN. I do not wish to participate in the discussion of this resolution. I will simply say that I am willing to vote for the resolution. I think every officer named in it is entitled to the compensation there named. I believe:many of them have done more work than has been done by any -one member of this Convention. i think it but an act of justice-to pay them this compensation. Mr. MILES. I am in favor of the resolution as far as it goes. But it has usually be'en the custom, and I think it should be done by this Convention, DEBATES- AND PROCFEDINGSO 257 Julv 20 11867. I*, 25 ()-TTTOA COV\I~ Mo ay 4. to give the Secretary even more pay than any member of the Convention receives. His duties are more onerous, and htie is obliged to take more hours of his time to perform them. I think it has been the practice of the Legislature to give the Clerk of the House of Representatives a larger compensation than members receive by the sum of one or two dollars per day. I hope we will add a dollar a day to the compensation of the Secretary of this Convention. lVr. LUCE. I think the resolution as offered is entirely satisfactory to the Secretary. It is known to old members of the Legislature that the Secretary usually has the job of compiling and indexing the journals; there is usually enough compensation voted for that work to make his salary ample for the session. I hope the resolution will be adopted as it is; I think it is entirely satisfactory to the Secretary. Mr. COOLIDGE. Because the members of the Convention are here upon poor pay, I hope we will not give any one named in that resolution less than four dollars per day. The resolution as modified was then adopted. DEBATES OF NEW YORK CONVENTION. Mr. CONGER offered the following resolution, which was adopted: Resolved, That of the ten copies of the New York Convention documents, sent to this Convention, one set be apportioned to each eleven members of this Convention, whose seats are contiguous to each other, and one set to the President and officers of the Convention. ELECTIONS. Mr. MILTES. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. MORTON in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Elections." The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose on Saturday, it had under consideration the first section of this article, amended as follows: In all elections every person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in this State three months, and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote thirty days next preceding an election, belonging to either of the following classes, shall be an elector and entitled to vote: First. Every male citizen of the United States; Second. Every male inhabitant of this State, who shall have resided in the United States two years and six months,- and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, pursuant-to the laws thereof, six months preceding an election; Third. Every male inhabitant residing in this State on-the twentyfourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five; Fourth. All male Indians, natives of the United States." The gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. MILES) moved to amend the first clause of this section by striking out the word "twenty-one," and inserting the word eighteen," before the word "years." A division of the question was called for, and the vote will be first taken upon striking out the word " twentyone." Mr. SAVWYER. On this subject I have but a remark or two to make. I am well aware, as is generally understood by the members of this Convention, that so far as the elective franchise is concerned, it is necessary that there should be some rule or rules that should govern the admission to the exercise of the right of an elector. So far as I understand it, there are but two rules prescribed in this article. One is that a persoift shall be a citizen of the United States, -or b shall have declared his intention to become such, and shall have resided for so long a time in the State, and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote. That is a right which belongs to the commonwealth for its own protection. When we come to the question of age, which is the other rule established, I deem it a fact that every person is entitled to the elective franchise at some time or other, or in some manner or other, be it sooner or later. So far as the right is concerned, we cannot conceive of an elective democracy without also coupling with that idea the right of the use of the elective franchise. But, as I said before, that right is simply the right to exercise, at some time or other, the franchise. But, in regard to the manner and time when that right shall be exercised, I deem it a mere matter of public policy, which belongs to the Constitution to establish. It is not a right which any individual can claim. Then we have to consider this subject in this light; is it proper to reduce the age from twenty-one to eighteen years, as the time at which an individual shall be allowed to exercise this right of franchise? As a member of this Convention it seems to!me that it would be improper. And I will state the reason which is sufficient in my mind to govern me in my vote. It has been proved by the practice and judgment of ages, that at the age of twentyone, an individual arrives at the full possession of his physical and mental powers. At that time he is invested with all the rights and privileges of a citizen. At that time he throws off all the restrictions of a guardian, either natural or legal, and is invested with all the powers that belong to a citizen. And unless we are here at this present time ready to say that he shall throw off these restrictions at the age of eighteen, and shall be allowed at that age all the privileges of a citizen, the right to contract and be contracted with, to dispose of his person, his property and his liberties as to him seemeth meet, it strikes me most forcibly that it is not proper to allow him the exercise of the elective franchise at that age. As I understand it, that privilege, both for the interest of the individual and the commonwealth, ought not to be exercised until the person is at liberty in all things. The right of the elective franchise is necessarily connected with right of the free exercise of the judgment and of the will in all respects. It strikes me forcibly that no individual is placed in a situation where he can make a free choice 'and exercise his judgment directly in that matter so long as he is under any restrictions in regard to the rights of property and the right to control his own personal affairs. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Whatever other amendment may be adopted to this article, I hope the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr-. MILES,) will not —- prevail. The committee on elections, in reporting this article, have followed the usages in this respect that have been fixed from time immemorial. The argument used by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. SAWYER,) is certainly a forcible one; that until a person is twenty-one years of age he is under the domination of a parent or guardian, and is not free to exercise his judgment in all respects. But there are other reasons why the amendment should not prevail. I do not look upon a young man as competent for thispurpose until he is twenty-one years of age. As has been remarked, he is not competent before that time to enter into contracts and to dispose of his rights and property. He certainly, therefore, is not competent to exercise the right of the elective franchise. There may be instances in which a person under twenty-one years of age would be competent to exercise that right; but I think, as a general rule, the age expressed in this article should be adhered to. I hope, therefore, that the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILEs,) wili not prevail. The question was then taken upon striking out the word "twenty-one;" and upon a division, ayes 14, noes 42, it was not agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The motion to insert of course falls with the rejection of the motion to strike out. The next amendment was the one offered by the gentleman from Isabella, (Mr. ESTEE,) to insert in the last clause of the section the word, "civilized," after' the word "all;" also to add to the section the words, "and not members of 258 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Moiiday, 41 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. any tribe;" so that that clause will read: "All civilized male Indians, natives of the United States, and not members of any tribe." Mr. P. D. WARNER. I move to amend this section by striking out the last clause, which reads as follows: " Fourth. All male Indians, natives of the United States." I desire to have that considered in connection with the amendment of the gentleman from Isabella, (Mr. ESTEE.) The question will be first taken, of course, upon the amendment proposed by The gentleman from Isabella. - But I desire to present my'amendment to the consideration of the committee, before action is had upon the amendment offered by that gentleman. I will statd briefly the reason for offering my amendment. In another part of this section, in the enumeration of the classes to be entitled to vote, is this clause: "Every male citizen of the United States." By the civil rights law of the United States, as I understand, the principles of which were also embraced'in an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which is now pending before the several States, it is provided that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside." It is urged as a reason why the last clause of this section should be adopted, without connection with the idea advanced by the gentleman from Isabella, that the Indians inhabiting the State of Michigan, have abandoned their tribal relations, and have become citizens of the State. Now, if they have abandoned their-tribal relations, and are not included in any tribe, then I conceive that by the civil rights bill of Congress, they are citizens of the United States, and need not again be enumerated as a particular class, to be entitled to the enjoyment of the elective franchise. Therefore, I consider that the whole of this last clause is what has been termed here "surplusage." It is reiterating what has already been provided for in another part of this same section. If other members of the committee regard this matter in the same light that I do, I presume that the last clause will be stricken out. Mr. CONGER. If thte gentleman has the civil rights bill, I would ask him to read the section to which he refers. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I have not the civil rights bill here; but I have the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which will be found on page 313 of the session laws of 1867. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or entbrce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I think that is substantially the language of the civil rights bill. Mr. CONGER. If the proposition of the gentleman from Oakland (Mr. P. D. WARNER) is correct, that the Indians now living in the state of Michigan, having to a great extent dissolved their tribal relations, which I believe is generally true, would be embraced in the provisions of the civil rights bill of the United States, then I should agree with him that this last clause should be stricken out. I hope, before we come to a vote on that question, that we may have that civil rights bill here, and see,to what extent it will affect this question. Perhaps that will relieve us of all question upon that subject; I do not myself recollect the exact language of it. Mr. INGALLS. I desire to make one remark in relation to the remarks of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER.) It is not a fact that the Indians in this State have dissolved their tribal relations altogether. The Chippewa tribe still exist in large numbers, and tribal relations exist among them as much as ever. I simply desire to state that as a matter of fact, which may have influence upon this question. Mr. UTLEY. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Isagella, (4r. ESTEE,) by adding to it the words "and not receiving an annuity from the same." Mr. LONGYEAR. The provision in the civil rights bill, is to the effect stated by the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER;) yet I do not think it would be best to adopt his motion to strike out this last clause. The civil rights bill is simply an act of Congress, liable to be repealed or altered at any time. We should not leave the Constitutional rights of electors in this State to depend upon so precarious a provision; upon one liable to be repealed or altered at any time by the Congress of the United States. For that reason I shall be. in favor of retaining that clause. I believe that, so long as that act remains in force, the effect would be as stated by the gentleman from Oakland. But such would not be the effect any longer than the act remained in force. For the purpose of having a permanent rule, I be lieve we should retain this provision in our Constitution. Mr. BIRNEY. I agree with the gen tleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) that this clause should not be stricken out. I like the amendment offered to it bythegentleman from Isabella, (Mr. EsTEE,) rather than the motion to strike out. If the position of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) is correct, the first subdivision of this section, "every male citizen of the United States," would perhaps include the most of these Indians, and then this last clause would rather be in the nature of a proviso' or exception. I do not understand the civil rights bill to regulate or govern the State entirely in its mode Qf regulating suffrage. That bill does not take away the sovereignty of the State in that respect; the State has a right, notwithstanding, to declare who are electors in the State. Although that act defines who are citizens, I would be in favor of amending this clause, so as not to make it so sweeping. Mr. LEACH. Inasmuch as I have had the honor of occupying..the responsible position of "father" of all the Indians in the State of Michigan, and inasmuch as a portion of them are ,my constituents, I think it is right and proper that I should make a few remarks in regard to their situation, and the bearing of the amendment pro,posed here. I confess that it is a matter of some difficulty to frame a clause that shall apply to theIndians, and do justice to them all. For the last seventeen years the Indians of this State have exercised the elective franchise. I know that the language of the Constitution of 1850 was" civilized persons of Indian descent, not members of any tribe." But I know very well, that under that clause the Indians of this State have voted, and never in but one instance have I known the votes of Indians to be refused, either on the ground that they were n6t civilized, or that they were members of tribes. So that taken as a general system, the Indians of this State have enjoyed the privilege of voting for the last seventeen years. I am not aware that any serious harm has ever been done th State, or any county, or township, in consequence of this. There are about eight thousand Indians in the State; they are scattered through a large number of counties. The Chippewas of Saginaw, as they are termed, are mostly in the counties of Isabella, Bay, and that region of the State. The Ottawas and Chippewas, as they are termed in all the treaties with tife United States, are mostly in the counties of Oceana, Mason, Grand Traverse, Emmet, Manitou, Sheboygan, Leelanaw, Chippewa, and that portion of the State. The Chip pewas of Lake Superior are mostly in the county of Houghton. Now, ., July 22, 1867.. 259 :6 CO8TTOA OVETO.....ay while there are about' eight thou sand Indians in the State, they are scattered among so many counties, that the few in each county have not much effect upon the elections. Then there is another fact which may be mentioned in connection with this; that but a very small proportion of the Indians in most of the counties, usually present themselves at the polls. From the most careful estimate that I can make, I do not think that over five or six hundred Indian votes have ever been polled at any election throughout the entire State. So that gentlemen can see that very little harm would be done, even if these Indians always voted on the wrong side. But they-do not thus vote, their vote is divided and I have very seldom known an elec tion in which the Indian vote was not divided, and in some cases nearly equally divided. At the same time, it is true that the *Indian agents and employees of- the government are able to- exercise such an influence over them, that it is fre quently the case that a majority of them would vote with the party in power. At the present time it would be difficult, perhaps, for them to judge which party is in power. But it is true that but; very few of them exercise the privilege of the elective franchise; and those that do, never produce any serious results. If all the Indians in the State to-day were to vote one way, it would not change the result of the election in more than one county in the State, and in but very few townships of the State. Ther6' is one county'in the State where the population is near ly all Indians; that is the county of Emmet; or it has been nearly all Indian up to the present time. The southern portion of the county is now being rapidly settled by whites. There are two or three organized townships in the county of Emmet, which would have to be disorganized, if we should refuse the Indians the privilege of voting, or deny them the privilege of holding the township offices. They have enjoyed these privileges for the past: seventeen years, and nobody has suffered on account of it. This Convention is about to extend the elective franchise to a class of men in this State, who have never before enjoyed it; we are going to extend it to people of African descent. While we are doing this, would it be an act of generosity toeut; off the Indian race, who have enjoyed that privilege for the last seventeen years? It seems to me that if we do: so, we would be guilty of an inconsistency; we would be' doing an act of which we would never have reason to be very proud. Seventeen years ago I stood in this hall, and spoke in favor of extending: the elective franchise to the colored people. I was the onlyperson in the Convention of 1850 who advo cated this measure. A few others voted for it, but I was the only man who advocated it. It received but a feeble support, and was voted down by a large majority-a very large majority. Now, we find that matters have changed very materially; there are but few men here to-day who would deny .the privilege of the elective franchise to the African race. It seems to me that it would not be an act of generosity-it would, indeed, be an un generous act-to say that those who hlave enjoyed this privilege for the last seventeen years should now be de prived of it. I state as'a fact beyond controversy, that there are a great many of these Indians abundantly qualified to exercise this privilege, who are intelligent, upright, honest, industrious, virtuous, and just as much entitled to the privi lege of the elective franchise as three fourths of the people who vote in this State. I grant, at the same time, that there are many of them who are not fitted to exercise the privilege of vo ting. So there are many white men who are not fitted to exercise that right. If we could make a rule which would apply to all classes, whites, negroes and -Indians, I would not object to it; I would favor it, if I could see any prac tical way of doing it, any definite point where we could draw the line, and say that those on the one side should vote, and those on the other should not. But it seems to me that the thing is entirely impracticable. I say that many 9f these Indians are intelligent and worthy the privilege of voting, and some are not. But it so happens that most of those who are the most unworthy seldom go to the polls. They care nothing aboutit, they know nothing about it; and they will not go to the polls unless special efforts are made to get them to do so. Those who are more fit to exercise the privilege usuaIly do go to the polls. I am quite surprised that the gentleman from Isabella (Mr. EsT~E) should offer-the amendment he has offered. His amendment would' cut off from voting every Indian in the. State. If I understand his amendment, he proposes to limit the right of voting to civilized Indians, not members of any itribe. On the ground of civilization some would be cut off from voting; and others would not. But when you dome to the question of tribal organizations, it is at least very questionable whether his amendment would not cut off the whole of them from voting. The tribal organization of the Indians inu this State is partially dissolved. By the treaty of 1855 it is provided that the tribal organization of the Indians shall be thereby dissolved, except so far as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the treaty. Hence, under this amendment, it would be a question whether the Indians could vote or not. The boards of elections of the various townships would assume to settle for themselves whether these Indians had the right to vote. If they deemed that it would promote their interest to allow them to vote, they would permit them to do so; but if they took the contrary idea of the matter, they would refuse them the privilege of voting. It would therefore be placing the control of the matter in the boards of elections. I do not wish to prolong a discussion of this kind. I only wish to state some facts that members of this Convention might be enabled to act understandingly upon this question. I know that no member here wishes to deprive any man of the privilege of voting, who is fit to vote. But I cannot discover any rule by which we can decide between those who are fit to vote and those who are not fit, among Indians, more than among white men or colored men. I only desire that justice may be done; that men who are fit to vote, and who have voted for the last seventeen years, shall have the privilege continued to them. While we are making the rule more liberal and generous, and more in accordance with the spirit of the age in regard to colored people, we should be equaqly magnanimrnous in regard to the Indians race. They are growing less numerous every year; they are passing away. And in but few counties would it be possible, under any circumstances at the present time, for their votes to change the result of the election, and they cannot do that in any cQunty many years longer.. All those counties are rapidly filling up with a white population, so that in a few years the Indian vote will be an insignificant item, which would not affect the result at any election. Mr. ESTEE. Inasmuch as I offered this amendment, perhaps it would be proper for me to state the reasons for my so doing, A great deal that the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEAcH,) has said in regard to the Indian vote is correct. It.is well known that so far as I am concerned, I am an advocate of universal suffrage to all men, upon equal terms, and under like circumstances. There is, however, one thing with regard to the Indians that the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH,) has not told us. I would have no objection to the Indians voting if they would assume the responsamil CONSTITUTIONAL COXVENTION. 260 Monday, I July..2 1867. DEBTE t~ — O EE-I -S. 2 ity of citizens. It is a well known fact that the lands which they hold are not subject to taxation; that debts cannot be collected of them; that they are not subject to military duty; and that they do not assume the responsibility that all other citizens assume, to whom we propose to give the elective franchise. It was on this account that I introduced this amendmnent, simply to obtain an expression of sentiment upon the subject from this Convention. I do not feel disposed to advocate taking away the right to vote from the Indians; I do not offer my amendment for that purpose. I offer it simply to obtain an expression of sentiment from the Convention, and to ascertain how gentlemen feel upon this question. Mr. WILLIAMS. I would inquire of the gentleman fri-om Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEAcH,) how this amendment will disfranchise any Indian who has now the right to vote under our present Constitution? Mr. LEACH. What amendment does the gentleman mean? Mr. WILLIAMS. I mean the amendment of the gentleman from Isabella, (Mr. ESTEE,) and the amendment of the gentleman from Newaygo, (ir. UTTLEY.) Mr. LEACH. The practice under our present Constitution has been to receive the votes of all Indians by general consent; and so far as I know they have everywhere been received. The boards of election have acted upon the principle that it is impossible to determine just who are civilized and who are not, and the votes offered have been received. It is possible that if the word "civilized" were introduced into the section, the same construction might be - given to it as under the present Constitution,. and boards of elections might still continue to receive the votes of Indians. But it would leave the question subject to discussion, and different practices might prevail in different townships. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Isabella, (M%r.' ESTEE,) might be construed to cut off the Indians from the elective franchise, from the fact that the tribal relation is not yet totally dissolved. All the Indians in the State occupy precisely the same relation to the State and the general government; the treaties with all are similar; there is no material difference in the treaties, with all the different tribes of Indians in this State. The gentleman from Isabella, (Mr. ESTEE,) says that the Indians do not pay taxes. It is true, that they do not pay taxes on the lands granted them under the treaty of 1855, for the very good reason that they have not yet received their patents from the General Government for those lands. The moment the patents are issued to them by the General Government, their lands will become taxable the same as the other lands. It is not the fault of the Indians that they have not received these patents, for to my certain knowledge they have for years been clamorous for- them. We certainly should not refuse to allow them to vote on that account. The gentleman also says that debts cannot be collected of these Indians. That is true, too, but so far as relates to these lands only. If they have other property, it is liable to claim for debts the same as the property of whites, and their other property is also liable to taxation. I know that there are thousands of acres of lands owned by Indians in this State, which they have bought with their own money, and upon which for many years past they have paid taxes'. And' they pay taxes on their personal pr6perty the same as the whites do. So that if taxation and representation should go together, we certainly should not deny these-Indians the right of the elective franchise. Mr. NORRIS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. LEACH. Certainly. Mr. NORRIS. I understand the gentleman to be in favor of this section as it now reads. I would ask him if there is anything in the section that would prevent the colonization in this State, of the Indians west of the Mississippi, and giving them the right to vote after a short residence here? Mr. LEACH. I am not aware that there is; but I apprehend no danger on that account. Mr. BLACKMAN. If the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIS,) will read this section, he will find that the first clause of it applies to all the different classes named in the latter part of the section. Mr. LEACH. The same provision applies to the white men that applies to the Indians; the colonization in this State of white men west of the Mississippi is not provided against, any more than the colonization of the Indians. Mr. NORRIS. The point is that white men west of the Mississippi are allowed to vote, and the Indians are not. Mr. LEACH. If they have been in this State three months, and in the township or ward ten days, then the same rule would apply to them. Mr. DANIELLS. The second subdivision of this section provides that every male inhabitant of this State, who shall have resided in the United States two years and six months, and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, should be al lowed to vote. Now, is there not as much danger that all the people of Ireland will come here, as that all the Indians west of the Mississippi will come here? Mr. LEACH. I apprehend that there will be more probability of the Irish coming here. Mr.. FARMER. It came to the knowledge of the committee on elections that under the present Constitution it had been the practice to allow all these Indians to vote. One object that the committee had in placing this fourth subdivision in the form in which it is now presented, was that this matter should be made clear, that the Indians shonld be allowed to vote wihout voting by implication; that it should be distinct and clear that they were voters. As they had been allowed the privilege of voting heretofore, the committee considered that it would not be proper or just to them, if we restricted them in the exercise of rights which they had exercised under the present Constitution. That was one of the reasons that was urged-in the commit tee for placing this subdivision in its present form. The committee came to the conclusion that the true policy was to make the matter plain and distinct, to allow the Indians distinctly to understand that they were voters, and not to allow any doubt to rest upon that question. Mr. VAN VALKENBUTRGH. I wish to say that this fourth Subdivision: was the cause of more inquiry ancddeliberation in the committee on elections than all the rest of the article. We obtained upon the subject all the light that we could obtain. The gentlemen from the Upper Peninsula came before us and made their statements. From all that we could learn upon the subject, we thought it was right and proper and just that this article should be reported with this provision: "All male Indians, natives of the United States." We had before us the provision of the Constitution of 1850, which contained this language: "Every civilized male inhabitant of Indian descent, a native of the United States, and not a member of any tribe, shall be an elector and entitled to vote." It was after a great deal of deliberation upon the subject, that the committee came to- the unanimous conclusion to report this article in this respect as it is now reported. The number of Indians in the Ulper Peninsula is small, and they are constantly decreasing. We thought no danger could be apprehended from extending to them the right of suffrage. With the present feeling througifout our State on the question of suffrage, we thought it would be improper and DEBATES AND -PROCEEDINGS. July 22, 1867. 261 26 COSIUTOA mO~~I~.Mn unjust to restrict the Indians in this right. It has been stated upon this floor, that we expect to extend the elective franchise to the black man; I hope that this Convention will be-unanimous in that respect. And some gentleman upon this floor appear to be anxious, and I am not sure but they will succeed in it, to extend the right of suffrage to females. And not willing to stop there, some gentleman want to extend it to children under age. With all this feeling upon that subject, we thought that it was right to extend this privilege to all Indians. As has been stated by the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH,) there are but two or three towns in the State where the result of the election would be changed by the vote of the Indians. He tells us also, that if they are disfranchised and proscribed, some of the present township organizations must be dissolved. We were impressed, while examining this subject in c)mmittee, that many of the Indians were as competent to vote as white men. We know that in all classes' there are men not considered fit to exercise the elective franchise. But we can make no invidious distinctions. If we allow white men and black men to vote, we certainly should allow the Indian to vote. I hope the section may be adopted as reported by the committee. We were thoroughly convinced, after due discussion, and after obtaining all the light we could, that the right of the elective franchise should be extended to the Indians, notwithstanding the proscriptions in the Constitution of 1850. Mr. COOLIDGE. I shall feel compelled to vote for the amendment. The amendment, as I understand it, will bring the provision substantially, perhaps precisely, in the same language of the present Constitution. From the latest reports which we get, (I cannot vouch for their accuracy, but they were made in 1866,) there are now in this State, 1703 Indian men, and nearly eleven hundred of them are in the counties of Oceana, Mason, Grand Traverse, Emmet, Sheboygan, Mackinaw and Chippewa. I take it that the Indians in those counties, are in character, generally, as has been stated by the gentleman from Grand Traerse, (Mr. LEACH.) The gentleman says that many of these Indians, how many I do not know, are ignorant. I suppose their lives are spent in the swamps, morasses- and woods; having no marks of civilization about them at present. He says that they know nothing about voting, and that they care nothing about it. Mr. LEACH. And they do not vote. Mr. COOLIDGE. And they do not vote. Now, if they know nothing about voting, if they care nothing about it, and if they do not vote, (I presume that means that they do not want to vote,) I certainly shall not vote that they shall be voters. Besides, sir, am told, I have no personalacquaintance with the Indians there, but I am told by gentlemen on this floor, that a very large proportion of them know nothing about the English languageat all, that they have a language of their own. I see that there are three hundred and sixty Indians in the counties of Cass and Van Buren, who are to a great extent civilized, and many of them are quite intelligent. They have been assumed to be voters, and they have voted for a number of years uder our present- Constitution. I have no doubt but what under that Constitution they are legal voters; I have never heard that fact doubted.. There are a few, also, scattered in some other counties. There is no difficulty in this matter t all. The gentleman from Grand Traverse says that there a large number of those Indians uncivilized, ignorant, and unable to speak the English anguage, having no sensible idea in the world aboutthe elective franchise, caring nothing about it, and not wishng for the privilege. Now, I think they ought tot to be allowed to vote. It seems to me that it would be imprudent, to say the least of it, for this Convention to put a clause in the Contitution by which these Indians will be allowed to vote as well as anybody else. But there is no difficulty about t, because, says the gentleman from Grand Traverse, under our present Constitution the Indians have voted when they wanted to, and have been permitted to vote. If they are legally entitled to vote now, then we want no change in our Constitution in this respect. If they are not legally entitled o vote, and the boards of election in that pert of the State choose to tolerate their voting, I have nothing to say about it. But I think the principle is wrong to allow men of this descripion to vote. It is trifling with the right of the elective franchise. And just in proportion as these Indians are numerous, L just that proportion is it dangerous o allow them to vote. Cannot a designing man in one of those localities un out into the swamps and morasses and gather up and bring in a lot of these Indians, sufficient to control the lection in a township, village or city? : am not in favor of giving him a chance to do it, whoever he may be. I doubt exceedingly the policy of doing this. I have seen in no less than thirteen papers of this State an attack upon this committee on elections for introducing this clause in their report. How far that feeling may prevail, I do not- know. But if we pass this clause, with the facts as admitted by gentlemen of this Convention, who know the Indians better than any other gentlemen in this State, I cannot defend it here or elsewhere. I say there is no necessity for it. The gentleman asks us, shall we take away a privilege they have enjoyed for the last seventeen years? No, sir; no such a thing. I am for the amendment precisely, and nothing else, and that gives them all the privilege they have had for the last seventeen years. I am in favor of the alteration here proposed. Mr. McKERNAN. I ask for a division of this amendment. The amendment of the gentleman from Isabella, (Mr. ESTEE,) is to insert the word "civilized," before the words —"male Indians;" and also to — add to the last clause of this section the words, " and not members of any tribe." I must say that I am in favor of this section as reported by the committee, but I have no objection to inserting the word "civilized." But I am opposed to inserting the words "and not members of any tribe." That will bring up a vexed question, which we have had to deal with for the last sixteen or seventeen years. That is, the question whether Indians receiving annuities from the United States are members of any tribe. That has been ably explained by the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH.) In some of our townships, the election boards sometimes allow Indians to vote, and sometimes not. With us, as a general thing, the Indians exercise the right of voting. They form a portion of our citizens; they are useful members of society; they perform arduous duties which it would be almost impossible to get white men to endure. They have exercised the privilege of voting for sixteen or seventeen years, and it would be unjust to deprive them of it now. I consider that the Indians have as good a right to vote as the class to whom it is now proposed to give the privilege of the elective franchise. With us, many of these Indians have adopted our civilized mode of living. They have houses and small farms which they cultivate the same as white persons do. They attend our elections, and take an interest in them, and many of them hold offices. I hope, therefore, thislast clause will be allowed to remain as it is; or that it will be amended no further than to insert the word "civil- - ized." 262 CONSTITUTION.AT'I CONV-PWTION. Monclay, DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. There was one remark made by the gentleman from Isabella, (Mr. ESTEE,) to which I wish to refer. He said that these Indians were not liable to military duty. In answer to that I will state, that quite a large number of our Indians went to the war, and but very few of them returned. I was informed by the officers of their cqmpanies, that they were first-rate soldiers, good on the march, and performed all the duties that soldiers had to perform. He said he felt proud of our Indians, and of the regiments in which they were. I think it would be really unjust to strike out this clause, because it is necessary here in,order to make the matter plain, so that all the people of this State, especially the boards of election, will understand distinctly that all the Indians of the State are entitled to vote. I think we ought to make the matter so plain that there can be no question about it hereafter. I am in favor of the Indian voting wherever he may be in this State. There are but a few of them left, and they should be allowed to continue to exercise the right which they have exercised heretofore. Mr. UTLEY. It is not often that I obtrude myself upon this Convention; I should not make a remark now if it were not to justify myself from the charge of illiberalism towards any proportion of the people of this State. I intend to be just as liberal in regard to the elective franchise as any man upon this floor, so far as that franchise can be extended in justice to the white population of this State. This, I take it, is eminently a practical question. The question of theory can, of course, enter to some extent into this discussion. But those living in portions of the State where Indians have exercised the right of voting for a long time, have become familiar with the different operations and manceuvres by which the Indian vote is controlled, and consequently can judge somewhat of the propriety of extending this right to them. In the district which I have the honor to represent we poll some two hundred and fifty Indian votes; that is, we poll that number whenever some interested person supplies whisky enough to bring them out. They always go with the side that furnishes the most whisky, whether it be Republican or Democratic. They colonize at a town, sometimes in this county, and sometimes in that. Two years ago last spring the township of Fremont was controlled by this Indian vote, and the white vote was overthrown. It seems to me as if there ought to be some limit fixed in our Constitution to govern and control this Indian vote. I had supposed that there were many Indians whose tribal relations to the general government were extinguished. I had supposed that it was only those receiving annuities, that had any connection with the government, in tribal relation. I may be mistaken in regard to that. But so believing, I introduced the amendment, which I did, making tribal relations the dividing line. It seems to me as if no Indian should be allowed to exercise the right of the elective franchise, till he places himself in the same condition with all other freemen in this State; till he ignores his tribal relation, till he ceases to be a pensioner upon the government; till he places himself in the same condition with you and me, in relation to the government, exercising the same rights that you and I do, and being liable to the same restrictions and laws. But with regard to the Indian and the negro, according to my idea, they do not stand in the same relation. The negro has been brought up in civilized society; he is conversant with the habits and practices of white men; he speaks our language -and reads our newspapers, and is educated in a general way. It is not so with the Indian. He is engaged in hunting in the forests, or in fishing upon our streams and lake shores occasionally. He comes out of the wilderness now and then to vote, but solely at the suggesiton of some politician who has worked the wires up in the woods. All I ask is, that there shall be some line of demarcation in this Constitution, whereby Indians shall not be the subjects of trade and speculation, first by one politician and then by another; but that they shall become a fixture in our law the same as the rest of us. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Has any injury resulted from allowing the Indians to vote? Mr. UTLEY. The town of Fremont was colonized and carried by the Indians, as I have stated. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Did they elect their own men? Mr. UTLEY. No, sir, they elected white men. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Were they respectable? Mr. UTLEY. I suppose they are respectable. Mr. CHAPIN. Could they have been elected without the Indian vote? Mr. UTLEY. No, sir. Mr. WALKER. Did any vote except those who were registered? Mr. UTLEY. No sir; they came within the statute limitation; there was no way to shut them out. There is an Indian settlement in the town.ship of Fremont; there are perhaps twelve or fifteen Indians who live there permanently. So far as the votes of those Indians are concerned, I have not a word to say. They occupy land and are building themselves houses upon them, and so far as they are concerned, I have no objection to make to their voting. But I say it is wrong that these Pembina Indians further north, should be allowed to go there to stay ten days, and control our elections. Besides, they are wild Indians; they have no interest in common with us; they take no interest in our elections, further than to foist upon the people some particular pet of theirs at certain times. NVhen one of their pets wants office, of course he takes the means to get it, and that is one of the means. I do not want to be illiberal; I will go as far as any man in this house ought to go, to give free mfales or females the right to vote. But I would like to see some rule adopted by this Convention, which will shut out this general Indian voting in the newer portions of our State. Mr. LOVELL. In regard to this question, as to whether the Indian should be allowed to vote, itseemsto me that we should consider whether it is desirable to get rid of these anomalies in the State. I think we should endeavor to provide, that the tribes of Indians as such, should cease to exist in our State; that they should take the forms of civilization, and adopt the practices of a civilized life, and become in all respects subject to our laws, the same as other citizens are. For that reason, if for no other, I am opposed to the policy of the report of the committee on elections, giving these Indians as such, the right to vote. I cannot concieve that a male Indianis any better than a male "white-man." And yet if a person is a foreigner, although he may be born in this State, or in some other State of the Union; yet if born a subject of some foreign prince or potentate, and desirous of becoming a citizen, he must declare his intention to become a citizen, abjure all allegiance to that prince or potentate, and abide a certain time here before he can become a citizen. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Did the gentleman say a foreigner born in this State? MIr. LOVELL. The gentleman seems to suppose that that is not possible. Now, I apprehend that there are a great many foreigners in this State who were born under our skies; their parents were born in foreign lands; and their parents have the right to claim the protection of a foreign government, whenever any question regarding their rights and privileges as foreigners shall arise. We have a class July 2 -21 1867. 263 264 a O V - I f Mi day, of men among us who are white who would be disfranchised under this article. Yet they are civilized, they are enlightened, they are in every respect estimable. But they do not choose to come under the responsibilities which the laws of our country enforce upon them, if they become full citizens of the country. Not such is the condition of the Indian. The Indian chooses to retain his tribal relations; to remain in treaty relations with the government of the United States.'He cannot come into the courts of the State of Michigan, or be made amenable to the laws of the State of Michigan; but all his actions and causes must be tried in the courts of the United States. If one of these Indians commits a crime, he is not tried in the courts of the State of Michigan, but in the courts of the United States. Now, we want to get rid of this anomaly. We want these men to become civilized; or if they choose to remain barbarians, we do not wish to encourage them to remain in the State. We would much prefer that they should go off with their brethren beyond the Mississippi, and there maintain their tribal relations, and continue their wandering lives. I know there are those who are affected with feelings of tenderness for the "poor Indian." "Lo! the poor Indian," resounds through their brains, and they can think of nothing in regard to the Indian but what is virtuous and pure and happy. They always see him beyond the hills in his elysian heaven, enjoying his peaceful life. Yet, to-day, perchance, the relatives and connections of the people of Michigan, are falling on the plains, betrayed and murdered by the brothers of these very Indians. Why should we at this time, and in this age, extend to any of these inhabitants of Michigan for the time being, peculiar privileges? It is said that we propose to extend the elective franchise to the negro. That has been well answered by other gentlemen. The negro is a citizen of this country; he owes this government allegiance. He is civilized, and has adopted the habits of the citizens of this country. It is not so with the Indian. Mr. FARMER. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question? Mr. LOVELL. Certainly. Mr. FARMIER. Does the gentle:man wish this Convention distinctly to understand, that he holds that children born here of foreign parents, who reside here until they are twentyone, have to take any preliminary steps to become citizens of the United .States? Mr. LOVELL. No sir; I do not wish to be understood in any such sense. I understand that according to the Constitution and laws of our government, when a father has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, when he becomes a citizen, his minor children also become citizens. Mr. FARMER. Suppose that he does not declare his intention? Mr. LOVELL. If he does not declare hiseintention to become a citizen, for instance, if he be an Englishman claiming to be a subject of the Queen of Grea' Britain and Ireland, claiming her protection as an English resident in this country, and he has children born to him, he has a right to claim that they, too, are English citizens, entitled to the. protection of the government of Great Britain. Mr. FARMER. Then it is a mere matter of election with him? Mr. LOVELL. We claim the same right in relation to our citizens who have children born abroad. Ought we to deny to citizens of other nations the privilege which we claim for ourselves? Suppose that our minister in England has a child born on English soil; is that child a foreigner? No, sir; he is a native born citizen of the United States. Just so with a citizen of some foreign country who resides here for a time, and has children born to him; they are foreign, although born in this country. But this is a matter of no importance. I speak of it only by way of illustration. What I desire to assert, and what I believe I am correct in asserting is, that these Indians do not come under our laws, as the rest of us are required to do. They are not compelled to obey them as we are; they cannot seek redress under them in our courts, to the extent that we can. While they hold this anomalous position, I say that we should not grant them special privileges and peculiar rights. There is another thing. It is said that, under our Constitution as it now exists, many of these Indians do vote. It is said, and conceded by those who make the argument, that they have no right to vote. But they ask us here to-day to put that right in our fundamental law, because they have voted when they had no right to vote; therefore, they should be allowed the right to vote hereafter. Mr. LEACH. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question? Mr. LOVELL. Certainly. Mr. LEACH. Will the gentleman state in what respect the Indians of this State are not required to obey the laws of the State? Mr. LOVELL. I answer the gentle. man by saying that, within a year, an Indian was tried in the district court of the United States, for the eastern district of Michigan, for murder. He could not be tried by a court of the State of Michigan. Mr. CONGER. Does the gentleman refer to the murder committed on the military reservation? If so, then the crime came' under the jurisdiction of the United States, to which that reserve had been ceded by the State of Michigan. That was the only reason why it was tried in a United States court. Mr. LOVELL. I understand that the Indian resided on the Indian reserve. Mr. TURNER. I' would ask the gentleman if two Indians were not convicted in the State court in Genesee county for burglary? Mr. LOVELL. I understand that those Indians did not have any tribal relations. Mr. TURNER. That fact did not appear. Mr. LOVELL. It was not pleaded, at all events. -: Mr. LEACH. A:I1l the Indians of this State occupy precisely the same position in reference to their tribal relations. I know all that matter perfectly. I have read the treaties a hundred times. I know they are substantially the same, and that all the Indians stand upon the same ground. I may further state that Indians have been tried, in perhaps every one of the northern circuit courts of this State; and there is no question but what they are subject to the laws of the State, precisely as white men are. Mr. BLACKMAN. I will also inform the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVEIL,) that within the last year an Indian was tried in our circuit court, convicted, and sent to the State Prison. Mr.,LOVELL. I stand corrected by many voices on either side, as to the responsibility of Indians to our laws. I may be in error inl part; I think not, however, entirely. But I say this in regard to these Indians: they are wild, they have no particular home; they are clad in sheep-skins and goat-skins, and wander over the earth. To-day they 'nay be in Michigan, next week in Wisconsin, and the week after on the plains fighting our soldiers. Now, I say it is undesirable to encourage a population of this sort to remain in that condition, by holding up to them all the privileges without imposing upon them the responsibilities of civilized men. It tends to fraud, and to deprive civilized men of their rights, and especially in the northern counties. In my judgment, it must tend to create trouble between the frontier ICONSIRIT'UTIONAL CONVENTION. 264 Monday, July 22, 1867. DEBATES AD POCEEDI 265 settlers and these Indians, which may eventuate in disturbance, bloodshed 'and Indian war. Some may say that they are so few that no danger need be apprehended from them. But if the Indians in the State of Michigan number seventeen hundred males of full age, they are a body not to be despised. They are more numerous than were the Seminoles of Florida, who kept the government of the United States at bay for years. During the last general election, this Indian question came up in the Congressional district in which I reside. It was for weeks, if not for months, considered by many a question of doubt, as to what would be the political result in that district, solely - because it was not known who would get the Indian votes. It was calculated that there might be in this Congressional district of the State of Michigan, eight hundred Indian votes polled. Mr. LEACH. Whoever made any such calculation as that was very wide of the mark. The thing was utterly impossible, it never has happened, and it never can happen without a larger number of Indias than we now have. There never were over four hundred Indian votes polled there. Mr. LOVELL. I did not say that eight hundred Indian votes were polled, but it was calculated that there could be eight hundred Indian votes polled in that district. My authority for that statement is the Hon. John F. Driggs, representative from that district. Mr. LEiCH. I will say to the gentleman that there are 1,575 Indians in that part of the district in the' Lower Peninsula. But few-vote in the Upper Peninsula. Not more than 400 ever voted in that Congressional district. Mr. LOVELL. I did not say there were that many; but I said that the politicians said so. The number might have been exaggerated. But if there were only four of five hundred, I ask is it desirable to have a vote of this sort, capable of being cast in any Congressional district of this State? Today, and for several years past, the vote of that district has been all upon ones.ide, that is to say, whichever way the Indians chose to vote, the majority was still with the predominating .party. But a few years hence it may be that those Indians will hold the balance of power. It may be in their power to say who shall represent civilized men in Congress. I doubt not it is now in their power to say who shall represent civilized men in some of the counties in the Legislature of Michigan. Now, is it desirable and just and fair to the frontier settlements, that designing men may be allowed to go there and to Vol 2 —No. 34. control this Indian vote, and manipulate this Indian population, which for the good of the State it is desirable did not exist, buying their votes as it has been said by whisky, bribing their chiefs and controlling their votes in that way? Is it desirable that such means should be resorted to in order to gain official position, either in the Legislature of this State or in the Congress of the United States, upon the board of supervisors, or in any other place of official position and influence? I say it is not; I say we do not want to encourage these things. If these Indians desire to enjoy all the privileges of civilized men, then let them abandon their tribes and become civilized themselves. If they desire this, then let them become totally disconnected with tribal organizations. I apprehend that the government of the United States is ready at any moment to dissolve those relations. These Indians can come forward, just as immigrants from other countries do, declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, renounce their allegiance to their chiefs, and place on file in the archives of the State the oath of allegiance to this government, and become'citizens of this government. Why will we hold out inducements to them to remain in this anomalous condition, inducemenits which we grant to no other class of men under God's heaven? Let themh vote on the same terms as others vote. Let us grant them no special privileges. Mr. BIRNEY. I will read from the first section of the civil rights bill, which is a modification of that which has been alluded to: "All persons born in the United States, not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens.of the United States." Mr. CONGER. I see that those same words are in the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was submitted by the Congress of the United States to the several States, which amendment was ratified by this State during the last session of its Legislature. I wish to say a word or two upon that subject; because for a great many years I had occasion to know something of the relation of the Indians to the whites in this State. Twenty-two years ago I attended an Indian payment on behalf of the agent of the United States, and became familiiar with the mode of payment; and I have since that time, from time to time, renewed my acquaintance with the subject. My own opinion is that the tribal relation now existing in this State, is simply as anecessity to the Indians, to enable them to receive from the gen eral-government the annuities given to them, in lieu of other payment for the lands they have ceded to the government. There is no allegience on their part to chieftains, or to any high, supreme power among them. Their organization is at the most, simply patriarchial. The tribal relation in this State exists, as I understand it, simply by virtue of the rule of the United States, which keeps them in that position in order that treaties can be made with them, by which lands can be obtained from them, and annuities paid them for the lands. I think that is really the only tribal relation that exists among the Indians of this State; although I would not express any positive opinion upon that subject, while the gentleman from Grand Traverse is here, (Mr LEAcH,) who is so much more familiar with what the actual tribal relations are. Now, having spent months and months among the Indians in different parts of this State, I will say-thati I never found that the majority of them were drunken and ignorant. To a stranger they may appear ignorant. They speak our language, but they do not speak it freely, or to every one. They are a quiet race of people, and do not talk much with anybody. I had occasion, at one time, to employ Indians in many relations in the Upper Peninsula. I know that they were epployed in large numbers in the geological survey of the State. I know that those thus employed talk English as freely, for all the common purposes of life, as white men do. I know that they are industrious; I know that to-day, in the Upper Peninsula, and in other parts of the State, their habits of industry are as good as those of the average of white men. They do not exhibit all the appearances of civilization; but there is no place in this State where the Indians still dress in their blankets, and live solely in wigwams. There is no place in Michigan where the Indians reside that they do not have their housestheir log houses, and frame housesand live in them, generally with rooms and beds in them. In spring they go to the sugar bush, and make their silgar. They have their wigwams on the banks of the streams where they fish. But they have farms, and houses upon them, and they raise crops on their farms. I submit to the gentleman from Grand Traverse (Mr. LEAcH) whether there are any number of Indians in this State who do not have some settled home, instead of living as mere wanderers, dressed in their blankets as wild Indians, and living solely in wigwams? That may be so, ;but I have never seen it. July 22, 1867. DEBATES AND,PROCEEDINGS. 265 I 26 COSTTOA COY-I~ ody There is one consideration whicli wil induce me to vote for this report of the committee; that consideration is, tha itis right and just. There is but a smal number of Indians left in the whole of this great State of Michigan. These Indians were the original owners o the soil, and the occupants of the ter ritory. Before Columbus was known they resided here; before any of u' were born they owned and claimed this land. Now, the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) may say what he pleases about sympathy for the In dians. Hie may talk about different tribes of Indians, with different habit and customs in far off lands; he ma talk of those Indians murdering the citizens of this country; but that does not apply to this State. The Indians oJ the State of Michigan have been loyal to the United States from the begin ning. The Chippewa Indians of the State of Michigan, those who were per manent residents here at the time) were loyal to the United States during the war of 1812. It was.the Chippewa Indians from Canada who made in roads into our territory and fought ou people. And during the late rebellion I saw in the twenty-seventh regiment of Michigan, men of pure Indian blood and the descendants of Indians, who were as fine a lot of soldiers as ever wtnt forth from our State to fight our battles. Gentlemen who are familia with that twenty-seventh regiment know that the largest portion of two companies of that regiment were Indians, and that they made as good soldiers as ever went forth from Michigan, for all the duties to which they were assigned. They were stationed forweeks at Port Huron, while the regiment was being organized. I had occasion to see them in their drill and their conduct while there. I knew they went forth to defend their and our common country with the same zeal as their white brethren. The officers have informed me that they performed as effective service as other men in that regiment. These different bands in the State, are the remnants of great and powerful tribes. The Chippewas, Ottawas, Pottawattomies, and a few Hiurons scattered through the States, are the last lingering remnants of a people who once spread all over this land, and hunted in in its forests, and fished in its streams. They have never been, and are not to-day, in any sense disloyal to our people and government. They are not barbarians; they are. not savages; they conform as much to civilized habits and peculiarities, as the instincts of that people, whether civilized or not, will permit them to do. They cultivate the, soil, they fish, they e are our voyageurs. Before the sound of t the paddle of the steamboat was heard upon our waters, our whole intercourse e upon the upper lakes was carried on e in the canoes and the batteaux of these f voyageurs. But the sound of the steamboat has driven them - from , our lakes, its rushing wheels have s driven them from that employment, and now they must betake -themselves a to other means of employment. Stil t they are not injurious to our people. They love whisky and will drink it. But shall we condemn them because s politicians bribe them, by holding bey fore them temptations in violation of e the laws of the land, which forbid the giving of whisky to the Indians? Wly f condemn the Indian} for the fault of the'-white man? Why condemn the Indian for that which is the sole fault of the needy politician? Let us be - just. 3 These people are passing away. The sovereigns of the soil who have never been hostile to us, and are not hostile to us to-day, have dwindled down to r insignificant bands, scattered here and there throughout the State. And I, v who have lived among them, who have f been familiar with them more or less , for the most of my life, in this and ) other States, know' that if they are well'treated they will treat the Whites r well. I believe that extending the r right of suffrage to them will gradu,ally draw them within the influences ) of civilization and Christianity. I - knpw that the whole policy of:the gen - eral government in this State is to re move from them their tribal organiza tions; to give them individual patents for their own lands, instead of giving them reservations as tribes. It is so L ordered by the general government that patents shall be issued individur ally to these Indians, instead of giving I reservations to them as tribes. I be lieve the tribal organization which - now exists in this State is solely for . the purpose of continuing the annui ties paid to these different tribes of In dians for lands which they have ceded , to the general government. There is * no Indian that acknowledges a head chief to-day, except for the purpose of receiving annuities from the govern > ment. For no other purpose has any c Chief among the Indians any power. I may say here, for the first time in my life, the first time my attention was ever called to the-matter, I have heard it alleged here to-day that the Indian is not responsible to the laws of the State of Michigan, as the white man is. I had not before dreamed of any such proposition. Iknow that the laws of the United States extend over the Indians of Michigan as they do over r the whites; and, so far as I know, the laws of this State, in every single re spect, extend to the Indians exactly the same as to the whites. Our criminal laws coves every case of crime among the Indians themselves, as well as be tween the Indians and the whites. There is no distinction that I ever hheard of, or knew of. If an Indian , commits murder, he is tried in our courts, except'in such cases as that to I which the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOvELL,) alluded, where the crime was committed upon a military reserve. And in such'cases as those, if a white man commits a crime upon a military reserve, he would be tried in a United States court, because the State of Mich igan would have no jurisdiction over the locality. For all intents and pur poses, the Indians are subject to our Claws, the same as the whites, except perhaps in regard to taxation; in re gard to taxation, I will not speak so positively; but for every other purpose they are subject to our la_ws, and shall -they have no voice-in -making. those laws? There was a suit brought in the .U!nited States court, not long ago, for an assault and -battery com mitted by a white man at Port Hu ron.- It was the conductor of a street car, who put another white man off the car. It was a little case of assault and battery, and it was tried in the United States court. Why? Because the street railway runs from Port Huron to the military reserve; andthe assault -was committed in the military reserve, and the case could not be broughtfor trial inmour courts. I think the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. LOWELL) will fin d no case where the Indian is subject to any different rules, or any different laws from those to which white men are subject. Then why should they not be allowed -to take part in making those laws? If some of them are ignorant and wild, are not many whites also ignorant and wild-? What will the gentleman say to our trappers, who hunt around the heads of our streams in the remote wilderness in the spring and fall, who hunt in the forests in the winter, and who hardly come out where there is any civilization except to sell their'furs, and to trade for the few things they may want? Shall they be excluded: as not~ coming within the limits of civilization? They are fur -ther removed from the most of the whites of this-State than one-half the Indians are. Let us be just to these fast: fading bands of Iidians. Let us at least give them some inducement to become citi zens; let us give them what encourage ment we can to become more and more I-CONSTITUTIONAT,- CONVENTION. '-M-oilday, 266 6 I I July 22, 1867. DE13ATE AD PROCEEDINGS. 267 civilized, by allowing them to mingle more and more in, the exercise of the rights of civilized men. Let us induce them thus to come within the influence of civilization, and more than all that, within the influence of Christianity. I believe that this provision reported by the committee on elections is eminently right and just; I shall vote for it most cheerfully and most heartily. Even if there be some occasions where rights may be endangered by this provision, they will be subject to the same corrections that other innovations of rights are. I hope that this race that is passing away; will become incorporated not only in the body politic-of this State, but that in their habits, customs and religious belief, they will become one and indivisible with the people-of the State of Michigan, before this Constitution, which we are now malking, shall have passed away. Mr. PRINGLE. So far as my recollection goes, there has been but one contest arisen in our legislative bodies under this provision of the Constitution of 1850, in regard to,Indian votes. In 1861, there was a contest in the House of Representatives, in which Mr. Henry Raymond contested a seat with Mr. Appleton Stevens. At that time there was an investigation, and I have before me the reports of the committee on elections of the'House of Representatives of this State, with some of the testimony taken at that time. Among the witnesses was Benjamin F. Partridge, who testified with regard to some of the.. Indians who voted in the election in question. The report goes on to say that "Rev. George Bradley testifies before the committee in person, that from: fifteen years association with them as a Missionary preach er, he is acquainted with every Indian named by Mr. Partridge, and knows by personal ob servation that Daniel Hall is a gentleman and a scholar, aud that all the others are fully and in every way his equal. He says further, that all these and many others, in the town of Arenac, live in com furtable houses, furnished with tables and chairs, and things to eat, as good as many white folks, and bake good bread in ovens; that a good many of them can write a-better hand than he had seen any gentleman, mem ber of the Legislature, perform; that some of them have irame houses; the identical Kaba lives at Passaigoning, in the town of Arenac, in a good frame house, with a carpeted sitting room in it; he says it is a good place to stay; and that at the same place there are twelve to fifteen log houses, hewn down smooth and shingled, with glass windows and clap boarded gable-ends. Some' of them, he adds, are not equal to this description, and some live in camps and tents; but even at River O'Gray, the least improved neighborhood in all Arenac, the most of them can speak English well, up to middle age. He thinks that they have had schools kept some part of the time every year since 1846, or 1847; and they also keep a good many cows and young cattle.'Baldwin and Boverrassa told Mr. Bradley that they had both been warned out to work their poll and property highway tax, and had worked it out, a thing that no white man that we know- or ce[n hear of, has done in the town of Arenac.' * * * * * * Rev. W. H. Brockway knows by name, as -he testifies before the committee in person, ten of the Indians named by Mr. Partridge, and cordially endorses Mr. Bradley's statements, adding that Baldwin is a very civilized man,'educated at Berea, in Ohio, and agood :speaker and preacher." This wts in regard to the Indians who voted in- the township of Arenac, which I think must have been sufficiently wild, as it was stater in the evidence, that-that township consisted at .the time of sixteen surveyed townships of the United States. There were .forty-one Indian voters.. If they could have been excluded Mr. Raymond would have been admitted to the seat; if not, Mr. Stevens would retain his seat. There was a question at that time about the tribal organization. The opinion of attorney general Upton was cited in one of the reports, as having been put in evidence, but it was withdrawn by the contestant as unfavorable to his claim. The purport of the opinion was that no such things as tribes existed, except in connection with the treaties; that they were not voters simply be cause they did not belong to tribes, but they must be civlized in order to be voters. The question was in re gard to their civilization at that time. ..The sitting member was confirmed in his seat upon the deliberate judgment of that House, that those Indians were in fact civilized. I bring this case to the attention of the committee, because I think that the Indians in the town ship of Arenaa, in Bay county, a wild and uncultivated region in large part, are not an unfair example of what is now the case-with the Indians in most parts of our Peninsula, if not indeed throughout the entire Peninsula. Mr. CHAPIN. I move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT,haVing resumed the chair,... Mr. MORTON reported that- the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled ", Elections;" had made some progressI therein, and had directed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. SHE/IARER. I ask indefinite leave of, absence for myself after to.day, on account of sickness in my fam ily.. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. TURNER. e I move that the Convention now take a recess until three o'clock. The motion was agreed to; and an cordingly, (at half-past twelve o'clock p.m.,) the Convention took a recess until three o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at three o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. . ELECTIONS. Mr.,P. D. WARNER. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order.. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr,. MoRTON. in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Elections." QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS. The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose this forenoon, they had under consideration section one of this article, amended as follows:. "In all elections, every person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided: in this State three months, and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote, thirty days next preceding an election, belonging to either of the following classes, shall be an elector and entitled, to vote: First. Every 'male citizen of the United States; Second. Every male inhabitant of this State, who shall have resided in the United States two years and six months, and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, pursuant to the laws thereof, six months preceding an election; Thzrd.. Every male inhabitant residing in this State on the twenty-fourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five; Fourth. All male Indians, na tives of the United States." The gentleman from Isabella, (eIr. ESTEE,) moved to amend the last clause of this section by inserting the word "civilized," before the word "male," and also by adding to the clause the words, "and not members of any tribe." The gentleman from Newaygo, (Mr. UTLEY,) moved to amend the amend ment by adding the.words, "and not receiving:an annuity from the same." Upon. examining the amendment of the gentleman from Newaygo,. it does not seem to the Chair that it is prop erly an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Isabella. There. fore, with the consent of the mover, it will be held in abeyance until the other amendment has been acted upon. m Mr. UTLEY. I have no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The question then is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Isabella. - Mr. LEACH. I do not wish to detain the committee, and will do so but a very few moments. But I feel it somewhat incumbent upon. me to see that this question is fairly presented to the con DE13A TES, -AND'PROCEEDINOS.. Jtily 22, 1867. -267 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. sideration of members. I desire that it shall be treated as a matter of fact, and not as a matter of fiction or imagi nation, as was done by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) this morn ing; because it is a practical question with which we have to deal. I desire that justice shall be done to the In dians. It is perhaps well known to every member of this committee that I was for four years the agent of the Indians in this State. I have visited them in their houses, and I have yet to see the bust Indian clothed in sheep-skins or goat-skins, as the gentleman from Genesee, (r. LOVELL,) described them. It is a very uncommon thing to see them wearing blankets. They dress like white men, and live, to a great extent, like white men; many of them, it is true, like the poorer classes of white men. They have houses, many of which are very comfortable. By referring to the report for 1864, I find that the Ottawas and Chippe was, numbering about 5,000, had 136 frame houses, and 382 log houses, making over 500 very comfortable houses, which that portion of the In dians in this State then had. They raised in that year 1,756 bushels of wheat, 5,414 bushels of oats, 21,710 bushels of corn, 59,630 bushels of potatoes, and manufactured 176,361 pounds of sugar. I might go on with other quotations to show that the Otta was and Chippewas of Michigan are not the poor vagabonds that some gentlemen have endeavored here to represent them to be..I find, too, that their individual property, aside from the lands granted them by the government, amounted by estimate to $226691. And so I might go on and show in many other respects that these Indians have very comfortable homes. The extract which was read by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRIN-GLE,)this morning, from the report made by a committee of the House of Representatives of our Legislature, I have no doubt is entirely correct. I am well acquainted with the individuals there referred to. I have more than once spent the night in the houses of the Indians there named; and I would say that I fax~d more comfortably there, and found better provision made for all the wants of man, than I have frequently fount among the poorer classes of whites. And so it will be found in many other cases among the Indians of this State. The gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) saw fit this morning, to call the attention of-the committee-and with the evident intention of prejudicing the committee, though I am confident he could not succeed in that-to the fact that an Indian war is now rag- ing on our borders. That has nothing to do with this matter; we have wars among white men sometimes; we had one in the South not long since, and thousands of our men were butchered by the rebels there. But that is no reason for denying them all the rights and privileges of citizens, if they will now act as they ought, be obedient to the laws, and conduct themselves as all good citizens should. During the time I was Indian agent, there'were some thirty schools main tained among these Indians by the government. A large majority of those schools were taught by ladies. During my administration of Indian affairs, there could not have been less than twenty ladies teaching among the In dians of this State. They were far away from the whites, yet while those twenty ladies were there teaching the Indians, no insult or indignity was ever offered to one of them.,And I defy any gentleman to show that an insult was ever offered to any lady teacher during the ten years the schools were maintained by the government. Indians occasionally became intoxica ted, but they have too much respect for the ladies teaching among them ever to offer an insult. I mention these facts, because if those ladies had been so situated among the poorer and more ignorant classes of the whites, it is doubtful if they could have -lived among them for ten long years without insult or injury. I tell you that I do not know of a class of people in the State who are generally more orderly than the In dians are, or who more cheerfully obey the laws, or who are more fearful of disobeying the laws than the Indians among us are. You have only to say "jail" to an Indian, to frighten him into obedience at any time. Gentlemen here have referred to the fact that whisky is sometimes used to influence the Indians at elections. The gentlemtn from Newaygo (Mr. UTLEY) made that reference; I grant that it is true; I grant that that is sometimes done. I say it is a disgrace to the Indians that they can be thus influenced. But it is a much greater disgrace to those white men who are engaged in doing it. If we are to disfranchise the Indian because he is sometimes influenced by liquor to vote differently from what he would otherwise do, ought we not also to disfranchise the white man who gives the liquor to him? If we disfranchise the Indian because he gets intoxicated; shall we not at the same time, to be just and fair, disfranchise a white man who is so influenced and led astray? I am perfectly willing a rule shall be made, no matter how strong, so far as intelligence and sobriety and character are Concerned; only let it apply to all classes alike. There is one other idea which I wish to suggest to this committee of. the whole, and that is, we desire to im prove the condition of the Indians among us; to make them better, more intelligent, wiser and more worthy citizens. For seventeen years they have enjoyed the privilege of voting. If we now rob them of that privilege, and say that henceforth they shall not enjoy it, it will go very far to make them discouraged. Knowing this ques tion would come up, I wrote a letter some time ago to the present Indian agent, asking his opinion about this matter. I will say that he is better acquainted with the Indians in this State, than any other man in the State; he- has been acquainted with the Indian population of this State for seventeen or eighteen years. He knows more about the Indians than any other man in the State. He-writes me that he would consider it a very grave misfortune, if this Convention should deprive the Indians of the right of voting. He says that had they not been permitted to vote heretofore, and it was now an original question, it would present itself in a very different aspect, and that he might think it bet ter not to extend to them all the elect ive franchise. But he says that as they have enjoyed it for so long a time, if it is taken from them now, they will become discouraged and disheartened, and would not make that effort for improvement which they would other wise make. I have no feeling in this matter. I know the Indians well; I know they are not altogether the noble race of red men that we used to read about in the books and romances of our youthful days. Intercourse with the Indians disperses all those poetical ideas in regard to them. WVe find them in many instances to be poor and ignorant. Still we find them to be capable of improvement. I believe it would be wrong in us to throw any discouragement in their way. I think it is uncalled for and iunnecessary. I think no one has suffered by the exercise of this right by the Indians, and I think no one will suffer by allowing them to continue the exercise of a privilege they have heretofore enjoyed. If I thought the white people of this State were to be overpowered by the Indians-the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NoRRIs,) seems to think there is same danger of tha-I would go for limiting them, for keeping them in close quarters. But we all know that seven or eight thousand Indians can do no harm, especially I Mond'ay, 268 July 22, 1867. DEBATES AD PRO()EEDIGS. 269 when they are amongthe most orderly citizens we have. Mr. BIRNEY. Upon further examination of this matter, I shall be per-' fectly satisfied with this section, if this amendment shall be voted down, and this clause is stricken out altogether. They will stand then alike throughout the United States, and all those liable to taxation will have the right to vote. That will put all upon an equal footing, and leave the section without any distinction in regard to color or class, and I think will prove entirely satisfactory. I suppose nilo one in this Convention would abridge this right at all, or hesitate to give them all they required. Mr. LEACH. Does the gentleman say that, if we strike out this clause, then the Indians will be put upon the same footing with the white man? Mr. BIRNEY. I understand so. Mr. LEACH. If I understood that to be the fact, then I would have no objection to it. Mr. BIRNEY-. The civil rights bill makes all persons born in the United States, not subject to any foreign power, and excluding Indians not taxed, citizens of the United States. We might just as well discriminate in regard to colored people, by putting in here a clause in regard to them, under the denomination by which they are generally known, as to put in a discrimination in favor of Indians. If none of these Indians are liable to taxation, then they cannot claim that any wrong has been done them by this arrangement. They will have the same right in this State, that they have in any other State; I hope this last clause will be stricken out. Mr. LOVELL. In the course of the remarks I took occasion to make to the committee of the whole tkis morning, I spoke against this last clause, as being, in my judgment, wrong in principle. I took occasion also, to make some remarks in regard to the character of the Indians. In doing that, I seem to have stirred the friends of "the poor ITdian," to a depth that I could not have conceived it possible to do before I spoke. Now, I still claim that the substance of what I then said, was and is correct. In regard to what I said about the legal status of the Indians, I still claim that when connected with their tribes, and in the full enjoyment of their tribal relations, it has been customary for the United States Government to treat with them, to allow them the management of their own affairs, and to guard them from interference by the laws of the State within whose borders is the territory reserved to them. I still claimi it to be so, although I may have carried the proposition too far this morning, in its, application to particular cases. I am now inclined to think I did. Now, I know something about these Indians. I have no particular acquaintance with the Ottawas and Chippewas, as such. - I have never camped among them; I have never seen them clad in sheep skins, nor goat skins, nor fox skins, nor naked. I presume they do not dress in sheep skins, or in goat skins. But I suppose that the gentleman who represents in part a constituency of that sort, will admit that many of them do dress in the skins of wild beasts a certain part of the year. Mr. LEACH. Not at all. Mr. LOVELL. The gentleman has the advantage of me, for he has been among them, and I have not. But I do know that tribes of Indians in this country who have the reputation of being far more civilized than are the Indians in our State, do-thus dress and do have these wild habits; I allude to the Cherokees and the Choctaws. I apprehend that the Indian the country through has the same character; he is moody, sullen, revengeful, treacherous, indisposed to assume the rites of civilized life and deportment, unwilling to- yield to its restraints, preferring rather to indulge in his own native ferocity, to die an Indian rather than a civilized man. Such is the character of the Indian, and history so portrays it, whatever he may be in the romances of Cooper and of others. I know something oi the Indian character, for my own kindred have been missionaries and'teachers among them; my own sisters have been teachers among them for a longer time than the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH,) has had any official connection with them. I say, then, that I speak somewhat knowingly upon this subject; having the means of knowing what the I:ndian character is, I insist that there is nothing about them so noble, generous and admirable, that we should invite them, while remaining in this anomalous condition, to take part with us in making the laws that are to govern us. During the recess, I had the gratification of having my attention called to the fact that in the excitement of debate I compared these male "Indians" with male "white men." I stand by that comparison still. Made in the heat of debate, I affirm in cool reason that it is a proper comparison. I ask gentlemen upon this floor, when the motion to strike out the word "male" Comes up, when it is proposed to allow your mothers, sisters, wives-and daughters, who have been born and brought up in civilized society, who have read your political IF papers, who have been educated in the doctrines of freedom and right, who understand the relations of property, who are educated, intelligent and refined, to have some voice in the control of your -State affairs-when that question comes up here, what position are you going to take? Are you going to say that these vagabonds-I repeat it again, they are vagabonds, two-thirds of them-are you going to say that these Indians, roaming through the marshes of the north, may come into one of your.frontier towns, and after staying there ten days, be permitted to take part in the regulation of the affairs of that township or county,' and assist in sending a representative to one of these legislative halls? Will you say that, and then turn around to these other persons, born and brought up in civilized life, understanding the language and laws of our people, and the customs of our people, who have rights to protect that are worth protecting-will you turn around to-them and say they shall not have this privilege? — We should be somewhat consistent. For those who are in favor of universal suffrage, I cannot but say -that in this they are pressing the point too far in their zeal. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CouGER,) did me the honor to say that I was - mistaken in saying there were any tribal relations among the Indians in the State of Michigan. I wonder why the gentleman from St. Clair, (or. CONGER,) the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH,) and others should object to putting a clause into this Constitution, saying that Indians who are members of any tribe, shall not be allowed to vote, if there are no tribal relations existing in Michigan. I grant that the treaty of 1865 destroyed the tribal relations of the Ottawas and Chippewas But there are other Indians in the Upper Peninsula who have tribal relations, and there are chiefs of those tribes to whom they owe allegiance. I will cite a passage in a treaty under date of January 29, 1855. It is a treaty negotiated by Henrye C. Gilbert and David B. Harriman, commissioners on the part of the United States with the Chippewa Indians of Lake Superior and the Mississippi,. by their chiefs and head men. I find in that treaty, that the United States pay them annuities as tribes; that the Indians stipulate that the chiefs shallihave certain damages due them. Article eight of that treaty is as follows: —"It is agreed between the Chippewas of Lake Superior"-those are our Indians, I apprehend. Mr. LEACH. That treaty relates not only to- th Indians in this State, . but to Indians in Minnesota and Wis DEBATES'AND PROCEEDINGS. July 22, 1867. 2- COSIUTOA OO VE TIi. Mon ay consin. There are in this State, subjeot tq that treaty, about one thousand Indians living i'm the county of Houghton, on Keweenaw bay. All the.other Indians referred to in that treaty live in other States; not one-quarter of the Indians who took part in that treaty live in this State.. Mr. LOVELL. For the purpose of my argument it is sufficient to show that the gentleman from St.- Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) was mistaken when he said there were no tribal relations among Indians in this State. I read to show that the chiefs in that tribe have authority: "ARTICLE 8. It is agreed, between the Chippewas, of Lake Superior, and the Chippewas of the Mississippi, that the former shall be entitled to two-thirds, and the latter to one-third of all benefits to be derived from former treaties existing prior to the sear 1847." "ARTICLE 9. The United States agree that an examination shall be made, and all sums -that may be found equitably due to the Indians, for arrearages of annuity or other things, under theprovisions of former treaties, shall be paid as the Cliefs may direct." Yet- these chiefs are said to have no authority among the Indians, of whom there are said to be but a thousand. Very well; if there are a thousand men in our. State who defy our cus — toms, who will not take upon them our habits of life, but who continue to roam as savages through the forests, shall they be invited to help make our laws? I say it is unjust in principle, that in my judgment it will be productive-of serious injury. As I have said, I have but —little knowledge of the personal habits of these Indians. I think I am not mistaken in saying that when the Minnesota difficulty occurred, and the Mississippi Chippewas made their attack upon the white settlements there, it' was believed that some of these Indians went from our State to help make those attacks. Mr. LEACH. Allow me to correct the gentleman once more. I wish the gentleman would confine himself to facts. It is entirely an erroneous idea that a single Indian went from the State of Michigan to help make those attacks on: the whites in; Minnesota.'- I was Indian agent at that time, and I know that that: charge was not true. 5Mr. LOVELL. I accept the correction; the reports we- received at that time were doubtless false, and the gen*tleman is correct. I will not attempt to controvert his statement. But that will not make the. Indians civilized or intelligent. -Do they attend our political -meetings, or understand our language, or take- our political papers, or understand the meaning Of -a line of this very Constitution which you propose to frame so as to give them the right to vote?. I would: go with the gentleman from Grana Traverse, (Mr. ILEAeH,) if I regarded the idea as.-feasible in this State, to impose,the qualifi-: cation of intelligence for the exercise of the-elective franchise. But I take: it-it would be grossly wrong, in the condi-f tion of affairs that now exist in-this State, to make an immediate application of any such rule. I do not know when the time will, come when you could have in this State a qualification of intelligence for voting, but I hope to see sit within my day. But at the present time I am utterly opposed to extending the right of the elective franchise to an additional class of persons, who are ignorant, degraded, besotted, beastly, savage. To-day's. paper tells us of the massacre of our soldiers near Fort Wallace by the brothers. of these men. That thing is a daily occurrence. Such is the Indiamcharacter. I say, let them forsake their savage habits, become civilized, forsake their roaming ways of life, and settle down like men who propose to enjoy civilization. And then let them as citizens,. not as Indiahs, negroes, mestizoes, or as alny particular class, but as citizens, enjoy the elective franchise. Mr. SHEARER. In relation to thisword "civilized," I.have something-to say..Civilization is -a subject that-it isalmost impossible -to designate or establish in reference to the elective franchise. We believe in civilization. How will gentlemen set the stake so as to let us know what civilization is, or how far it shall extend, or how much it may be diminished? I hold that in the abstract, the aborigines of America.ae the rightful possessors of all this beautiful land, from the Atlantic to the'Pacific. But they are now passing away; they are on their way to the setting sun, and in'a short time.they will -be come extinct as the aborigines of the United States. Now, if we can.do anything in relation to civilizing them, by giving them the elective franchise, then let us do it. I am favorable-to that~class of men. I believe after th'ey have been driven from their.hunting grounds, and from the bones of:the.'e -fathers to the distant setting sun, it is time for us to pause and consider whether we should deprive-them of the last particle of their liberties. I believe that liberty should be granted to all. "Liberty to all?" is the great doctrine that underlies the: foun dation of our government. There may be some isolated cases where savage barbarity has exercised itself in'this country. It is so:with all people;- we find barbarity intermixed- in. al societies, among all races more or less. But as the Wise Man said, "offenes will come, but woenunto them-by whbm they come." I -have been acquainted with the Indian tribes- in the United States, especially in New York, in the Oneida settlement. I believe that the Oneida settlement in the State of New York fifty years ago, when I was- acquainted with.them, -were as much civilized as the white —people around them. I have -attended their places of religious worship; there was there all thatsolemnity which is necessary to raise the mortal mind to the mansions of the blest. Those Indians in it manifested all that solemnity and reverential awe for the divine law that was manifested by any white people I ever saw. They had good farms; to be sure, the Indian has his habits; he is nomadic and wandering, but he is not to blame for that; it is natural- for him. It was natural with them when we found them atPlymouth Rock and at Jamestown,' in Virginia.- They are not to blame for their wandering habits of life. I have not only been acquainted .with the Indians in the State of New York, but I have been- acquaintedd with them in th-is State. I came into this State when they were scattered over almost the entire State. Their little :cabins. stood trembling in the-breeze ii places where they have now disap;peared. They had their bear skins, upon which they invited the weary traveler to rest. They had their corn with which to feed the wanderer through this peninsula, at that early day. I.believe we should be liberal. There -is no such fear as the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,), pretends, that the -Indians will ever overrun this country, and destroy the white inhabitants. I believe the offenses have cojne from the whites instead of from the Indians. Suppose another nation far superiorto us should come here to Lthe Unite -.States, take our lands, drive us from our hunting grounds, our fieds,- our agricultural pursuits, and-all- our places of business. Let them undertake to do that, and would we; not rise in resistance against them? [Ithik we would-. I' do not iwish to wander from this question; nor do I wish to be hasty in -making up my mind -how I shall vote upon this question. I am already prepared to vote whenever- the question arises. I believe -i giving the poor indian all the-liberty that rightfully belongs to that race of men. I was in favor'of-putting down the rebellion, and giving the African race all the liberty -they wanted, -and then send them out, as we send out our young men, of twenty-one years-of age,. and let them paddle their own canoes. : That was my doctrine on the slavery question. I am willi'ngto let the Afri 270 CONSTITUTIONAT$ CONVENTION. Monday, Al v I 1867. -; 1.' O D.1. = can come up and- show what-he can do for himself; if he has the facUlt todb anything, let him have that-:pri.viege. And unless the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) convinces me of some certain rule by which to establish this test of civilization, I cannot Vote for this proposition. I think t{ie gentleman from Grand Traverse, ('. LEACH,) has shown the whole'thing up very plainly. I shall go wit-h that gentleman on this question when the time comes to vote. Above all; things let us render equal justice to all. This is a great doctrine; it is the; funi damental principle which should be put in a constitution like ours; it is a fundamental principle which we should establish. It is the land-mark estblished by our fathers in the — begining'g of this great republic. I wish to frow the paths of our ancestors. I always calculate to govern my action by thei principles established by those immortal men, who gave us liberty over- thisl wide country. We must learn the principles which underlie the organization of our government,. Let them be a lamp to our feet and: a light-:-to our path; in no degree shouiild we- depart from them under any circum-: stances whatever. Let our Constit~tion be liberal; let it hold- d6ut- Iberail principles, and a liberal law for the::flture government of this -State; let: us: establish those principles which will be equal, fair and just. These are my views upon this subject. M%r. BIRNEY. In addition to what II said when I was up before, I desire to suggest. another consideration. It will be remembered that the: Thirty-ninth Congress submitted tto'the -.several States an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That amendment, which is known as article XIV -of the amendments to the Gonstitution of the United States- com mences with this sentence: "All persons born or -naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside." Gentlemen will see that that contains no distinction in regard to race; there is no reference-to the Indian there. It continues: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuni ties of citizens-of the United States-; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protectioneot the laws." That amendment has already been ratified by many States. ~In what -is known as the reconstruction act, it is provided,-as a condition of the read mission of the Southern::States, that they -shall -ratify this amend ment of: the Constitution by- a vote of all those declared to be citi zens, and who have the right to participate in the ratification of this article. No Southern State can reenter the- Union unless it' -first ratifies this -amendment. Having ratified it, and -complied with the other conditions named in the reconstruction act, they will again become members of the ;Union. A-nd when they shall have ratified it,- there will be a sufficient number, with the Noithern States which have already ratified it, to ma-ke this amendment the law of the land. It will: thenlbe the law for all the States, Congress, also, at the same session, en-acted lawI applying this same provision-to all the -Territories of the United States; so that it will be universal all over the country. That provision is as 'follows: " From and after the passage of this act, there shall be no.denial of the: elective fran chise in any territory of the United States, now or hereafter to be: organized, to any citizen thereof -on. account of race, or color, or -previous condition of servitude." -I submit to this committee that there is no necessity for our discussing here the peculiarities of this or that tribe of Indians. Why can we not content. ourselves with the general provision which will prevail over the entire country, and leave the matter there? When this amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall have been ratified bya a sufficient number to make it the law of the land, these In dians will be' citizens. And it seems to me they have the right to vote any how. - - M;r. PRINGLE. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question? Mr. BIRNEY. Certainly. Mr. PRINGLE. I would ask the gentleman whether he considers an Indiian a citizen of the United States to-day? -.Mr. BIRNEY. When this amend ment to the Constitution of the United States shall have been ratified, I think he will be. - Mr. PRINGLE. Then he would be a citizen of the United States o~nly from the time of' the ratification of the amendment? ~Mr. BIR:NEY. I spoke of it in that light. When this amendment becomes the law of the land by ratification of three-fourths of the States, it will operate over the entire colintry. Mr. PRINGLE. If the Indian is not now a citizen of the United States, would not the Constitution we may form here necesSarily be construed ac cording to the meaning of the word: .,'citizen," at the time our Constitu tion:shall be adopted? Hence, if this Constitution' should be adopted'before -the ratification of that -amendment to ule- Cno'sttUtion of the- United States, would it not be so construed as to ex elude Indians,'because they were not citizens at- -the time.'of: the adoption of our Consltitution? Mr. BIRNEY. The only exclusion which I can see at all, would- be under the provisions of the act of Congress, which defines a citizen to-be oneborn in the United States, or duly: naturalized, except Indians not, taxed.: If there are Indians not taxed-, and-'not liable-to taxation, then possibly they might be excluded until the:ratification of the amendment to: the Constitution of the- United States. - But it- seems to me that would be the only qualification that would impair their right-to -vote in any degree. - That can operate fo so small an extent that it seems to me it is not; an evil which- should deter. us at all from adopting a provision. which will bring our action in accord with that of the general government. It seems to me -that none of the Consti tutions of the several States, under this general pronision of the amend ment to the Constitution of the United States, need have any designation in regard to this or that class- of persons on account-:of race. I trust we will not occupy a longer time in disCussing the-peculiarities of this race. Whether they are peculiar, or have this or that habit and custom, they will become electors any way under the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, when it shall become a — law. Mr. LEACH. I desiie to make one remark in reply to the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BIRNEY.) I have: no- doubt that if the amendment to the Constituti'on of-'the United States now pending should prevail, it would accomplish all that we desire. But as it -has not yet been'ratified, and it is uncertain how long it will be before it becomes the law of the land, I would prefer that this clause reported by the committee on elections should remain. It- will only anticipate a little what the law will be by-and-by, when the amend ment to the Constitution of the United States shall have been-ratified. Mr. NORRIS. I had not'intended to say anything upon this:subject; in fact, I have, as yet, hardly obtained my own consent. I did not think I could be provoked to take part in any discussion, in committee of the whole, or in Convention, for the remaining portion of the session of the Conven tion. I had thought so for two reasons; first, because I cannot expect to exer cise a/ny influence on the votes of this Convention; and, secondly, because it -seems to be almnost unnecessary that we should, go directly over the -same subject again in Convention, where any remarks which members may make wil have more influence, and': be. more direct, and to the point. .271 DEBATES, IAND,'PRO;CEEDINGS-.' July 22, 1867. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Yet I look upon the proposition re ported by the committee on elections, as so,-utterly monstrous, so preposter ous, if I may be allowed to use the expression, that I am unwilling to re main silent, and by a simple vote in the negative, record my protest against such:,a provision. This is not a ques tion of " gushing sympathies" or " gen tle and angelic natures" at all; those ",gushing sympathies" are confined to the petitioners, the nine hundred and fifty-three wives and sisters of the Detroit drunkards, whose petition was so ably presented by the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) the'other day. This is a question of political rights and political wrongs; it is a question not of interest to the public in general, but of interest to four or five gentlemen on this floor. Why the committee on elections, the chairman of which (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH) has expressed such a generous sympathy, such a warm hearted sympathy, for the females of this State, that he could embrace them all, and draw them to his great heart, has seen fit to ignore the petitions of over five thousand citizens of this —State for female suffrage, and to treat them with utter silence and contempt, while at the same time he has seen fit to ask that suffrage. should be granted to the wild savage Indian, I cannot understand. He asks that suffrage shall be granted, not only to the Indians of this State, but to the Indians of the United States; for I take it, if this clause of the Constitution shall pass, Indians would be colonized in this State from Wisconsin and Minnesota, at any time when designing politicians may desire to control elections in the Northern Peninsula. The Indians of Minnesota or Wisconsin, adjoining our northern frontier, can be colonized, and after a residence of three months in the State, and of ten days or thirty days, as we'may adopt, in the township, they will become, as natives of the United States, entitled to all the privileges which this Constitution can confer upon them. Now, I apprehend that we are not yet ready to make such an inroad upon all the principles and considerations which ordinarily govern men in these matters. If there was a single reason which- could be given why these Indians should become voters, why they should be put, not simply upon a political equality with us, but upon a social equality, then I might understand the necessity for such a provision. This does not simply give them the right to vote; that right draws after it all social privileges. These people are ignorant and barbarous, and why should they be invited to exercise this great privilege, I cannot see. If the commit tee on elections see fit to disregard or ignore the rights of the white females of this State, who are our peers in in tellect and education, and whom the laws of this country have been for the last half century tending to emancipate from the disabilities under which they have labored, until in this State they stand as the peers of men, in regard to property; if the committee on elections intend to cast a direct insult upon the white females of the State, they could' not do it better than by providing that the polygamous Indians of this State should be entitled to the right of suf friage, while that right is denied to our own mothers, sisters and wives. These Indians live in open polygamy; it is known to all that they do so. I say that they are not worthy in any view, of this great boon. Mr. LEACH. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. NORRIS. With pleasure. Mr. LEACH. I would ask the gentlemahn whether he has not known white men to live in the sane way? Mr. NORRIS. Yes, sir; but not in this State. Mr. LEACH. Would you disfranchise them for that? Mr. NORRIS. I would, and I would go further; I would endeavor to exterminate what has been called that other "twin relic of barbarism." I say the Indians are unworthy to receive this right of suffrage. There are times, I admit, when if the simple political right of suffrage could be conceded, it might be necessary to concede it. But you can not stop there. The very moment you concede to these'indians political equality, you concede to them also social equality. I know it is very frequently said, with regard to the negro, that that consideration is of no importance, that he will never invade your rights or mine. But the idea does not strike the working classes in that way; they know and feel that they will invade their rights. And so it will be with the Indians. In the cycle of time we have "swung round the circle," so that one of the parties, which once was radical on suffrage, is now conservative. In the early history of the country it was supposed to be necessary to extend the right of suffrage because we wanted to invite foreign capital to settle in this country; we wanted to open up our railroads and build our mills, and develop the resources of our country. But we have reached the top of the wheel in that respect, and are now going down on the other side,. at an accelerated rate of speed; and the more we degrade and dilute this matter of suffrage, the more, we dilute all our other institutions. I speak particularly in regard tothese Indians, because it is known that they are not qualified to be worthy citizens of this State. For myself, I am willing hereafter to limit the right to vote to those who can read and write, and to go no further. I am wil ling to limit it in that direction, simply because the intelligent exercise of the right of suffrage is to be the saving element of our institutions hereafter. Diluted, ignorant suffrage will be the bane of our institutions. These iden tical ignorant Indians which you have to-day, you will have to-morrow; and the party in power will control the Indian vote. The gentleman from Newaygo, (llr. UTLEY,) has told you how this is done. He has told you that these Indians have been colonized in the township of Fremont, and have carried the elections in that township. They are mere chattels in the market, who can be bought right and left, and delivered according to order. An hon orable congressman has said that in his district alone there were ight hundred Indians who voted. -..-. Mr. LEACH. I- must be allowed to correct the gentleman; I made the same correction this morning. There are only about fifteen hundred Indians in that part of the Lower Peninsula, and there have never been overfour hundred Indian votes polled in the district to which the gentleman refers. Kr. NORRIS. I accept the correction of the gentleman, that there are only fifteen hundred Indians in that congressional district. But these Indians can be colonized there; they can be got and delivered there like so many cattle in the market. It may be all right to-day with the controlling party; but to-morrow it may be all wrong with them. I agree with the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) that the Indian race, from the time the white race first put their feet upon these shores, have been treated as no other race has ever been treated. I think the Indian has suffered greater wrongs and outrages than the negro ever did. In the last day, when the sins of nations shall be summed up, the chief sin of this nation will be the wrong done the red man. But that is the poetical side of this question. While I am willing to go with the gentleman from St. Clair so far as is necessary to do justice to them, we will part when I am asked to go beyond that. If it is just to give the Indian'the right to vote, and to be the social equal of myself, then I will be unjust. I am willing as he shall receive annuities from the government, that his, reserved land shall not be molested; that he shall have all the enjoyment and protection that he can have, and which he can ob 272 Molida'y, Jul 2- 187 DEAE:~ RCEDNS tain from the government. But I am not willing to take him by the hand, and raise him up, and make him my political and social equal, by giving him the right to vote. Nor does he desire it; he does not wish it. He is to-day but a chattel for purchase; he cannot intelligently exercise the light of suffrage. No gentleman will rise on this floor to-day, and state that there is a single well educated Indian in the State, who can talk intelligently on these questions. Mr. LEACH. I will rise and'say that there are more than one in this State who are capable of coming into this hall and malking a speech that would do credit to gentlemen here. MIr. NORRIS. How many? Mr. LEACH. I cannot tell how many. Mr. NORRIS. It is possible that there are educated Indians who are qualified for that; but they are not connected with tribal organizations. Mr. LEACH. They are connected with tribal organizations just as much as any other Indians in the State are. Mr. NORRIS. Very well, admit that; but this solitary exception only strengthens the rule. There are eight or nine thousand Indians in this State, and the gentleman is willing to avouch that there are one or two who are able to read the English language. What are our rights worth, if they are to be put at the mercy of any sach people? Sir, it is useless to continue this argument further. Mr. T. G. SMIITH. As a member of the committee on elections, I took part in the consideration and preparation of this clause in this article, and I must say, from all I have heard here to-day, and with all the reflection I have given the'subject, I see nothing to cause me to regret the action I then took. The arguments which have been brought against granting the right of suffrage to the Indian, it seems to me apply with equal force to the negro, and to other classes of individuals of this State. The tendency of the present time is to an extension of the right of suffrage; and I am somewhat surprised at the remark of the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIS,) who draws from this fact the conclusion that the institutions of our country are tending downward. I think that is not the case; I think it is not generally so considered. I think it is believed that the tendency to extend the right of suffrage is evidence of progress and advancement. If there was any danger likely to ensue to our' institutions by granting this privilege to the Indians, I, for one, would be opposed to it. But I fear no Vol. 2-No. 35. such danger; I have no fear of any injurious results to follow from this, any more than I have from granting this privilege to the African, or to the ignorant foreigner. I must say, with all respect to the arguments of the gentleman from Washtenaw, that I think the Indians are quite as well qualified to exercise the right of suffrage as a very large number of those who come from foreign countries. We grant to those foreigners the right to exercise the elective franchise, only requiring them to reside here two years and six months. My colleague (Mr. LOVELL) objects to granting this right to the Indians on the ground that we do not grant it to foreigners born on our -own soil. I answer him by saying that we grant this right to foreigners born on other soils than ours, and would it not be consistent to grant it to foreigners born on our own soil, admitting that they were foreigners? But I beg leave to differ with him. I do not consider the Indians foreigners. I consider them natives of the soil. If there is any class of people in our country who are entitled to the right of suffrage, then I would ask, who more than the natives of the soil, are entitled to it? Shall we grant this privilege to a race imported into this country from the wilds and jungles of Africa, and at the same time deprive the Indian, a native of. the soil, of this privilege? Is there any reason or consistency in that? As a member of this committee, and of this Convention, I should be ashamed to grant this privilege to the African, and every other person in our country, without distinction or restriction, except that they are males of the age of twenty-one, and deprive these few remnants of the original inhabitants of our country, of the same right. Mr. NORRIS. How about females? Mr. T. G. SMITH. The gentleman refers to female suffrage. I say that the females are now represented at the polls; I say that they all enjoy the privilege, so far as it is a privilege. The vote deposited by the men is but a representative of the principle.. I would ask if the women of our country are not always represented at the polls by the men? I take it that there is no force in that objection. But the Indians are not represented at the polls.The gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) says, that because a large portion of the Indians do not want this privilege, do not care anything about it, do not know anything about it, therefore he will not grant the lrivilege to the few who ~o want it, who do know something about it, and who are capable of exercising it. Nr. NORRIS. Do I understand the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. T. G. SMITH,) to say that women are represented at the polls by their brothers and husbands? Mr. T. G..SMITH. I think I said something to that effect. Mr. NORRIS. Who represent wvidows and maiden ladies, who have property to be taxed? Mr. T. G. SMITH. We can only make laws and constitutional provisions for general purposes, not for exceptional cases. Laws are usually got up with all the wisdom of which legislators are capable; but I confess that in individual cases they may work injuriously. I will not dwell longer on that point. The gentleman from Newyago, (Mr. UTLEY,) objects to granting the right of voting to the Indian, on the ground that he can be bought with whisky; that is one of his objections. I say to that gentleman that there are two hundred white men in this country, to every Indian he can buy in that way, who are bought in the same way. If he has had any experience in our large cities he knows that hundreds and thousands of white men are bought with whisky, by men who get them to go to the polls t6 vote as they wish, without knowing anything about the political questions at. stake; they deposit the ballots given them by designing politicians. But that is no reason at all for depriving the Indian of the ballot, merely because some of them may be influenced by whisky. As I have said, there are hundreds and thousands of white persons in this country who are unfit to vote anywhere, to judge of them by their knowledge of the questions on which they are voting. But I would make no distinction on that ground. I would grant the privilege of voting to all, and I have no fears of any injuries to result from it. I have that confidence in the intelligence of our people, in the stability of our institutions, that I amn willing to run the risk of any injury that may result from the extension of the right of suffrage. The cry is always raised in any country, if it is proposed to extend the right of suffrage to any class, that they are not capable of appreciating and properly exercising the privilege. Then I say grant them the privilege, and educate them up until they are fit to enjoy it. I believe there is no other way by which we can elevate the condition of the Indians of our State, than by declaring in the organic law of the State that they are citizens of the commonwealth, entitled to all the'rights and privileges of citizens. I believe if they have a spark of manhood about them, they will appreciate that, and it s July 22, 1867. DEBAT S AND PROCEEDINGS. .273 2~1 CON~TITUTIO~ALCONVENTION. Monda- ~ will have the effect of elevating their moral condition. It is proposed here to insert the word "civilized," before the word "Indian." I trust that will iot be done. It will make a requirement which I think it will be impracticable to carry out. How will you decide when an Indian is civilized? You must apply some test by which to judge whether he is civilized or not. If you apply the ordinary test, the capability to read and write, then you will be making a class distinction; you will be applying a test which you do not apply to other races in the community. Itrust we will not insert any such restriction as that; I consider it entirely impracticable. I will say here that if there were twelve Indians in this State who prized the privilege of voting, who are capable of exercising it intelligently, and who desire to exercise it, if I could not do it in no other way, I would grant the privilege of the elective franchise to all the Indians of our country, in order that those twelve might enjoy a right which they would appreciate. Mr. LOVELL. Will my colleague allow me to ask him a question? Mr. T. G. SMITH. Certainly. Mr. LOVELL. I would ask my colleague if there are not more than twelve enlightened female citizens of this State who desire the elective franchise, and is he willing to give it to them? Mr. T. G. SMITH. In reply to my colleague I will say, that I did not look for opposition to this clause from that quarter. I believe he has once presented a resolution here declaring that the right of suffrage should be given to all persons, without distinction of sex or color. Mr. LOVELL. I think the gentleman is mistaken; my resolution read "all citizens;" by that I will stand anywhere. Mr. T. G. SMITH. I do not see how he can draw the distinction here now. Mr. CONGER. I desire to make one inquiry of the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIS.) I understood him to say that he arose for the purpose of expressing his indignant protest against this attempt to make Indians his equals socially. Mr. NORRIS. The reporter has recorded all the protest I desire to enter. Mri. CONGER. If the object is to protect the gentleman from Washtenaw (Mr. NORRIs) from social equality with the Indians, and that is the only objection he has, I would be in favor of putting in the Constitution somewhere a provision that the social equality of the gentleman from Washtenaw shall not be affected by these Indian voters, their wives, or children. The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon inserting the word "civilized." Mfr. CONGER. Yes, sir,; I believe that is the only argument against allowing Indians to vote. I apprehend the speech of the gentleman was not intended to come in just at this place; I do not know about that, however. But I rose rather to ask the gentleman from Midland, (Mr. ESTEE',) whether he said on a former occasion that the Indians who voted and carried the election in the town of Fremont were drunken Indians, or were Indians who had ever been charged with that immorality? Mr. ESTEE. I did not make any such statement. So far as the Indians in the county where I live are concerned, they are peaceable, quiet residents. I did not propose this amrendment for the purpose of casting any reflection upon our Indians. The most of them, at least those who keep away from the whites, are pretty good sort of fellows, and I have no fault to find with them. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. ESTEE to insertthe word " civilized," before the words "male Indians," in the fourth sub-division of this section; and upon a division, ayes 24, noes 28, it was not agreed to. The CHAIRMIAN. The question now is upon inserting after the words "male Indians, natives of the United States," the words "receiving an annuity from the same." Mr. LOVELL. I understood that there was another amendment offered br the gentleman from Midland, (Mr. EsTER,) to insert after the words "natives of the United States," the words "not belonging to any tribe." The CHAIRMAN. The Chair overlooked that amendment. Mr. ESTEE. I will withdraw that amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Then the question will be upon the- amendment of the gentleman from Newyago, (Mir. UTLEY,) to insert the words, "not receiving an annuity from the same." The amendment of Mr. UTLEYr was not agreed to. The CHAIRMIAN. The next question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) to strike out the fourth subdivision as follows: "Fourth. All male Indians, natives of the United States." Mr. P. D. WARNER. Before that vote is taken I desire to say simply, that not having by me at the time I made that motion the act of Congress usually denominated the "Civil Rights Bill," I relied more particularly far the provisions of that bill upon the amend ment to the Constitution of the United States, which I had before me. But afterwards ascertaining that there was a difference between the provisions of the civil rights bill and the provisions of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in regard to the persons who were made citizens by that act, and that Indians not taxed were excluded from the rights there conferred, I think I am quite as well satisfied with the reasons then offered for moving the amendment I did, as I was while I was somewhat ignorant of the act of Congress. In justification of this conclusion I desire to say further, that in looking over the Constitutions of the several States, I notice that most of the western States, those contiguous to the Indian tribes of America, those whose people are cointinually mingling with these tribes, almost universally ignore their existence in their State Constitutions. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Do not those States also have the word " white" in their Constitutions?: - Mr. P. D. WARNER. I think that has been a very common custom in this country. I find that in the Constitutions of Nebraska, Nevada, Kansas, Iowa and Oregon, there is no provision for the exercise of the elective franchise by any portion of the Indianpopulation. Oregon provides that no negro, Chinaman or mulatto shalkhave the right of suffrage. In the Constitution of-5Minnesota it is provided that persons of mixed white and Indian blood, who have adopted the customs and habits of civilization, and persons of Indian blood residing in that State, who have adopted the language, customs and habits of civilization, after an examination before any district court of the State in such manner as may be provided by law, and after they shall have been pronounced by said court capable of enjoying the rights of citizenship within the State, shall be entitled to vote. In Wisconsin I find this provision: "Civilized persons of Indian descent not members of any tribe: Provgdecl, That the Legislature may at any time extend the right of suffrage to persons not herein enumerated; but no such law shall be in force until the same shall have been submitted to a vote of the people at a general election, and approved by a majority of all the votes cast at such election." The last clause does not refer to the Indian population. In the Constitution of California I find this provision: "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the Legislature, by a two-thirds concurrent vote, Irom admitting to the right of suffrage Indians, or the descendants of Indians, in such special cases as such proportion of the legislative body may deem just and proper." These are the peculiar restrictions which have been adopted by some of I CONSTITUTIONAL CONVEIN'TION. ivioiiday, 274 July 22, 1867. DEBATES AXD PROCEEDJGS. 275 the frontier States. In New York, where, I believe, they have a much larger number of Indians than we have in Michigan, I find no mention whatever of that class of population in their Constitution. After having made these investigations in a hurried manner, I am persuaded in my own mind that the amendment proposed by myself will do no injustice to the interests of any portion of the enlightened people of the State of Michigan. I believe that if we adopt the provision made by Congress in the civil rights bill, admitting all who are citizens to the privilege of the elective franchise, excluding Indians not taxed, we will best subserve the interests and rights of the enlightened portion of the people of the State of Michigan. There:fore, after mature deliberation, and after all the discussion we have had upon this question, I see no inconsistency in my proposition to strike out the fourth sub-division of this section. The question was then taken upon the amendment of MIr. P. D). WARN'ER, and upon a division, ayes 20, noes 22, no quorum voted. Mr. THOMPSON, I ask that the vote be again taken. The question was again taken upon th.e amendment of Mlr. P. D). WARNER; and upon a division, ayes 23, noes28, it was not agreed to. Mr. CASE. I move to amend this section by striking out the word "male," in the first subdivision of this section, so that it will read, ",Every citizen of the United States;" also, by striking out the word " male," in the third subdivision, so that it will read, "Every inhabitant residing in this State on the 24th day of June, 1835." Mr. FARMER. I move to amend the first subdivision of this section, by striking out the word " male," before the words "citizens of the United States." The gentleman from Montcalm, (Mfr. C.sE,) has also moved to strike out the word "male," in the third subdivision, as he has stated. That subdivision relates to a particular class of persons who were residing in the territory of Michigan, at the time it was admitted into the Union as a State. In order that they might enjoy the privileges of the electivefranchise with out becoming naturalized, this provi sion was inserted in the Constitution of 1835, and continued in the C6nsti tution of 1850; and the committee on elections of this Convention have thought it proper to continue the pro vision in the Constitution we are now framing, as there are still some of this class of persons living upon the bor ders of our State. Therefore, I appre hend the same principle would not ap ply to the anheudment as proposed by the gentleman from Montcalm, that would apply to my amendment. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee on elections, I fully concur with the majority in most of the principles embodied in their report. Upon some points, however, which I consider essential, I do not agree with them. Considering the principle I sought to have embodied in that report, as an essential one, I do not feel that my duty would be properly performed did I not bring it before this committee of the whole. Living, as we do, in an age admitted to be progressive, embodying, as I trust we shall, Inany of those progressive and liberal.principles in the organic law which we propose to form, recognizing this principle as the committee have, in proposing to extend the rights of suffrage to classes of persons not heretofore enjoying it, they fail to carry it out fully. While concurring with them as far as they have gone in that direction, I consider they have stopped far short of the goal, and failed to give it to a class more numerous, more intelligent, and having all the natural rights of any other class, the women of our State. We were told, sir, that the women themselves did not ask for this right. Now, sir, the petitions coming up here, asking for that right, (signed by over 5,000 persons, about equally divided between women and men, none against the right,) are more numerous than on all other subjects, if we except those on the traffic in intoxicating liquors. It may be said that the number of petitions is very small, compared with the number of women in our State. With all due deference to those who use that argument, I will say that I do not consider the argument well taken. We change many provisions of the present Constitution radically. What proportion of the people petition for those changes? Then why require that any very large number should ask by petition for equal suffrage? When the first principles of the rights of the citizen demand it, common justice to the 150,000 women of our State demand it at our hands. I think, sir, the abstract justness of the principle I wish to see engrafted in our organic law will be questioned only by the few. The principal objec tions mads are on the ground of expe diency, and the dangers apprehended from the change. This fear of taking a step forward, without first having some precedent to refer to, may do very well for the courts, but will hardly answer for a progressive people fram ing their organic law. Now, I urge this matter not only as a principle right in the abstract, but I urge it on the ground of expediency also. We are a progressive people; principles and forces, not new in themselves, but in their application, are continually being developed. What was theory yesterday, is the established principle of today. Taking suggestions then from the experience of others, but modeling after none but the divine - pattern, profiting by the experience of the past, we should draw wisdom from its teachings, but not be. hampered by its traditions, or let any fear of innovation deter us from doing what is right in principle. Again, sir, we are told, on all sides, in fact it is the general argument, that women now have an indirect political power by their influence on man. Is that any reason why you should exclude them from the ballot? Men of wealth, men of superior talents, men of social distinction, have a great indirect political power incident from those facts. Is that any reason that they should be deprived of the ballot? Then, why, sir, refuse the ballot to woman, because, forsooth, she already has an indirect political influence over man? That fact which is admitted by all, is in and of itself one of the strongest arguments in favor of their being granted the right of suffrage, so that, with their influence and power, there should be a corresponding responsibility and accountability to public opinion, which I consider the best safeguard against its abuse. My opinion, sir, is that, in order to lay a ground for the exclusion of any one from the franchise, it is necessary to establish one of two facts; either personal unfitness, or public danger.. I do not think either-of these objections can be urged in the present case. Would not the women of this State exercise the right intelligently? Is there any great public danger to be apprehended if they should be allowed to exercise~ that right? My researches into the history of nations and peo ples teach me that revolutions do not come in consequence of granting priv ileges to the people, but from with — holding them beyond the power of en durance by that people. It is also urged by the opponents of this principle that woman is of the weaker sex, and that she needs to be guarded against contact with the rougher usages of life, by man, and by an exclusion from the ballot. i If we admit the weakness, it but adds strength to our argument, for it is the weak that need protection against the strong. You-grant the surest pro tection to the individual when you give the ballot to that individual. It gives to that person a logical argument from which there is no appeal, a strength to July 22, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEEFINGS. 275 276 COTIUTIOAL COETfO. Monday, right himself, a power to correct abuses and oppression. We are warned by those opposed to extending the right of suffrage to the women of our State, that they do not ask for it; that it would destroy the established order of things; that it would interfere with domestic happi ness; in short, that it would be the opening of a Pandora's box, which would inflict upon us untold evils. This warning voice, this fear of evil, is sure to be the conservative cry when any material change is proposed in present usages. Sir, I would say to such persons that the world does move, the moral as well as the material world; and that it is idle for them to attempt to stay the tide of public opinion, when once it sets in a given direction. Why deny to the women of our land a privilege we are about to accord to all others; a right to select and be represented by their particular repre sentatives in the councils of the State and nation-representatives to stand for their interests, and to direct atten tion to the manner in which those in terests are affected by the laws, or changes contemplated in them? And, gentlemen, when the time does come, and in my opinion it is as cer tain to come as that time passes, when this right will be conceded, you will wish that you had assisted in its in auguration, when you had the oppor tunity. That opportunity you now have, and I appeal to you to assist me by your vote in striking out the word "male," in the first sub-division of the section, now under consideration; which I now move be stricken out. Mr. MILLER. Why not also strike out the word "male," in the fourth sub-division, relating to Indians? Mr. FARMER. That is a matter for the Convention to determine; I have gone as far as I propose to go. If the gentleman moves further in that direc tion, the result will show whether I will cooperate with him or not. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. FARMER, to ' strike out the word "male," in the first subdivision, before the words "citizens of the United States," and upon a di vision, there were ayes 21, noes 22, no quorum voting. Mr. DANIELLS. I would inquire of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VANVALKENBURGH,) the chairman of the c6mmittee who reported this arti cle, what is to be done for the sex he proposed to receive in his arms, and to press to his heart? [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. That is not the question now beforb the committee. Mr. LEACH. As the committee found itself without a quorum on the - last vote, I suppose in accordance with parliamentary usage, the roll of members must be called. Mr. BIRNEY. I think the rule is this, that the roll must be called when it appears that there is a want of a quorum. It appears here that fifty-one members have not voted; but it does not follow of course that there is not a quorum present. Mr. LEACH. The roll must be called in order to ascertain whether there is a quorum present or not. The CHAIRMAN. No quorum having voted on the last vote, the roll of members will now be called, in order to ascertain if there is a quorum present. The roll was accordingly called, and the following members answered to their names: Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus,Birney, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Burtenshaw, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge Conger Crocker, Croswell, Daniells, Divine, Duncombe, Estee, Farmer, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Hazen, Holt, Huston, Lawrence, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McKernan, Miles, Miller, Morton, Musgrave, Ninde, Norris, Pratt, Rafter, Sawyer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, Walker. P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winsor, Williams and Woodhouse.-55. The CHAIRMAN. A quorum of members having answered to their names, the question will be again taken upon the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. FARMER) to strike out the word "male," before the words "citizens of the United States," in the first sub-'division of section one of this article. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I wishl to say a word in explanation of my vote upon this amendment, as I have been alluded to by two or three gentlemen upon this floor. I shall vote for the section as reported by the committee on elections; not because I have any particular objection to allowing women to vote, but because I believe a great majority of them do not wish to vote, and do not ask the privilege, if, indeed, it be a privilege. So far I have found among may acquaintance but a single solitary female who has expressed a desire to vote. On the contrary, I have been repeatedly importuned to use my influence against any such thing. Now, as I always wish to accommodate the ladies, and will always do what I can for their benefit, I shall certainly do as I have done, when I can comply with their wishes on this subject. It is true that there have been about 2,600 wonmen of the State of Michigan who have petitioned this body for the privilege of voting; about 2,600 out of the whole female population of this State. Now, I venture to say that nine-tenths of the females in the State of Michigan do not desire the privilege of the ballot; that if their voice could be heard, they would raise it against being obliged to vote. So that I am de cidedly in favor of retaining this clause as it was reported by the committee on elections. I have been alluded to by my friend from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) and have been particularly appealed to by my friend from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIs,) to vote for this proposition, because I proposed to embrace all the females in the State of Michigan in my arms, and to press them to my heart. The gen tleman uses that argument as though he expected he would be obliged to embrace all the aborigines of this State in his arms, and press them to his heart. I hope that will not be required of the gentleman from Washtenaw; that he will be excused from that- in teresting operation. [Laughter.] I shall support the section as reported by the — committee, and hope it will prevail. Mr. LOVELL. I dcesire to make a brief explanation. ]My clleague, (Mr. T. G. SMITH,) has been pleased to refer to a resolution, which I took occasion to introduce into this Convention at an early day in its sessions. It will be found printed in the proceedings of Biay 21, and is in these words: "Resolved, That the committee on elec tions be instructed to inquire into the Dro priety of extending the privileges of the elective franchise to all citizens oi this State over twenty-one years of age, who have not heen convicted of crime." Now, to-day is the first time that we have heard anything fromn that commit tee on this subject; yet that resolution was referred to the committee on the fifth clay of this session, and to-day is nearly the fiftieth day of the session. One word further, as I am up. The gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) assumes to be the champion of the wishes of the ladies on the subject of voting. He says he shall vote against the amendment under consideration because the ladies desire him to do so. I shall not at this time, if I do at all, take occasion to make any extended remarks on this subject. But I will relate a circumstance, to show how the ladies of this State, some of them at least, and constituents of the honorable gentlemen, feel in regard to this subject. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. Are we going over this whole debate again? Mr. BIRNEY. The gentleman from Genesee,. (Mr. LOVELL,) is going beyond his explanations. I object to debate. Mr. LOVELL. Gentlemen may just as well hear me now, because they cannot get rid of it. As soon as this amendment is acted upon, I will move an ainendment and tell my story on it. 276 CONSTITUTIONAL. CONVENTION. Moilday, July 22 187 DEAE AX POEDGS 7 Mr. FAR NIER. Mine is only an amendment to an amendment; there is still an amendment pending. Mr. LOVELL. Very well; I will wait. Mr. CONGER. I desire to say a word, although I would like hear the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL.) I wish to oppose the establishment of a rule here that I would be unwilling to submit to myself. I do not know why at this time gentlemen should say that debate is closed. I had always understood that even after a motion had been put, and a division had been called for, the subject was still open to debate. If parliamentary gentlemen will tell me any different rule, in any deliberative body which is governed by parliamentary rules, then I will admit that I am ignorant on the subject. Mr. M. C. WVATKINS. Is discussion proper after the vote has been taken? Mr. COiNGER. After the vote is taken, before the result of the vote has been announced, discussion is still in order. I think the rule goes so far as to allow debate, even after the yeas and nays have been commenced to be called, and before any response has been made. If the rule is adopted that there can be no discussion after a question has been put, and before it has been decided, it will be more effec[ual in cutting off debate than the previous question. Mr. BIRNEY. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mir. CONGER,) is correct in one view. But in this case, a division was called and the vote taken. Mr. CONGER. I mean before the result of the vote is announced. Mr. BIRNEY. If there had been a quorum voting, it would have all been completed. The other ruLle is, in regard to yeas and nays, that when the first name is called by the Secretary, it stops all debate. Mr. COOLIDGE. If a vote is taken and there is no quorum voting, is that any vote at all? Mr. LOVELL. It seems to me that I have a right to the floor. But I am not at all pertinacious; I can say what I desire hereafter. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman from St. Clair, (ML. CONGER,) is technically correct. Mr. LOVELL. Am I in order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of the opinion that strictly speaking the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) is in order, as there was no regular vote. M~r. LOVELL. I was about to remark that I was compelled to take issue with the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURG',) as to his right to say that he represented the ladies of Michigan on this subject. It has come to my knowledge that some of the ladies of Michigan are looking with great anxiety to the deliberations of this Convention, in order to find out what their status is to be. On a former occasion, when the ladies were here with us in considerable numbers, the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALkENBURGH) became somewhat eloquent, using choice and expressiie language, denoting great affection on his part for that class. His expressions appeared in the public prints, and were borne into the county in which the gentleman resides. The remarks of the gentleman were read in a school room; and the girls were anxious to know what their condition was to be in regard to the elective franchise. One of them said their representative in the Convention had ,said that all women were angels. To this another replied-"No, you are mistaken; he said that all angels were women." They disputed over it as they journeyed along home. When they reached home, they submitted the question to their mother, as all good girls should. She heard their statements' pro and con, and then wisely said to them-" Children, I cannot tell you now; I suppose these things are for the Constitutional Convention to decide; your father says the Convention can do anything, and whatever the Constitutional Convention of Michigan decides that women are, that they will be, and nothing else." (Laughter.) Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Is it to be wondered at that "the gentleman from Oakland" should become eloquent from his contiguity to the gentleman from Genesee, (Ur. LovELL,) that he should become excited with a little of that eloquence so often displayed here? Mr. BLACKMIAN. I desire to read from Cashing's Parliamentary Law, in regard to the question raised by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoxGBR,) as to when debate ceases upon the putting of a question. Mr. ALEXANDER. Is there any question of parliamentary order or practice before the committee for discussion?~ - The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks there is not. The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER.) - Mr. BLACKMAN. There was such a question raised. The question was again taken upon the amendment of Mr. FARMER to strike out the word "male," in the first subdivision of the section, before the words "citizens of the United States;" and upon a division, ayes 29, noes 26, it was agreed to; Mr. NORRIS. I move now to strike out the word "male," wherever it occurs in this section. The CHAIRMAN. That amendment is not in order at this time. The pending question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Montcalmn, (Mr. CASE,) to strike out the word " male," in the third subdivision of this section. Mr. NORRIS. Then I move to amend the amendment so as to strike out the word "male" wherever it occurs in the section. Mr. CASE. I accept the amendment to mr amendment. Mir. DANIELLS. The last subdivision of this section reads, "all male Indians, natives of the United States." I am in favor of the word "male" being struck out wherever it occurs in this section, except in the last sub-division. I am suspicious of the amendment to the amendment, considering the source from which it comes. As my friend from St. Clar (Mr. CorGER) said the oth-er day, I- do not want a strange egg laid in my nest; I do not know whether it will hatch out a buzzard or an eagle. I believe that the word "male" should be struck out of the second and third subdivisions of this section; at anly rate, that all the tax payers should have the privilege of voting. Female tax payers have the privilege now of voting in a school district; I do not know why they should not have the privilege of voting at the ballot box. Our fathers claimed that taxation and representation should go together. They fought Great Britain in a long and unequal war, and poured out their blood and treasure like water,< to secure what they asserted to be the true principle; that taxation and representation were inseparably connected. If we tax the property of females, I do not see why they should not have the right of the elective franchise. In theory it is correct, and I believe it will be correct in practice. I have just voted to give the elective franchise to the Indians,who are inhabitants of our State. And I am as willing to give the ballot to the females of this State who are over twenty-one years of age, as I am to give it to the Indians. I believe they are more capable of exercising the right of voting intelligently and virtuously, and will wield it for the benefit of the government and the people of the State more purely than the foreign born population whom we make voters. We hear men'say- -Oh! you would not like to have-your wives and daughters go to the polls and vote at a public election." I say that I have not a bit of fear of that, any more than I have of their going to political meet July 22, 1867. DEBATE.S AND PROCEEDINGS. .277 27 COSIUTOA COY-I~ od~ ings. If females voted, those who controlled matters on election days would, in my opinion, have everything as orderly as at church. The officers administer the laws according to the taste of those who have the power to put them in office. If ladies voted, they would want order and quiet; and the officers who administer the law on election days would maintain order, so that there would be no more difficulty in their getting to the polls than there is in their going to church. I hope the word "male " will be stricken out of this section wherever it occurs, except in the last subdivision of the section relating to Indians. Mr. BRADLEY. The debate oi this subject seems to have taken rather a wide range. I did anticipate, when the amendment in regard to striking out the word "male" was introduced, that we should have started every champion for that movement. But the friends of female suffrage were content simply to throw themselves upon their dignity, without speech-making, and vote upon the naked question of striking out. I confess I am alarmed for their gallantry. But we have now another amendment proposed which presents a good opportunity for them to come to the rescue.. The fourth subdivision of this section proposes, if the amendment now pending shall be adopted, to extend the right of suffrage to those who are in essential need of suffrage. I had in my earlier years some experience and acquaintance with Indian tribes. From my knowledge of Indian females, and of Indian character, I have long since come to the conclusion that the squaws in the Indian tribes are far in advance of the males. They are compelled to do all the drudgery of labor, to work in the fields, to toil early and late, in order that the male Indian might go upon the hunting ground or the war path. I have learned long since that the squaw is possessed really of more virtue than the male Indian, is less liable to be led into drunken and dissolute habits. Then upon the same ground that the other amendment was urged, I urge this amendment. Although as a matter of courtesy to some of my lady constituents I was compelled to vote against the other amendment, I shall not feel compelled to give a vote for this amendment. I hope, however, it will carry in committee. Mr. DANIELLS. I rise to a point of order. I believe we cannot amend this fourth subdivision, because the committee have refused to strike it out, as proposed by the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P.- D. WARER.:) Therefore, it is not in order to move to strike out any part of it. Mr. WILLIAMS. It occurs to me, that perhaps the point of order may be well taken; I think it may be so. I am sorry to disagree with my friend from Kalamazoo, (Mir. BRADLEY,) in reference to this matter. I think it is well, when it is proposed to make such a broad inroad upon the political status of persons in our State, that we should move by degrees, take a'step at a time, make some exceptions. Perhaps we can make an exception nowhere else better than in regard to the Indians; we can leave the word "male" in the clause relating to Indians. I do not know but what it is well, as claimed by the gentleman who is the father of the proposition in this body, to leave the word "male" in the third subdivision of this section, so as to show that this Convention do not intend to make any serious inroads; that the Susan B. Anthonys of this State are being converted slowly to the grand proposition of the right of female suffrage. I confess that I have been somewhat surprised at the vote given here a few minutes ago. I should dislike very much to be obliged to array myself in this Convention against the rights of women. On the contrary, I apprehend I would go as far as any man in maintaing the rights of women. But it is the right of woman simply as woman that I would seek to maintain. It is not for the purpose of rendering her more masculine in her manner and habits, socially or politically, that I would seek to maintain her rights. It is something more than the mere right of women that I would seek to maintain. It would be the sacred right of the domestic circle, the protection and enjoyment of home life, the prevention of strife and wrangling in the domestic circle. We seek to protect it by saying that every person who shall be entitled to vote shall be out of tutelage and beyond guardianship. We seek to protect it by saying in regard to the rights of property of married women, that they shall be without guardianship or restraint. If we go further, we shall overturn the whole theory of our social and domestic government; we should strike a blow at once at the relation of husband and wife, and completely overturn that relation. We should then provide in this Constitution that difference of political sentiment between the husband and wife should be a sufficient cause for a divorce, striking at the very roots of the domestic circle. On the other hand, I would be willing to take as broad a stride as any other member in this Convention in this direction. But I want to see some reason for this step before I decide to take it. Mr. CONGER. I second the point of order made by the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) that in regard to the fourth subdivision of this section, it is out of order to amend it in any respect whatever, the committee having refused to strike it out. Mr. NORRIS. That motion was simply to strike out, not to amend the subdivision. Mr. CONGER. I understand the gentleman. I am very sorry I did not raise the point of order until the gentleman had an opportunity to' gush, and other gentlemen had gushed upon this subject, especially since it has come to a vote, and has assumed the solemn and serious character that the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) has seen fit to give it. I think it is time the point of order was raised. The committee having refused to strike out this clause, having decided to keep it as it stands, no amendment to it is now in order. That I believe to be good- parliamentary law. Therefore, I insist upon- the point of order that the committee having refused to strike out this fourth subdivision, the amendment of the gentleman from WVashtenaw, (Mr. NORRIS,) to strike out the word " male" in that clause is not in order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will so rule. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I suppose there is no question but what this fourth sub-division is not susceptible of amendment in the present stage of proceedings. In regaid to the amendment to strike out the word "male," in the second and third sub-divisions, I hope it will not be adopted. It is proposing to make a very great change in the elective franchise in this State. While I would be willing to confer this privilege upon the American born ladies, I would be in favor of retaining the foreign born females of this country in their present condition for a time, until they become better qualified to judge of our institutions and of the necessities of our government. I hope, therefore, the amendment will not prevail. Mr. WILLIAMS. I may have been mistaken. If that is all that is to be done, I withdraw my speech. (Laughter.) Mir. BRADLEY. I withdraw my speech, too. (Renewed laughter.) Mr. CONGER. I object to any speeches being withdrawn. Mr. CASE. I will withdraw the rest of my amendment, as I am very well satisfied with the section as it now stands. Mr. NORRIS. For tlhe purpose of making this section a little more' ac ceptable to its friends, I move to amend the fourth subdivision, by insert s t s s i CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. M6nday, 2.i 8 July 22, 1867. DEBATES AND. O. -' 7 ing after the words "male Indians," the words "squaws and papooses." (Laughter.) The CHAIRMIAN. The committee having refused-to strike out that subdivision, it is not now open to amendment. MIr. P. D. WAARNER. I move to amend the second subdivision of this section by striking out the words, "the United States," - where they first occur, and inserting in lieu thereof the words, " this State,"' so that it will read: " Second. Every male inhabitant of this State who shall have resided in this State two years and six months, and declared his intention to become a ciztizen of the United States, etc. In relation to this amendment, I desire to state, that by makling this change, it will conform the section in this respect to the present Constitution. This clause as it now stands makes quite a radical change in the condition of a certain class of foreign-born citizens residing in our State, who have heretofore been deprived of the elective franchise, but who would be admitted to its exercise if this subdivision be adopted as it now stands. I hope the language of the present Constitution in regard to this class of persons will be retained. Mr. BLACKMAN. I move to amend the amendment by inserting after the words " United States," where they first occur in the second subdivision of this section, the words "five years, and in this State," so that it will read-" every male inhabitant of this State, who shall have resided in the United States five years, and in this State two years and six months," etc. A MIEMBER. That would make seven years and a half. Mlr. BLACKMAN. A gentleman near me remarks that my amendment would require a residence in the United States of seven years and a half, including the residence in this State. That would not necessarily be the effect of my amendment. While a person was residing in this State he would also be residing in the United States; he might reside the whole five years in this State, and then be entitled to vote. It will be recollected that, under the naturalization laws of the United States, no person can become a citizen of the United.States until he has resided therein five years. We do not require that in this State, from the fact that we have heretofore granted the right of suffrage to persons who have not become full citizens of the United States. I would be in favor of confining the right of suffrage to citizens of the United States, and not giving it to foreigners until they have become full citizens of the United States. We all know that foreigners coming here are desirous of obtaining the right to vote. They go before the courts and swear to their intentions to become citizens of the United States; that it is their bona fide intention to become citizens of this country, and to renounce their allegiance to every foreign prince or potentate, especially the prince or sovereign to whom they have been subjecE. Yet in nine cases out of ten they never intend any such thing; they declare their intention to become citizens simply for the purpose of becoming voters in this State, and there they leave the matter, for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, and never fulfill their declared intention. My amendment, I apprehend, will not interfere with our previous policy upon this subject, but it will be in accordance with the naturalization laws of the United States, to require them to reside somewhere in the United States for five years, and within this State for the time which has heretofore been prescribed. I think that will not be going too far. Mr. WILLIAMS. I would inquire of the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKiMAl,) what construction he would put upon the requirement of his amendment, that' a foreigner 'should reside in the United States for five years, and in'this State for two years and six months? If he should have resided in any other State before he came here, for five years, would he not be required to reside in the United States more than five years? Mr. BLACKMAN. Undoubtedly if he had resided in any other State for five years before he came to this State, he would then be required to residein this State two years and six months before he would be entitled to vote here; and that is the'requirement of our present Constitution. But if he had resided in any other State two years and six months before he'came to this State, then by residing in this IState for two years and six months he would comply with the provision of this section as it would stand if my amendment should be adopted. Mr. M. C. WVATKINS.' I am in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Van Buren, (~'Ir. BLACKMAi.) I would also be in favor of striking out this whole subdivision. We have refused to allow our native born young men, between eighteen and twenty-one years of age the privilege of voting. Yet, as a class, they are, as a general rule, better qualified than forreigners, who have come here, and resided here long enough to declare their intention to become citizens, and six months longer. As a class, foreigners are especially ignorant of our form of government, and of the nature of our institutions. There is another thing to be considered, and I wish to call the attelntion of this committee particularly to that subject. If foreigners, under our Constitution, are entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizens, after having simply declared their intentions to become citizens, what particular inducement is there for their ever becoming full citizens of the United States? They simply declare their intentions to become citizens, and in six months from that time they are voters; they are allowed to hold and dispose of real estate, and, so far as I-can see, they have all the rights and privileges pertaining to native-born citizens. As a matter of course, they are not required to do military duty. They can remain here as long as they choose without becoming citizens, and if a war comes, and a call is made for men to perform military duty, when there may be some risk, and it is a matter of some importance, then they are exempt because they are not full citizens of the United States. I think it is altogether wrong to allow them all the rights and privileges of citizens before they are citizens. When they have remained here five Years, and have taken out their full naturalization papers, in my opinion, it is soon enough for them to vote. - Mr. TURNER. I move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the chair, Mr. MORTON reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Elections;" had made some progress therein, and had instructed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. CASE. I move that the Convention now adjourn. " The motion was agreed to;;nd accordingly, (at half-past five o'clock p. m.,) the Convention adjourned. FO-RTY-EICHTH DAY. TUESDAY, July 23, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mir. Hicxox. The roll was called and a qLuorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. FARMER asked and obtained July 22) -1867. DEBATES AND. PROCEEDINGS. 279. 280 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. leave of absence for Mr. WVITIIHEY and Mr. SUTHERLAND for to-day. Mr. HENDERSON. My colleague, Mr. HOLMEs, obtained leave of absence till to-day. I presumie he will be here this morning; but as he may not, I will ask leave of absence for him for today. Leave of absence was accordingly granted. Mr. BLACKMAN asked and obtained leave of absence for to-day for Mr. ROOT, on account of sickness. PETITION. Mr. SHEARER presented the petition of Horace Smith, H. S. Ingalls, W. D. Perkins, J. W. Kincaid and 30 others, for a repeal of the prohibitory law for the sale of intoxicating drinks, and to establish a well regulated license law; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. COUNTIES. -Mr. LUCE, from the committee on counties, to whom had been recommitted the article entitled " Counties," submitted the following report: The committee on counties, to whom was recommitted article -, entitled "Counties," respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report the article back to the Convention, -with the accompanying amendments, recommending that the amendments be concurred in, and when so amended, that the article do pass, and ask to be discharged firom the further consideration of the subject. CYRUS G. LUCE, Chiairman. The report was received, and the committee discharged. Mr. LUCE. I move that the article, with the amendments recommended by the committee, be laid upon the table and printed in the journal. The motion was agreed to. The article with the amendments is as follows; the amendments recommended by the committee on counties, being printed, the parts to be stricken out in brackets, the parts to be inserted in italics: SECTION 1. Each organized county shall be a body corporate, with such powers and immunities as shall be established by law. All suits and proceedings, by or against said county, shall be in the name thereof. SECTION 2. No new county shall be organized without submitting the question to a vote of the electors residing therein, nor unless a majority thereon, shall vote for the same. SECTION 3. NO new county containing less than sixteen towns, as surveyed by the United States, shall be organized from one or more counties; nor shall any organized county be reduced by the organization of new townships to less than sixteen such towns, unless in pursuance of law a majority of the votes cast by'the electors residing in the county or each of the counties to be affocted thereby so reduced below sixteen townships, shall be in favor of such organization: Provided, That nothing herein contained, shall be so construed as to prevent the Legislature from organizing any county composed wholly of islands within the territory of the State, or discontinuing any such county, and attaching the same to the nearest county or counties on the main land. SECTION 4. In eachorganized county there shall be a sheriff, a county clerk, a county treasurer, a register of deeds, a prosecuting attorney, and such other officers as may be provided by law, chosen by the electors thereof once in two years, and as often as vacancies shall happen, whose duties and powers shall be prescribed by theLegislature. The board of supervisors in any county may unite the offices of county clerk and register of deeds iii one office, or disconnect the same. a SECTION 5. The sheriff, county clerk, county treasurer, judge of probate and register of deeds, shall hold their offices at the county seat. SECTION 6. The sheriff shall hold no other county office, nor the office of supervisor. No person shall be eligible to the office of sheriff, for more than four in a period of six years. The county shall never be responsible lbfor his acts. SECTION 7. A board of supervisors, consisting of one from each organized township, shall be established in each county, with such powers as shall be prescribed by law. SECTION 8. Cities shall have such representation in the board of supervisors as the Legislature may direct. Incorporated villages containing not less than four thousand inhabitants, shall be entitled to one member of the board. SECTIoN 9. No county seat, once established, shall be removed, until the place to which it is proposed to be removed shall be designated by a majority ot the board of supervisors of the county, and two-thirds of the electors voting thereon, shall have voted in favor of the proposed location, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law. SECTION 10. The board of supervisors of any county may borrow, or raise by tax, a sum not exceeding one and one-halt mill upon the dollar, of the assessed valuation thereof, fpr constructing and repairing public buildings, highways or bridges; but no greater sum shall be borrowed or-raised by tax for such purpose, in any one year, unless authorized by a majority of the electors of such county voting thereon. SECTION 11. [The board of supervisors, or the board of county auditors, in the county of Wayne, and in such other counties as the Legislature may provide for the election thereof; shall, except as otherwise provided by law, have power to prescribe the compensation due for all services rendered, and adjust all claims against their respective count ties, and such determination and adjustment shall be subject to no appeal. Supervisors and county auditors shall receive for their services such compensation as shall be prescribed by law.] The board of supervisors, or the board of county auditors in the county of WVayne, and in such ot#er counties as the Legislature may icrovide for the election thereof, shall havepower toprescribe the compensation due for all se}rvices rendered, and adjust all clainms against their respective countie.g. And such determination or adjustni.ntshall be subject to noappeal. All claims for service, for which fees shall have been prescribed by the Legislature, shall be audited aud allowed by such board, in accordance therewith. Supervisors and county auditors shall receive for their services such compensation as shall be prescribed by law. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, made the following report: "The committee on arrangement and phra. seology, to whom was referred the article entitled "Executive Department," as amended by the Convention, for correction and engrossment, respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report the same back, with some corrections, recommending that the same be concurred in, and ask to be dis charged from the lfurther consideration of the subject. - T. NINDE, Chai?-man?. The report was received andl the committee discharged. The article as corrected was ordered to be printed at large in the journal, as follows: SECTION 1. The executive power is vested in a Governor, who shall hold his office for two years; a Lieutenant Governor shall be chosen for the same term. SECTION 2. No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor or Lieutenant Governor, who has not been five years a citizen of the United State., and a resident of this State two years next preceding his election; nor shall any person be eligible to either office who has not attained the age of twentyfive years. SECTION 3. The Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be elected at the times and places of choosing the members of the Legislature. Thie person having the highest number of votes for Governor or Lieutenant Governor shall be elected. SECTION 4. The Governor shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military and naval forces; and may call out such forces to execute the laws, to suppress insurrection and to repel invasion. SECTION 5. He may require-information in writing from officers of the executive depart ment, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices. SECTION 6. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. SECTION 7. He may convene the Legislature on extraordinary occasions. SECTION 8. He shall give to the Legislature, and at the close of his official term to the next Legislature, information by message, of the condition of the State, and -recommoend such measures as he shall deem expedient. SECTION 9. He may convene the Legislature at some other place when the seat of government becomes dangerous from disease, or a common enemy. SECTION 10. He shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies as occur in the Senate and House of Representatives. SECTION 11. He may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, after conviction, for all offenses except treason, and cases of impeachment, upon such conditions, and with such restritioLiis and limitations as he may think proper, subject to regulations provided by law, relative to the manner of applying for pardons. Upon conviction fobr treason, he may suspend the execution of the sentence until the case shall be reported to the Legislature at its next session, when the Legislature shall either pardon or commute the sentence, direct the execution of the sentence, or grant a fnrther reprieve. He shall communicate to the Legislatursat each session, information in each case of reprieve, commutation or pardon granted by him, anti the reasons therefor. SECTION 12. In case of the impeachment of the Governor, his removal from office, death, inability, resignation or absence from the State, the powers and duties of the office, except those of Commander-in-Chief, in case of the absence of the Governor firom the State at the head of a military force thereof; shall devolve upon the Lieutenant Governor for the residue of the term, or until the disability ceases. But when the Governor shall be absent from the State at the head of a military force thereof, lie shall continue to be the Commander-il-Chief. SECTION 13. During a vacancy in the office of Governor, if the Lieutenant Governor die, resign, be impeached, displaced, be incapable of performing the duties of his office, or absent from the State, the President pro tempore of the Senate shall act as Governor until the vacancy be filled or the disability cease. SEcTION 14. The Lieutenant Governor shall, Tuesday, July 23, 1867. DEFBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 281 by virtue of his office, be President of the Senate, and when there is an equal division he shall give the casting vote. In committee of the whole he may debate all questions. He shall be chairman of the board of State Auditors, and perform such other administrative duties as may be prescribed by law. SECTION 15. No member of Congress, nor any person holding office under the United States, or other office of this State, shall execute the office of Governor. SECTION 16. No person elected Governor or Lieutenant-Governor, shall receive any office or appointment from the Legislature, or either House thereof, during the time for which he was elected. All votes for either of them, for any such office or appointment, shall be void. SECTION 17. The Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senate pro tempore, when performing the duties of Governor, shall receive the same compensation as the Governor. SECTION 18. All official acts of the Governor, his approval of the laws excepted, shall be authenticated by the great seal of the State, which shall be kept by the Secretary o State. SECTION 19. All commissions issued to persons holding office under the provisions ot this Constitution, shall be in the name and by the authority of the people of the State of Michigan, sealed with the great seal of the State, signed by the Governor, and countersigned by the Secretary of State. EXEMPTIONS. Mr." NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, also made the following report: The committee on arrangement and phraseology, to whom was referred the article entitled "Exemptions," as-:amended by the Convention, for correction and engrossment, respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report thed same back with some corrections, recommending that the same be concurred in, and-ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. T. NINDE, Chairmnzan. The report was received and the committee discharged. The article as corrected was ordered to be printed at large in the journal, as follows: SECTION 1. The personal property of every resident of this'State, to consist of such property only as shall be designated by law, shall be exempted to the amount ot not less than five hundred dollars, trom sale oa execution or other final process of any court, issued for the collection of any debt. SECTION 2. Every homestead, not exceeding forty acres of land, and the dwelling house thereon, and the appurtenances, to be selected by the owner thereof, owned and occupied by any resident of this State, not exceeding in value twenty-five hundred dollars, shall be exempt from forced sale for the collection of any debt on execution or other final process of any court. Such exemption shall not extend to any mortgage thereon lawfully obtained, but such mortgage or other alienation of such land by the owner thereot, it a married man, shall not be valid without the signature of the wife to the same. SECTION 3. Aniy resident of this State, owning and occupying a house on land not his own, and claiming the same as a homestead, shall be entitled, as to such house, to the benefits provided in this article, to the same extent as if he were the owner of such land. But such exemption shall not in any way impair or affect the rights of the owner of said land. SECTION 4. If the owner of a homestead die or desert his family, leaving a widow, wite or children, such homestead shall be exempt trom the payment of his debts, In all Vol. 2-No. 36. cases where the owner dies or deserts, leaVing a widow, wife or children, so long as the widow shall be without other homestead of her own and during the minority of the children, or while the deserted wife shall occupy said homestead. SECTION 5. The real an'd personal estate of every woman acquired before marriage, and the property to which she may afterwards become entitled, by gift, grant, inheritance or devise, shall be and remain the estate and property of such woman, and shall not be liable for the debts, obligations or engagements of her husband, and may be devised, bequeathed and alienated by her, as it she were unmarried. IMPEACHMENTS AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. Mr. NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, also made the following report: The committee on arrangement and phraseology, to whom was referred the article entitled "Impeachments and Removals from Office," as amended by the Convention, for correction and engrossment, respectfully report that they have had the same under con sideration, and have directed me to report the same back with some corrections, recommending that the same be concurred in, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. T. NINDE, Chairmnan. The report was received and the committee discharged. The article as-corrected was ordered to be printed at large in the jpurnal, as follows: SEcTION 1. The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeaching civil officers tor corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors; but a majority of the members elected shall be necessary to direct an impeachment. SECTION 2. Every impeachment shall be tried by the Senate. When the Governor or Lieutenant Governor shall be tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside.When an impeachment is directed, the members of-the Senate shall take an oath or affirmation truly and impartially to try and determine the same according to evidence. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members elected. Judgment, in case of impeachment, shall not extend further than removal from office; but the party accused, whether acquitted or convicted, shall be liable to trial and punishment according to law. SECTION 3. When an impeachment is directed, the House of Representatives shall appoint, from their own body, a committee, whose duty it shall be to prosecute such impeachment. An impeachment may be tried after the final adjournment of the Legislature. SECTIoN 4. No officer shall exercise his office after an impeachment is directed, until he is acquitted. SECTION 5. The Governor may make a pro visional appointment to fill a vacancy occasioned by the suspension ot an officer, until he shall be acquitted, or until the election and qualification af a successor. SECTION 6. For reasonable cause, which shall not be sufficient ground for impeachment of a judge, the Governor shall remove him on a concurrent resolution ot two-thirds of the members elected to each House of the Legislature, after the party accused shall have had an opportunity to be heard in his defense; but the cause for which such removal is required shall be stated at length in such resolution. SECTION 7. County, township, village or school district officers may be removed in such manner and for such cause as may be provided by law.' SECTION 8. The Governor shall have the power and it shall be his duty, to examine into the condition of any State office, and the act of any State officer, and to suspend such officer, except a judge or member of the Legislature, for gross neglect of duty or forcorrupt conduct in office, or any misfeasance or malfeasance therein, and to make a provisional appointment to fill the vacancy occasioned thereby, and report the cause of such suspension to the legislature if in session, if not, then atfthe commencement of the next session thereof; and the Legislature shall proceed to investigate such cause, and if found insufficient, such officer shall be reinstated for the unexpired portion of his term. SECTION 9. Whenever during the recess of the Legislature, it shall, in the opinion of the Governor, become necessary to direct an impeachment ot any civil officer, he may, by proclamation, convene the House ot Representatives for that purpose; and if the House, when so convened, shall direct an impeachment, he shall in like manner immediately convene the Senate to try such impeachment. And whenever in the opinion of the President of the Sepate and Speaker of the House of Representatives, it shall, during arecess of the Legislature, become necessary to direct an impeachment of the Governor, they may,v by their'joint proclamation, convene the House for that purpose; and it the House direct such impeachment, the said President and Speaker shall, in like manner, immediately convene the Senate to try such impeachment. MILITARY DEPARTMENT. - Mr. NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, also made the following report: The committee on arrangement and phraseology, to whom was referred the article entitled " Military Department," for correction and engrossment, respecttully report that they have had the same under consideration,' and have directed me to repor the same back with some corrections, recommending that the same be concurred in, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. T. NINDE, Chairman. The report was received and the committee discharged. The article as corrected was ordered to be printed in the journal, as follows: SECTION 1. The militia shall be composed of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages ot eighteen and forty-five years, except such as are exempted by the laws of the United States or of this State; but all citizens of any religious denomination who, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to bearing arms, shall, in time of peace, be excused therefrom, upon such terms and conditions as shall be prescribed by law. SECTION 2. The Legislature shall provide by law for organizing. equipping and disciplining the militia in such manner as they shall deem expedient, not incompatible with the laws of the United States. SECTION 3. Officers of the militia shall be elected or appointed, and be commissioned in such manner as may be provided by law. COMIPENSATION OF POSTMASTER OF CONVEN TION. Mr. HUSTON. I offer the following resolution: Resolvecd, That the per diem of the postmaster of this Convention be four dollars per day. I have but a few words to say in refernce to this resolution. Yesterday the compensation of all the officers and employes of —.the Convention, including the firemen, and the one in charge of the cloak room, was fixed at four dollars a day, though many of them 282 COSTITUTIOAL OOVETIO. Tuesday, have 4o more duties to perform than the postmaster. It seems to me that it would be but fair that the postmaster should receive the same per diem that is given the others. He certainly has as much labor to perform; he has attended to his duties faithfully, and I think it no more than justice that his per diem should be the same as the others. I think they should all be treated fairly and alike. The resolution was:adopted. PRAYER AT OPENING OF DAILY SESSIONS. Mr. LOVELLT. I desire to call the attention of members to the journal of Saturday last, and particularly to the resolution presented-by the honorable gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) in regard to the prayer of the clergyman who officiated on that occasion. The resolution is as follows: Resolved, That the special committee appointed to wait upon and procure the attendance of the resident clergy of Lansing to open the daily sessions of the Convention with religious exercises, be instructed to notily the Rev. Mr. Vandriss that the members of the Convention do not rely upon the intercessions of the Virgin Mary for Divine favor and guidance, and that they expect the individual officiating will include in his petitions to the Father of Mercies the members of the Conven tion as well as himself. I desire to make a motion that this resolution be stricken from the printed journal, and that the reporters of this Convention be instructed to ignore all remarks in regard to it. The resolu tion standing on the journal is calculated to do injustice to the gentle man who officiated on that oc casion, and to wound the feelings of constituents of many of us. I desire that there shall be nothing on 'the record to show that anything of the kind ever happened. I hold in my hand the copy of the prayer recited on that occasion, and I would - say in re gard to it, that there is no occasion in my judgment, for the resolution that was offered. The resolution having been offered by so kind and generous a gentleman as my friend from Oak land, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) can be re garded only as having been offered under a grave misapprehension of the facts as they occurred. I do not wish to extend my remarks, or to have any remarks I make on this occasion go on the record, if my motion shall be adopt ed. To avoid all feeling on the part of any one, I will move that the resolution I have referred to, and all in re lation to it, be expunged from our re cords. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I hope the motion of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) will not be agreed to. The record is made, and made truthfully; and I hope the motion to expunge any of our records will. not be agreed to. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I only desire to say, that I offered the resolution in good faith, supposing I had apprehended or understood correctly the language used by the gentleman officiating that morning. Upon the suggestion of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) in explanation of the character of the remarks made, I was willing to withdraw the resolution, and not have it put upon its passage. I have no desire personally in relation to the action of this Convention on this subject. If they desire that the resolution shall not appear upon our records, I have no objection. My wishes, however, would be as fully met by having it remain as a warning to those who may come after, as to have it withdrawn. I am perfectly indifferent about the matter. Mr. LOVELL. The prayer on that occasion was in part the prayer of Solomon for wisdom, and was in the following words: "God of my Fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with Thy word, and by Thy wisdom hast appointed man that he should have dominion over the creatures that were made by Thee; give me wisdom that setteth by Thy throne, and cast me not off from among Thy children; for I am Thy servant, a weak man, and of short time, falling short of understanding and good will. Send that lovely wisdom out of Thy holy heaven, and from the throne of Thy majesty, that she may be with me, may labor with me; that I may know what is acceptable to Thee, and the best to promote the welfare of the people. Adorable Savior, divine rnodel of that perfection to which we should all aspire; I will endeavor to follow Thy example, to be mild, humble, chaste, zealous, charitable and resigned. Incline my heart to keep Thy commandments; I am resolved to watch over myself, to live justly for the time to come. I will take care of my ways, that I may not offend with my tongue, nor relapse in my accustomed failings, but to struggle against them with Thy gracious assistance. Enlighten my mind, purify my heart, and guide my steps, that I may pass all my life in Thy divine service. Amen." That was the prayer offered on last Saturday here, by the clergyman officiating on that occasion. As to the first personal form of it, I was informed that the worthy gentleman deemed that the proper form for each member of the Convention to follow him in; and that if he had supposed that he alone was to pray, and not the Convention, he would not have used that form of words. I think it would be more satisfactory to our constituents to have this matter lost sight of~ and never appear again. Mr. TURNER. I move that this whole subject be laid upon the table. If this thing goes upon the record, we will appear more ridiculous than we do now, Mr. FERRIS. I call for the yeas and nays upon the motion to lay upon the table. The yeas and nays were not ordered. The question was upon the motion to lay upon the table. Mr. FERRIS. I desire to say one word. The PRESIDENT. The motion to lay on the table is not debatable. The question was then taken upon the motion to lay on the table; and upon a division, ayes 37, noes 16, it was agreed to. ELECTIONS. Mr. CASE. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. MORTON in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Elections." QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS. The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose, on yesterday, it had under consideration the first section of this article, which had been- amended to read as follows: "In all elections every person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in this State three months, and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote thirty days next preceding an election, belonging to either of the following classes, shall be an elector and entitled to vote: First. Every citizen of the United States; Second. Every male inhabitant of this State, who shall have resided in the United States two years and six months, and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, pursuant to the laws thereof, six months preceding an election; Third. Every male inhabitant residing in this State on the twenty-fourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five; Fourt7h. All male Indians, natives of the United States." The gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) moved to strike out the words "the United States," where they first occur in the second sub-division, and to insert in lieu thereof, the words " this State;" so that the clause will read "Every male inhabitant of this State, who shall have resided in this State two years and six months," etc. Pending which, the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) moved to amend the second sub-division by inserting after the words " United States," where they first occur, the words "five years, and in this State," so that the clause will read: "Every male inhabitant of this State who shall have residedcin the United States five years, and in this State two years and six months," etc. The question is upon the amendment to the amendment. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I desire simply to state that it will very readily appear to the members of the committee of the whole, that by the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) the I I I 0 f 0 d r t t n y y Tuesday, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVPNTION. 282 JulyI23, 1867. DEBATES A~D I - - right of suffrage will be taken fro many persons in our State, who for many years past have enjoyed that privilege. His amendment, therefore, is restrictive ini its character; and to that I am opposed. The amendment proposed by myself leaves the subject of suffrage in connection with this particular class of inlhabitants, exactly where it is now placed in the Constitution of the State. The report of the committee on elections enlarges the privilege, and extends it to many of that class who have not heretofore enjoyed it. Therefore, the report of the committee enlarges the privilege, the amendment of the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) restricts it, while the amendment proposed by myself leaves it exactly where it is at present. Mr. BLACKMAN. I desire to correct the statement of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) that my amendment would disfranchise many who for many years have enjoyed the privilege of voting. It might posssibly affect some few individuals who have for a short time enjoyed the privilege. If the gentleman means by "many years," as many as five years, then my amendment would not affect those individuals. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I referred to a class of individuals. Mr. BLACKMAN. The language applies to the same class of individuals without the amendment as with it. My amendment would only affect those who had been in this State two years and six months, and who had not been in the United States for five years. These are the only persons who would be affected by my amendment, who have ever had the privilege of voting. There might be cases of that kind where they had been in this State long enough to become voters under the Constitution, but had not been in the United States for five years. In that case their rights would be held in abeyance until their whole time of residence in the United States, including of course the time they had resided in this State, would extend to five years. That is all the disqualification that would arise in any case. It would only occur in individual cases. While I am upon the subject, although it- is not exactly applicable to this particular question, I wish to remark here, that the report of the committee does leave this matter so that some who have enjoyed the privilege of voting for many years may be deprived of it. They have omitted the clause in the present Constitution, making all white male inhabitants residing in this State on the first day of January, 1850, voters. That clause makes them voters, whether they ever declared their intention to become citizens or not; and under that clause, some individuals may have enjoyed the right of suffrage up to the present time. Leaving that clause out, makes it necesary for them to declare- their intentions to become citizens before they can vote; therefore, their rights in that respect, will remain in abeyance for six months before they become voters. I think that would operate fully as much as my amendment to interfere with the rights of those who have heretofore enjoyed the elective franchise. Mr. P. D. WARNER. The present Constitution says: "Every male inhabitant residing in the State on the first day of January, 1850, who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States pursuant to the laws thereof, six months preceding an election, or "who has resided in this State two years and six months and declared his intention as aforesaid," etc. Those persons brought in under that clause of the Constitution, would of course be voters now. Mr. BLACKMIAN. If the Constitution reads in that way, then I was under a misapprehension. Mr. CROCKER. I hope neither of these amendments will be adopted. The committee on elections in considering this subject, were unanimously of the opinion that the provision of the old Constitution in this respect, was correct, and that it worked no injury. They further considered, and I can see no good reason for departing from the rule, that a man by living in either of the States for two years and six months, went through the pupilage which was necessary, perhaps, in order to enable him to become acquainted with the institutions of this State, equally as well as if he had lived in Michigan; and that the same privileges should be extended to him, as to those who had lived in this State that length of time. As I understand it, this privilege was extended by the Constitution of 1850, for the purpose of encouraging a class of emigrants to come here and build up our waste places. We certainly wish not to curtail any rights we had extended to them, if we do not extend them any further privileges. I do not think any man can point out one single instance where the privileges of the present Constitution have anywhere worked injury to individuals or communities. And until that can be done, I hope we will not allow prejudices against nationalities and language in any manner to influence our action in this matter. I think this provision is a good one, and is salutary in all respects. Mr. INGALLS. I wish to offer another amendment inll connection with the amendments now pending, to the second subdivision of this section. I think it will be well to consider my amendment in connection with the other amendments which have been offered. It is for the purpose of preventing the cutting off the elective franchise from such of our foreign borni citizens, as now exercise that right under our present Constitution. As I understand it, if this section is left just where it is they will be voters. I hope the Convention will see the propriety of this section and of the amendment which I propose to offer. My amendment may have some influence in determining their action upon the particular amendments now pending. The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment is in order at the present time. Mr. INGALLS. I will read it for the information of the committee. I propose to add to the amendment of the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) the following: "Provided, That all persons who are now entitled to the rights of electors in this State shall continue to exercise the same." Mr. BLACKMAN. I will accept that as an amendment to my amendment. The question was upon the amendment of Mr. BLACKMAN, as modified, to' the amendment of Mr. P. D. WARNER. Mr. FERRIS. I think the reasons which influenced the committee on elections to make this proposed change in the provision of our present Constitution, are good and substantial reasons, and if duly considered, will have their influence here- in committee of the whole. We could see no reason for continuing in the Constitution which we are now engaged in framing, a restriction to a residence of two and a half years in this State. There is nothing in the circumstances, situation or institutions of this State, as distinguished from those of the other States, which would call for such a discrimination against a person coming from one of the other States to reside within our border. We are all republican States, and our institutions are founded upon substantially the same principles. A person coming into this State, who declares within our borders his intention to become a citizen of the United States, manifests thereby a desire to conform to our institutions, and to regulate his conduct by our political principles. If it could be made to appear that that same person, instead of entering within our territorial'limits, had first elected to reside in the State of New York, or of Ohio, or of some other State, and had thereby I t July 23, 1867. DEBATES AND -PROCEEDINGS. 283 28 CONSTITUTJOAL ('1ONVETIO. Tuesday, manifested a different intention, and had elected to be governed by a different set of political principles, then there would be some object, it seems to me, in making this discrimination. But the fact being that, by going into another State, and declaring his intentions there, he recognizes the same principles of government as binding upon him, recognizes his allegiance to the same authority, that he would do if he declared his intentions here, shows conclusively to my mind, and did to the committee on elections, that there ought to be no discrimination made between persons who first located their habitation in another State, and those who did so in our State. But, in regard to this entire class of people, I would say this and I think justice requires me to saythis-that the great mass of them dome to our shores thoroughly indoctrinated with republican principles; they come here in the main because they prefer the institutions of this country to those of their native.land, and, in fact, to those of any other country. For one, I am inclined to place less stress upon the mere question of birth than some gentlemen seem disposed to do. It is a matter over which no man has any control, whether he be born in this country, England, Ireland, France, Germany, or any other portion of the world. But his political principles, the views which he adopts in regard to government and the science of gov ernment, those are matters of choice and preference. A man born under a different form of government, educated in a different society, who, after examining all these questions of government, comes deliberately to the conclusion that our form of govern ment and the principles that underlie it are the best, is entitled, in my opinion, to more respect than if he had been born here. I have found that some of the clearest headed men, the soundest politically, are men who abandoned their native land and came here be cause they preferred republicanism to every other form of political authority. I entertain' for those men the profound est respect. I hope.that this recom mendation of the committee in their report will be adopted; that we will open our arms wide to our brethren from all lands, who are republicans in theory, and desire to be so in practice, and incorporate them at once into our great political brotherhood. Mr. CHAPIN. I do not rise to par ticipate at all in this discussion. I believe the Convention are ready to yote upon this amendment, and have been for some time past, and I really hope we will come to a vote. As to the mendments, I will simply say that I deem them unnecessary; I think they make a distinction where there is no difference. I am ready to vote, and I hope the committee will come to a vote at once. The question was upon the amend ment of Mr. BLACKMAN to the amend ment of Mr. P. D. WARNER; and was to insert after the words " United States," where they first occur in the f second subdivision of this section, the words, "five years in this State;" also to add to the subdivision the words cprovided that all persons who are now entitled to the rights of electors in this State shall continue to exercise that right;" so that the subdivision will read: "Every male inhabitant of this State, who shallhave resided in the United States five iyears, and in this State two years and six months, and declared his intention to become a citizen of'the United States, pursuant to the laws thereof; six months preceding an election; Provided, that allpersons who are now entitled to the rights of electors in this State, shall continue to exercise that right." The question was taken upon the amendment to the amendment, and it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. P. D. WARNER, to strike out the words "the United States," where they first occur in the second subdivision of this section, and to insert in lieu thereof the words, "in this State," so that it would read, "Every male inhabitant of this State, who shall have resided in this State two years and six months," etc. The amendment of Mr. P. D. WAR NER was not agreed to.. No further amendment was offered to this section. RIGHT OF SOLDIERS TO VOTE, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 2. In time of war, insurrection or rebellion, the right to vote shall be enjoyed by all persons otherwise entitled thereto, who may be in the actual military or naval ser vice ot the United States or of this State; Provided, Their votes shall be made to apply to the township or ward of which they are residents. Mr. MILLES. I move to amend this section by striking out the words "otherwise entitled thereto;" so that the section will read: "In time of war, insurrection or rebellion, the right to vote shall be enjoyed by all persons who may be in the actual military or naval service of the United States, or of this State," etc. Mr. FERRIS. I was in hopes that the mover of that amendment would have given us his reasons for it. There are very strong reasons in favor of this amendment, and I think they would be entitled to weight in this committee. I can see a propriety in adopting this amendment. From time to time, when we have been engaged in war, that same policy has been adopted, and I think we might Well and safely adopt it as a matter of general public policy. In my opinion a man who bares his breast to the dangers of battle in our behalf, is entitled to the ballot every time and under all circumstances; and - we ought so to declare it in our Consti- tution. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee upon this amendment. I make this simple suggestion, that when we dsk a man to fight for our defense, we ought certainly to go so far as to say to him that we will make him a citizen and a voter. I do not want any man to defend me with whom I am ashamed to go to the ballot box and cast my vote. Mr. HARRIS. I would ask the gentleman from Kent (Mr. FERRIs) whether, if this amendment prevails, a boy of ten years of age, who enlists as a drummer, would not be a voter? Mr. FERRIS. I think not. Mr. BIRNEY. I fail to see any rea son in the remarks of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FRtRIs,) in support of this amendment. I —take it, the design of this section is, that if a man goes into the army, he should not be de prived of any privilege he has at home. But it is not the intention, that where a substitute is obtained in Canada, and sent into the army, he should be a vo ter in this State, although he is per fectly ignorant of our institutions. I cannot think that the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIs,) has fully consid ered-the effect of this amendment. Mr. INGALLS. I would like to ask the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILES,) whether if his amendment pre vails, all the soldiers in the army of the United States could not be permitted to vote, even the soldiers of other States? Striking out the words he proposes to strike out would leave the section to read: " In time of war, in surrection or rebellion, the right to vote shall be enjoyed by all persons who may be in the actual military or naval service of the United States," etc. It seems to me that would make a pretty sweeping clause. Mr. MILES. If the gentleman will read the proviso at the end of the sec tion, he will see that his inquiry is an swered. Mr. INGALLS. It may be a ques tion whether that would answer my inquiry; "provided their votes shall be made to apply to the township or ward of which they are residents." Mr. MILES. Of which they are residents. Mr. INGALLS. They may be resi dents in some particular town or ward and yet not voters. During the late rebellion we sent out among our vol unteers a large number of persons who were not citizens of the United States, and had not even declared their t 28,1 C,ON TITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Tu'esday, July 23 187'-AIE ~ ROEDNS 8 intentions to become such. I think myself that the section reported by the committee is well guarded, and is broad enough to cover all that we desire. I for one am in favor of all resident volunteers of the State voting; but we do not want to open the door to fraud, and allow men to vote simply because they are in the military service, who are not in any sense citizens of the United States, or of this State. Mr. VAN VALK-ENBURGH. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILES,) is certainly a very strange one. If his amendment is adopted, the only qualification necessary to make a person a voter in this State would be for him to enter the army, without any regard to his age or anything else. All the boys whom the gentleman wants to vote would certainly be voters under the provisions of his amendment. The section would then read, "In time of war, insurrection, or rebellion, theright to vote shall be enjoyed by all persons who maybe in the actual military or naval service of the United States, or of this State." That is the way the section would read as proposed to be amended by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mir. MILES.) Mr. MILES. Will the gentleman read the proviso to the section? Mr. VAN VALKFENBURGH. The proviso reads" provided their votes shall be made to apply to the township or ward of which they are residents." That does not affect their right to vote; it is only the application of their votes to their places of residence. The amendment of the gentleman would certainly open the door to everybody, without distinction of age, sex, or anything else. Mr. CROSWELL. In connection with this amendment, I desire to inquire of the honorable chairman of the committee on elections (Mr. VAN VALKEsBUnGH) if this section, as it now stands, will accomplish what I suppose it is designed to accomplish. The section reads as follows: "In rime of war, insurrection or rebellion the right to vote shall be enjoy ed by all persons otherwise entitled thereto who may be in the actual military or naval service of the United States, or of this State." I apprehend that right is conferred by the provisions of section -ix of this article. That section provides that "no elector shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence, by reason of his being employed in the service of the United States, or of this State," etc. Then the proviso to section two is as follows: "Provided their votes shall be made to apply to the township or ward of which they are residents.' Now, without the first portion of sec tion two, a soldier in the army and from this State would have the right to vote, but his vote must apply to the township or ward in which he is a resident. But that vote must be delivered there personally by himself to the inspector of elections. Now, it seems to me that the entire section is defective; that it does not provide that a soldibr, absent from the polls by reason of this service, may be permitted tovote at his place of service, under such regulations as shall be prescribed by law. In regard to the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILr,ES,) I simply desire to call the attention of the honorable chairman of the committee on elections, to what I deem to be a defect in this section. He will see by an examination of the section upon this subject in the present Constitution, that it covers the very question that I raise here. He will also see by reference to the amendment to the Constitution of the State of New Nork, that the same provision is inserted there, a provision for the reception of the vote of the soldier during his absence. If I am correct in my comprehension of this section, it provides for nothing of the kind. Mr. CHAPIN. I would inquire of the gentleman frdm Lenawee,' (Mr. CROSWELL,) if the matter to which he refers, the modle or manner in which a soldier shall be permitted to vote, is not a matter of legislative detail rather than of Constitutional provision? Even if the stricture of the gentleman be correct, would not all difficulty on that score be obviated by inserting after the words " of this State, " the words "in such a manner as shall be provided by law?" That would perhaps avoid any doubt upon this subject. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. The committee on elections supposed that this section contained all that was necessary to enable a soldier or marine to vote, who was a citizen of this State. We supposed that all the details of the matter would be subjects of legislative provision; that we had laid the foundation here, so that the Legislature might by law prescribe the mode and manner in which these votes should be given and received. Notwithstanding the remarks of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL,) it appears to me that all that is necessary is contained in this section. No person in the military or naval service of the United States, or of this State, can be deprived of the right to vote, provided his vote shall be made to apply to the township or ward of which he is a resident. Does not that lay the foundation for the Legislature to act upon in regard to details, to provide the man ner in which that shall be done? It appears to me that all that is necessary is contained in this section. lMr. FERRIS. I move to amend the amendment, in order to impose a limitation which the chairman of the committee on elections (Mr. VsAN VALKENBURGHr) himself suggested, when he was first upon the floor, upon this subject. I move to insert, in place of the words proposed to be stricken out, the words "twenty-one years of age." The section will then read: "In time of war, insurrection or rebellion, the right to vote shall be enjoyed by all persons twenty-one years of age, who may be in the actual military or naval service of the United States, or of this State." Mr. T. G. SMITH. I desire to say to the gentleman from Lenawee, the honorable President of this Convention, (Mr. CROSWELL,) that the language employed in this section is the same contained in the provision of 1865, which gave the soldiers of this State the right to vote, and which I believe the honorable President of this Convention assisted in enacting. That provision is in these words: "Provided, That in time of war, insurrection or rebellion, no qualified elector in the actual military or naval service o'f the United States, or of this State, in the army or navy thereof, shall be deprived of his vote by reason of his absence from the township, ward or city in which he resides." He shall enjoy the right to vote wherever he is, whether it is in the United States or any other country. If he is in the naval service of the United States, hle is by this proviso entitled to vote; it cannot be exercised otherwise except by an actual voter. I think the provision here is just as comprehensive as the provision under the present Constitution, under which the soldiers of this State were entitled to vote. Mr. CROSWELL. Will the honorable gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. T. G. SMITH,) allow me to read the remainder of the section of the present Constitution? Mr. T. G. SMITH. Certainly. Mr. CROSWELL.' "And the Legislature shall have the power, and shall provide the mode and manner in which, and the time and place at which such absent electors may vote, and for the canvass and return of their votes to the township, or ward election district in which they respectively reside, or otherwise." Mr. T. G. SMITH. I will state in regard to that, that it was at first the intention of the committee on elections to incorporate that provision of this section. But it is thought that without any such direction it would be the duty of the Legislature to make all laws necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Constitution. It J,uly, 23, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 285' I ..... C T is also thought that there would probably be a provision in this Constitution expressly directing the Legislature to pass all laws necessary to carry into effect all the provisions of this Constitution, which we might adopt, without attaching such a declaration to each individual section or article. Mr. CROSWELL. It seems to me that is the very point upon which the whole question turns. The very imperfection in the Constitution of 1850, which the amendment adopted in- 1865 was intended to correct, was the very question of authorizing an elector to vote at a place different from that prescribed by the Constitution, before that amendment was made. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Does not the gentleman construe the first part of the section which I read from the article on elections in the present Constitution, as granting the right to vote to soldiers in actual service; or does he regard that the right depended upon ,the subsequent provision of that section, requiring the Legislature to pass laws to carry out that right? Mr. CROSWET,L. It depended upon both portions of that section. The language used in the section under consideration is different from the language of the section in the present Constitution as amended in 1865. "He shall not be deprived of his vote by reason of his absence from the town ship, ward or city in which he resides," is the language of the present Constitution. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. FERRIS, to insert in lieu of the words proposed to be stricken out by Mr. MILES, the words " twenty-one years of age." Mr. MILES. I accept the amend ment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,) so as to make my motion a motion to strike out and insert. Mr. HOLT. I desire to offer a substitute for this entire section, as follows: " That in time of war, insurrection or re. bellion, no qualified elector in the actual military service of the United States, or of this State, in the army or navy thereof, shall be deprived of his vote, by reason of his absence from the towL.ship, ward or State in which he resides; and the Legislature shall have the power, and, shall provide the manner in which, and the time and place at which such absent electors may vote, and for the canvass and return of their votes to the township, ward, or election district in which they respectively reside, or otherwise." The C-ATRMAN. The question will be first taken upon the motion of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILES,) as modified, to strike out the words, "otherwise entitled thereto," and to insert in lieu thereof the words, "twenty-one years of age." Mr. CHAPIN. I call for a division of the question, and ask that the vote be first taken upon the motion to strike out. The CHAIRMAN. A division of the question having been called for, the vote will be first taken upon the motion to strike out the words " otherwise entitled thereto." Mr. BILLS. I suggest whether the first section of this article does not sufficiently qualify the age of the elector, and whether it does not apply with as much force to section two, as to any other section of this article? The first section provides: " In all elections every person of the age of twenty-one years," etc. When the language "otherwise entitled thereto," is used in section two of this article, is it not qualified by the provision in the first section which I have read? It is to be understood that age is not the only qualification. If it is the purpose of this committee to retain the same qualification in the case of an absent voter, as in the case of one who is at home, then the words reported in this section fully carry out that design. If it is the design of this committee to change those qualifications, to make the qualification one of age merely, whether he be a citizen of the United States or not, then the amendment proposed would effect that object. For one, I am in favor of retaining the language reported by.the committee on elections, "otherwise entitled thereto." The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIS,) in his argument, said that whoever fought for him he was willing should vote. I suppose the object of extending the elective franchise to persons in the army or out of it is not a matter of personal benefit or favor to that individual. But the object of extending the elective franchise to anybody either in the army or out of it, either at the place of his residence or elsewhere, is simply for the promotion of the public welfare. If it would be for the public welfare to permit persons in the army to vote, who would not be qualified to vote if they were not in the army, then I apprehend that the amendment now proposed to substitute the words "twenty-one years of age," for the words "otherwise entitled to," would not carry out that purpose, and would not meet the wishes of this committee. My own convictions are that' the same qualifiations for exercising the right of the elective franchise should attach to an individual voting in the army, as attach to an individual in civil life. I do not see how, transferring an individual from civil life into military life adds to his qualifications to judge of the interests or welfare of the community. For that reason I should be in favor of retaining the language reported by the committee on elections; and requiring the same qualifications for those voting in the army, that would be required of them if they voted at their places of residence while in civil life. Mr. PRINGLE. Inasmuch as the mover of the amendment to strike out the words, "otherwise entitled thereto," (Mr. MILrS,) has accepted the amendment, providing that all persons embraced under the provisions of this section shall be twenty-one years of age, it confines the case pretty much to persons who come from abroad and enter the military or naval service of the State or of the United States. Those persons, by the operation of the new rule here suggested, would be entitled to vote sooner than they otherwise would. Now, this precise case is one which is in large part provided for by the law of the United States authorizing any alien to become naturalized, and to receive the pap-ers which make him a full citizen, at any time after he has been in the service of the United States for a certain length of time. That law greatly abridges the time required to beecome a citizen; it makes a rule which meets nearly all cases, and hence this amendment is not necessary. I think the strictures made a few minutes ago by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL,) in reference to this section, are very proper. I do not think this section meets what the committee on elections intended. The supreme court of this State decided, very wrongly and foolishly as I thought at the time, and without any goodreason as I now think, that as a matter of construction, the words "in the township or wards" as they occur in the first clause of the first section of this article, related to the recepion of the vote in the township or ward where the votes may personally deliver it. This, I understand to have been the ground of that- decision. There is nothing in this section two which refers specifically to the case of absent persons. It says, indeed, that "in time of war, insurrection or rebellion, the right to vote shall be enjoyed by all persons otherwise entitled thereto, who may be in the actual military or naval service of the United States, or of this State." That is, that there shall be no disqualification by reason of that service; that would be one in ference from the section as it now stands. A person in such service shall not be disqualified, if he has a right to vote, from personally offering his vote in the township or ward where he re sides. If this section should be left out of this article entirely, I do not CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.. Tuesday, 286 .1 July 23, 1867. DEBATES AD PROC]EDIG 287 think that a person under such circumstances would be disqualified or disfranchised. Mr. FERRIS. I will point out a case I had in my mind, if the gentleman will allow me. Mr. PRINGLE. Certainly. Mr. FERRIS. The case I had in view was this: a person settles in this State, and after being here four, or five or six months, enlists in our volunteer service. I think in the case of a person so situated, that enlistment in the service should be full and complete naturalization; a naturalization made by courage and bravery. Mr. PRINGLE. I was-not speaking of that question, at the time the gentleman interrupted me. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. PRINGLE.'If the gentleman will first permit me to answer for a moment what the gentleman from Kent (Mr. FiRr,Is) has said, I will cheerfully give way. I said a few minutes ago, that the case of a person not entitled to vote under our laws because he was an alien, was in a large part provided for by the law of the United States, which enabled him, after one year's service in the army or navy, to obtain his full naturalization. papers, and to become a citizen of the United States. If that law had provided that a person shall receive his naturalization papers after a service of three months, or one month, or one day instead of one year, the case suggested by the gentleman from Kent would have been perfectly provided for. Our ordinary elections occur at intervals of two years, so that between the elections there would be full time for any foreigner to obtain the benefit of the new law of the United States in regard to naturalization. The- cases referred to by the gentleman from Kent would relate only to a single election; they would not comprise persons enough to make it worth while to consider it in the Constitution. Then again, since I am upon that subject, there is another thing to which I will allude. There are men who have come from Canada or Ireland, or elsewhere to help fight our battles. Whether they came for money or patriotism, I do not care; they have no wish to become citizens of the United States. They fought for the self-same reason that one of us, if in Paris at the time of a revolution there, would strike, if at all, upon the side of the people, rather than the government. Those persons, whether from patriotism or mercenary motives, I do not care, helped to fight our battles; but they did not wish to become citizens of our government. I would give no right to the soldier more than to any one else, unless he would take upon himself the obligations of a citizen, as he does by declaring his intention to become a citizen under the laws of the United States. But at the time I was interrupted, I was speaking upon an entirely different matter; about the construction of this section in the view suggested by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CIOSwEL.) I was saying that the supreme court of this State had decided that the words "township or ward," confined the exercise of voting to the personal delivery of the ballot in the township or ward where the elector resides. I also said that there was nothing in this section two to take the case of the absent soldier out of that same ruling; nothing to take it beyond where the court construing this section, with the same narrow ideas with which they construed the old Constitution, would so construe it that suffrage would not be given to a citizen in the army, unless he should return and vote in the township or ward in which he was a resident. I would avoid that; I would modify the section so that the court would have )o diffculty in construing it in such a way as to- give the right which the section is intended to give. I would provide here for the case of the absence of a citizen in the service of the army or the navy of the United States, or of this State, and have it understood that, the Legislature should provide for his exercising the right of voting while so absent. Mr. BLACKMAN. I rise to a question of order. I would inquire whether the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) is speaking to the amendment now before the committee of the whole? To explain my motive for making this point of order, I will say that I agree perfectly with the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) and the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL,) upon the point raised; but that seems not to be the question before this committee. Taking that view of it yesterday, I prepared an amendment, which I thought would meet the case. Mr. PRINGLE. I am making these remarks preliminary to offering a substitute for this section, which I take it will be now in order, but will be held in abeyance until the section itself shall be perfected by amendment. I have drawn a substitute for this section, substantially in the language of the amendment adopted to the present Constitution in 1865. I have abridged that amendment a little, but I think my substitute contains all the essential parts of it. The substitute I propose to offer is as follows: "In time of war, insurrection or rebellion, no qualified elector in the actual military or naval service of the United States, or of this State, shall be deprived of his vote by reason of his absence from the township or ward in which he resides; and the Legislature shall provide the time and place at which such absent electors may vote, and for the canvass and return ot their votes, to be counted in the township or ward in which he resides." I will simply say that I think it important that there should be a rule in the Constitution, about which there may be no question; that the case of an absent elector shall be one for which the Legislature shall.provide; that there should be something to negative what the supreme court say is the legal effect of his having the right to vote in a particular township or ward. As I said before, they have construed that to mean that he must personally deliver his vote in that township or ward. I do not wish to leave the Constitution we are framing open to any such construction. I think the point made by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL,) is well made; that it would be open to such construction as overruled the soldiers' voting law, passed several years ago, if we leave it as it now stands. Mr. MILES. When I offered my amendment, I did not propose to say one word upon it. It seemed to me that it was eminently just and proper that a man who was fighting for our country, should have the privilege of voting in it; I did not deem it necessary to make any remarks upon th6 subject. Considering the very liberal policy of our State heretofore, which policy seems to be growing still more liberal, it seems to me that itwould be well to adopt a provision like that embraced in .my amendment. We invite the foreigner to immigrate to our State, and give him the ballot after he has resided here two years-and six months. That I believe to be the true policy of our State, because he makes it his home. I heard it remarked here not long since, that not one'in nine or ten of these foreigners ever intended to take the oath of allegiance. But it appears -to be the object of the committee on elections to extend the elective franchise in certain directions, and to restrict it in others. So far as I can see, the easiest way for a man to obtain the right to the elective franchise in this State, under the provisions reported here by the comrmittee on elections, with the least trouble, is to buy a blanket, get lousy and dirty, go into an Indian camp, and go from thence to the polls; he will then be a voter. Now, if it is our policy to force the elective franchise upon those who do not wish it, and do not know how to use it aftersthey have got it, I certainly am in favor of giving DEBATES AND - PROCFIFDINGS. July 232.1867. 287 A 4 28 COXSITUIsN OOVNIN xusdy it to those who fight to preserve bur rights, and the rights of that class of men who are willing to throw away the ballot box. I am in favor of allowing every man who fights for the State to vote in it. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Every member of the committee on elections will respond most cordially to the remarks of my friend from St. Clair, (Mr. MILES.) They did not intend to restrict the elective franchise at all, and particularly they did not intend to restrict its exercise by the soldiers of our army. They desire that they above all others shall have the privilege to vote. And the committee thought they had so framed this section that all who were entitled to vote at home would be entitled to vote while in the army. They thought the provisions of this section were sufficiently explicit to secure that object; if they were not secured by them, then they have not done what they desired to do. It is with a great deal of diffidence that I differ from my learned friend from Jacksonl, (Mr. PRINGLE,) when he tells us that this section does not provide for that very case. Let us read the section and analyze it for a moment. "In time of war, insurrection or rebellion, the right to vote shall be enjoyed by persons otherwise entitled thereto." That right shall not be restricted, and shall not be infringed. We do not intend that any person going to perform service in our army for a day or two, or for a month or two, or for any length of time, unless entitled to vote when at home, shall be a voter while in the army. If he was a voter at home when he lived there, he would be a voter in the army. "Who may be in the actual military or naval service of the United States, or of this State." Any person who is in the service of the United States, either as a soldier or mariner, shall enjoy while there the same right to vote to which he was entitled when at home: "Provided their votes'shall be made to apply to the township or ward of which they are residents." The learned gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRIaGLE,) tells you that that means that they shall walk up to the ballot-box and there deposit their votes. I apprehend that is a very constrained meaning, to require that they shall be personally present and deposit their votes in the township or ward. "Their votes shall be made to apply;" does that mean that they shall be made to carry up and deposit their votes in the township in which they are residents? The committee desired to protect every soldier and mariner in his right to the elective franchise, who was entitled to it when at home; that they should, wherever they were, cast their vote, and that the Legislature should provide the manner in which their votes should be received, deposited and applied to the township or ward of which they are residents. If we have not effected that object by this section, then we have not effected what we desired. But, in my humble opinion, notwithstanding I differ widely from my learned friend from Jackson, that object is amply provided for in this section. I hope it will pass as reported by the committee. Mr. BIRNEY. I think the chairman of the committee on elections (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH) gives the right construction to this section. I am opposed to all amendments to it, because I think the section as it is accomplishes all that is necessary. I cannot conceive how any construction could ever be applied to it so as to require a soldier in the actual service of the lnited States, and out of this State, in order to be entitled to vote, to be at the polls of his township. It seems to me no court in Christendom would give this section that construction. There is no likelihood, for one generation at least, that we shall have any war in this country rendering this provision necessary, after what we have already experienced. If a soldier is in the service he is subject completely to the command of his superior officers. They may send him to Florida; and if the construction is put upon this section that the soldier, in order to vote, must be at the polls in Micliigan, then he cannot enjoy any right to vote while in the service; that would be a palpable contradiction. The proviso of this section shows the application of the principle. It seems to me that the language of the section is perfect, and terse, and needs no amendment whatever. AThe question was on the amendment of Mr. MILES to strike out the words "otherwise entitled thereto," and to insert in lieu thereof the words "twenty-one yeers of age," so that that part of the section would read: ", the right to vote shall be enjoyed by all persons twenty-one years of age," etc. f -Mr. CHAPIN. I call for a division, and ask that the question be first taken upon striking out. The question was then taken upon striking out the words "otherwise entitled thereto," and it was not agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The motion to strike out having been lost, the motion to insert falls. Mr. WILLIAMS. I move to amend this section, by inserting after the words "military or naval service of the United States or of this State," the words "at such place, and in such manner, as shall be provided by law." That portion of the section if so amended would read: "In time of war, insurrection, or rebellion, the right to vote shall be enjoyed by all persons otherwise entitled thereto who may be in the actual military or naval service of the United States or of their State, it such place and in such manner as shall be provided by law." I do not wish to take up much time in discussing this question. But it occurs to me that under the decision of the supreme court of this State, the position taken by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL,) and the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) is correct. It strikes me, that without adopting any substitute for this whole section, the amendment which I have suggested will accomplish the object desired, and leave the section iterse-and complete. The language of the section is complete of itself, with the exception that it does not authorize the Legislature to change the place where the'ballot shall be cast. I think all that is necessary is to authorize the Legislature to change the place of casting the ballot, so that it may be cast wherever the voter may be. Mr. FARMER. I will say that the object of the committee on elections was to give all soldiers the right to vote, who are entitled to vote while at home. They supposed that they would accomplish that object by this section, and that the manner in which that right was to be exercised was a mere matter of legislation. That legislation they supposed they had provided for by section seven, which reads: "Laws may be passed to preserve the purity of elections, and guard against the abuses of the elective franchise." If there is any doubt hanging over this matter, which there seems to beand I have great respect for the. opinions of the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLLIMS,) the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSwELL,) and the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PEINOLE,) I hope we will make it beyond all doubt, by adopting the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Allegan. Mr. VAN VALNENBURGH. The committee on elections are not at all tenacious in regard to their section; they are not sensitive on the subject. If the amendment offered by the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) will satisfy the committee of the whole better than the section as it now stands, we certainly shall say nothing CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 288 Tuesday, l. I, D -. against it. We desire to effect the object which will be effected at all events by the amendment of the gentleman from Allegan. We however, believe that that object will be effected by the section as it now stands. But we will make no objection to any amendment that will make the section more distinct and more clear, and less liable to dispute. Mr. HOLT. The substitute which I have sent up is the language of the present Constitution, as amended in 1865. It seems to me that that is preferable to this section, even if amended as proposed by the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLLAMS.) It would leave no question in regard to the construction of it. The amendment of the gentleman from Allegan does not provide for any canvass or return of the votes; it merely refers to the time and place of voting. Mr. WILLIAMS. My amendment refers to the place and manner of voting. Mr. HOLT. I think my substitute would be preferable to the section, even if amended as proposed. Mr. WILLIAMS. As my amendment does not seem to be understood by the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT,) I will state its language: "at such place, and in such manner, as shall be provided by law." It appears to me that that will meet his objection, for the manner will include the canvass of the vote. The real point is this: The chairman of the committee, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) does not fully understand the main point. I like the language of this section as reported by the committee. I do not wish to go back to the language adopted by the Legislature, for I think this is better. The precise point is, that under our Constitution the words " the township or ward in which he offers to vote," may by construction require that the offer to vote shall be made in a township or ward. We desire to authorize expressly the Legislature to change the place of voting in reference to this class of voters. That is precisely the point, and by inserting my amendment here, there will be no difficulty about. it. Mr. CROCKER. I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Allegan will prevail; although I think the section reported by the committee on elections, as it now stands, is clear and not capable of the construction placed upon it by some members of this committee. Because by putting the construction on it which I understand they do, they render the section entirely nugatory. I apprehend that no court would so construe this section. The first question for the court would Vol. 2 —No. 37. be, what was the purpose for which the section was inserted in the Constitution? In reading this article, they would see that the first section enumerates the different classes of persons entitled to exercise the elective franchise in this State. They would see that this section undertook in some measure to make a qualification or extension of that right. They would see precisely to whom it applied, and there would be no difficulty in the court construing it so as to give it force. It is well settled that courts must give a provision of that kind such a construction as will not render it entirely nugatory; and any other construction than that insisted upon by the chairman of the committee, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGAH,) would render this section entirely nugatory. But for the purpose of saving any question, and preventing it from going before the court, making it so plain that any man, whether a lawyer or layman, would raise no question upon it, the amendment of the gentleman from Allegan might be adopted, and then the subject would be put beyond controversy. The amendment of Mr. VWILLIAMS was then agreed to. Mr. PRINGLE. Inasmuch as my object has been substantially accomplished by the amendment just adopted, I withdraw my substitute for this section. MIr. FERRIS. I move to amend this section by adding to it the following: "And in time of war, insurrection or rebellion, all residents of this State twenty-one years of age, who shall enlist and serve in the military or naval service of the United States or of this State, until honorably discharged, shall be entitled to the elective franchise." Without detaining the committee more than a moment, I will say that I have prepared this amendment to meet the cases of persons who have come into this State with the intention of remaining with us and becoming citizens, but who, after being here a short time, enter into the service of the country. We had a great many cases of that kind during the rebellion; men who had been here three or six months, or a year, but not long enough to become voters, entered the military service. Some of them, after a few months service, came home maimed for life. I have talked with some of them, and they have suggested this amendment. It seems to me very reasonable that when a foreigner comes here and settles, and after being here a short time enlists in our service, that enlistment and service until honorably discharged should constitute an enfranchisement. Take the case of persons who enlisted in our Gventeenth regiment, persons who had been here some of them but four months; that regiment immediately upon arriving at the front went into battle, and some of them returned home without an arm, and some without a leg. But yet the State did nothing for them, so far as this question is concerned. I think we should put this provision into our Constitution, so that in case we have any war of any kind hereafter, persons actually resident within this State would see that by enlisting in our service, and thereby manifesting a sufficient interest in our institutions to become citizens, they would be regarded by the Constitution of this State as citizens, upon whom the right of the elective franchise would be conferred. It is to meet that particular class of cases that I propose this amendment, and I hope it will be adopted. It will be a gratification, and will carry joy to many a man who enlisted in our army and who lost an arm ora leg in our service. The amendment of Mr. FERRIS was not agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The next question is upon the following substitute, offered by the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT,) for this section: "That in time of war, insurrection or rebellion, no qualified elector in the actual military service of the United States, or of this State, in the army or navy thereof, shall be deprived of his vote, by reason of his absence from the township, ward or State in which he resides; and the Legislature shall have the power, and shall provide the manner in which, and the time and place at which such absent electors may vote, and for the canvass and return of their votes to the township, ward, or election district in which they respectively reside, or otherwise." Mr. HOLT. Inasmuch as the section has been amended by the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) and now seems to be acceptable to a majority of this committee of the whole, I will withdraw my substitute. No further amendment was offered to this section. ELECTIONS TO BE BY BALLOT, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 3. All elections shall be by ballot, except of such township officers as may be authorized by law to be otherwise chosen. Mr. ANDRUS. I move to amend this section by inserting, after the word "elections," the words " to office;" so that it will read: "All elections to office shall be by ballot," etc. The amendment of Mr. ANDRUS was not agreed to. No further amendment was offered to this section. ELECTORS PRIVILEGED FROM ARREST, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 4. Every elector, in all cases except treason, felony or breach of the peace, July 23, 1867. D'P,'RATES AND PROCEF,DINGS. 289 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. shall be privileged from arrest during his attendance at election, and in going to and returning from the same. Mr. TURNER. I move to amend the section by inserting after the word "felony," the word "amisdemeanor," so that it will read-," Every elector, in all cases except treason, felony, misdemeanor, or breach of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest," etc. Under the section as it now stands, if a man should commit a larceny on the morning of election of less than twenty-five dollars, or any other crimne which is denominated a misdemeanor by our statute, he could not be properly arrested during the day of the election. My object is to cover cases of that kind. To my knowledge the present Constitution, which contains a provision of this kind, has been violated time and time again. M-en have been arrested for misdemeanor on the day of election. I suppose it is understood by every member of this committee that felony is defined by our statutes to be a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State prison, while misdemeanor is punishable by fine, or imprisonment in the county jail. Mr. FARMER. I can imagine cases in which this might operate injuriously There might possibly be cases when an individual might cause the arrest of another, for the purpose of depriving him of the privilege of voting. ] merely wish to call the attention of the committee to that fact; I do not wish to make any argument on the amend ment. The amendment of Mir. TURNER was agreed to. No further amendment was offered to this section. ELECTORS EXEMPT FROM5 MILITARY DUTY ON DAY OF ELECTION, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 5. No elector shall be obliged to do military duty on the day of election, except in time of war or public danger, or attend court as a suitor or witness. No amendment was offered to this section. RESIDENCE GAINED ORl LOST BY E,LECTORS. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 6. No elector shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his being employed in the service of the United States or of this State, nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this State or of the United States, or of the hi,gh seas, nor while a student at any seminary of learning, nor while kept at any alms house or other asylum at public expense, nor while confined in any public prison. No amendment was offered to his section. PURITY OF ELECTIONS. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 7. Laws may be passed to preserve the purity of elections, and guard against the abuses of the elective franchise. Mr. BIRNEY. I would like to inquire of the chairman of the committee on elections, (Mir. VAN VALKXENBURGH,) what is the necessity for this section? Will not the Legislature have the right to pass laws for this pupose without this section? There is nothing here to prevent them from doing it, and I do not see that this would confer any additional power upon them. The Legislature would have that power without the section, and why shall we say that they may exercise it, when they will if they choose? Mr. NORRIS. I move to amend this section by striking out the word "may," and inserting the word" shall;" so that it will read —" Laws shall be passed to preserve the purity of elections," etc. Mr. VAN VALKENBURTGH. In reporting this section seven we followed the precedent of the Constitution of 1850. Although the Legislature. may without it have the power to pass laws to preserve the purity of elections, we thought it would be well enough to keep this section in our Constitution, and for that reason we reported it. We have no objection to any amendment proposed by any gentleman of this committee which will improve our work. We do not feel exactly as my friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CON GER,) expressed himself the other day. We invite all members of this committee to lay their eggs in our nest, if it will improve the breed. We wish to invite the wisdom of this Convention to perfect our work. We did the best we could, but we know there are gen tlemen in this Convention who can do a great deal better than we can, and we are willing to ask their assistance in perfecting our work. We say then to gentlemen " come on, and lay your eggs in our nest, and we will nourish them and accept them cheerfully." Mr. CONGER. I am opposed to this amendment. We have laws that are already passed, that are said to guard against abuses of the elective franchise, and to preserve the purity of elections; those laws are very satisfactory, I believe, to the people of this State. I do not desire that this Consti tution shall compel the Legislature to go on and pass those laws over again. I am perfectly willing those laws should remain as they are now. If we provide in this Constitution, that laws shall be passed, it is the duty of the Legislature to pass some law; either to pass the old law over again, or to pass some new law. Therefore: I am opposed to this amendment. The gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBUEGHi,) is very kind, and very courteous. But, as chairmanof' the committee on elections, he should have given some better reason why this section is introduced here, than the reason he has given, merely that it is in the present Constitution. I was a member of the. Legislature that passed the registration law of this State. It was claimed that without this clause in the Constitution, the Legislature would have no power to .interfere with the right of voting, as much as it was interfered with by that law. The opinion of the Attorney General of the State had to be obtained, whether without this pro vision here embodied as section seven, that registration law would not be un constitutional. Without this section, there would have been no question in the minds of the Legislature; they would have all understood that the Constitution was intended to execute itself in regard to the right of voting; and that-the restriction, or regulation of it, anything which cut off or affected the right to vote, by requiring some other act to be done before -a person could vote, would have been declared unconstitutional. Now, if gentlemen must make nests for the purpose of having eggs laid in them, then they cannot reproach any one for undertaking to deposit eggs there. But the reason for having this section in the Constitution at all, I think is, that such a provision is abso lutely necessary in order that any ac tion of the Legislature upon the sub ject may be constitutional. It was so held in the Legislature, and was so de clared in the opinion of the attorney general, at the time the registration law was passed. It was held that inasmuch as the Constitution gave the absolute right to vote to a citizen, there must be some provision in the Consti tution allowing a law to be passed to preserve the purity of the elections, as that right could not be taken away by , a restriction requiring the registration ; before a person should be entitled to a > vote. I think that is the~reason why this clause is inthe present Constitu tion, and it is a good reason why it ~ should be in the new one. The registration law of this State * has its enemies all over the State to> day, although it is acquiesced in. I have no question that the enemies of that law would repeal it whenever they had the power. If this section remains, it provides that such laws may be passed. I would prefer to have in this , article a provision that the registry law ~ should be enforced in the State of Michigan; a Constitutional provision that no Legislature should ever alter. I would prefer a provision of that kind in the Constitution instead of this one, or connected with this one; but the ...., -t ITuesday) 290 0 July 23, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 291 committee has not deemed it advisable to insert such a provision in the Constitution. But with the clause as it stands, I am satisfied, although I would much prefer a provision in the Constitution requiring the passage of a registration act. Mr. NORRIS. My object was twoford in offering the amendment I did. First, I think it is entirely nugatory to say "ma'y" to the Legislature; it amounts to nothing whatever. But I deem it important that the word "shall," shall be inserted in another view. We have just now greatly enlarged the right of persons to exercise the elective franchise. The probability is, that all the change will be in that direction, that we will extend it still further. I trust, therefore, that some clause will be inserted in the Constitution, which will compel the Legislature to pass laws regulating the amount and character of the Indian immigration, which shall prevail in this State for the next ten or fifteen years, from Minnesota and Wisconsin, and other States to our Northern Peninsula. At any rate, the Legislature should have the power, and it should be their duty to provide in some manner for regulating the Indian and colored vote for which we have made provision here. Further along, I propose to submit another amendment, which will make the one I have offered here still more pertinent; I do not desire to discuss it, but merely to suggest the idea. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. NORRIS to strike out "may," and insert "shall;" and upon a division, ayes 14, noes 23, no quorum voted. The question was again taken upon the amendment; and upon a division, ayes 22, noes 33, it was not agreed to. Mr. DANIELLS. I move to amend this section by adding to it the following: ",And the Legislature shall provide that a register of all citizens entitled to-the right of suffrage in each election district, shall be made and completed at least six days before any election, and no person shall vote at such election who shall not have been registered according to law." I am an advocate of the right of universal suffrage, manhood suffrage, citizen suffrage. But I believe that right is a sacred one, and should be carefully defined and protected by law; that those who are entitled to it should be selected and distinguished from those not entitled to it; that there may be no doubt that whenever there is an expression of the popular voice it is an expression of the voice of the legal electors. For this purpose I have proposed that a provision shall be inserted in our Constitution requiring an act of registration, providing that no person shall be entitled to vote except those who are registered. This will obviate all the difficulty suggested by my learned friend from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIS.) I think it will obviate another difficulty which. frightens me much more; that is that there will be an emigrationfrom Canada or Ireland. I hope my amendment will be adopted, and that this matter will be set at rest. Mr. FARMER. This matter was fully considered by the committee on elections, and it was supposed that-this section provided everything that was necessary for a registry law, or any other law, needed to carry out the intention of the Constitution, and to guard the purity of elections, etc. The desire of the committee was to make the section a short one, and to cover the entire ground. They supposed they had accomplished that purpose, without making any reference in this section to registration in any way, except by the general principle here enunciated.: Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. The committee who reported this section supposed that it provided for all exigencies, for registration, and everything of that kind. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) did not understand me when he said I ought to give some better reason for this section than that we followed the precedent of the Constitution of 1850. That was one reason; but I added that the committee thought this section was right. We investigated the matter thoroughly, and came to the conclusion that the section as it stood was right, and we therefore reported it to the Convention. I am very much obliged to the gentleman from St. Clair for his egg in our nest. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. DANIELLS; and it was not agreed to. No further amendment was offered to this section. RIGHT OF VOTING BY SOLDIERS, SEAMEN AND MARINES. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 8. No soldier, seaman nor marine in the army or navy of the United States shall be deemed a resident of this State, in consequence of being stationed in any military or naval place within the same. No amendment was offered to this section. IDIOTS AND INSANE PERSONSNOT ENTITLED TO VOTE. The next section was read as follows: No idiot or insane person shall be entitled to the privilege of an elector." Mr. ALEXANDER. I move to amend this section by adding to it the .frn ig'-s............. fOllownng: 'Or any. person under guardianship, or who may, after the adoption of this Constitution, desert from the military service of this State, or of the United States." This section provides that no idiot or insane person shall be a voter. There is a class of persons aside from those under guardianship, who are incapable of transacting their own business, or taking care of their own persons; but they may not be classified with idiots or insane persons. In relation to the rest of my amendment, it has seemed to me for a long time to be essential that some provision should be made in our Constitution, whereby persons who desert from the military service of the State of Michigan, or of the United States, shall be excluded from the right of the elective franchise; I have therefore offered this amendment. Mr. WILLARD. I call for a division of the amendment. I cannot approve of the first part of it, but I would like to vote for the last part of it. The CHAIRMAN. A division of the amendment having been called for, the first question will be upon adding to the section the words "or any person under guardianship." The question was taken upon that portion of the amendment of Mr. ALEXANDER, and it was not agreed to. The CHAiRMAN. The next question will be upon adding to this section the words "or any person who may, after the adoption of this Constitution, desert from the military service of this State or of the United States." The question was taken upon that portion of the amendment of Mr. ALEXANDER, and it was not agreed to. No further amendment was offered to this section. ELECTORS DISQUALIFIED -FOR DUELING, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SE.CTION 10. Any inhabitant of this State, who may be hereafter engaged in a duel, shall be disqualified from holding any office and from voting at any election. Mr. CHAPIN. I offer the following substitute for this section: Any inhabitant of this State who may hereafter be engaged in a duel, or who shall have been convicted of an infamous crime, under the laws of the United States, or of this State, and who is not restored to citizenship, by alegal pardon, may be excluded by the Legislature trom holding any office, and from voting at any election." I do not purpose to make any extended remarks in regard to this substitute; I simply wish to bring the matter before this committee. It strikes me as eminently proper that anyone convicted of an infamous crime, under the laws of the United States'or of this State, should be excluded from the right of suffrage, as much so as an individual who may engage in a duel. It certainly implies I 292 COSTiITUTIOXAL COVENTIO Tuesday, as much moral obliquity to be convicted of an infamous crime as it does to be engaged in a duel; it is certainly as good a reason to exclude a person from the exercise of the elective franchise. I suppose the object of this section, as it was originally reported, was to provide for the purity of the elective franchise. We are aware that a great many persons are convicted of infamous crimes, and sent to the penitentiary under sentence of courts; and some few of them are subsequently pardoned upon application to to the Governor, and upon just and propergrounds. Thesubstitute Ihave offered provides for such cases, and authorizes that, without any action of the Legislature, they may be restored to the rights of citizenship. It simply prohibits from being restored to the right of suffrage that class of incorrigible offenders who have been convicted and punished, and still return and prey upon the community. It seems to me that it is very proper that these individuals should not be permitted to exercise the right of voting. As I before remarked, I do not wish to make any extended argument upon this subject. I wish simply to bring the matter before the committee. Mr. VAN RIPER. I move to amend this section, before the question is taken upon the substitute, by inserting after the word "duel," the words "or prize fight;" so that it will read "any inhabitant of this State, who may be hereafter engaged in a duel, or a prize fight, shall be disqualified from holding any office," etc. Mr. PRINGLE. I wish to call the attention of the committee to the consideration, which I imagine induced the insertion of such a clause as this in the Constitution originally. The men concerned in duels have or dinarily been those who rank among the higher classes of society, if we have any higher classes. They have been very frequently eminent politi cians and prominent men, whose ex ample in this respect would have a very deleterious tendency. This pro vision is not intended so much to pun ish such offenders, as to discourage the commission of that kind of offenses, by making it dishonorable, by disfran chising men engaged in it. Hence, I conceive a very different principle ap plies in favors of making this rule, to what would apply in case of prize fighters, and those convicted of ordi nary crimes. This section is required from public policy, not relating to the purity of elections, particularly, but to that class of cases which arise in some communities from the idea of what is called the honor of gentlemen, which leads men to fight out their battles at sunrise. I think this section should be retained in its present form. I would not deny to any class of men, who are free men, whether they have been in the State prison or have been engaged in prize-fights, the right to use the ballot, which they may need in their own defense. I would prefer to retain this clause, for the purpose of making this barbaric custom of dueling dishonorable. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. VAN RIPxR to insert after the word "duel," the words " or a prize-fight;" and upon a division, ayes 30, noes 25, it was agreed to. The question recurred upon the substitute offered by A-Tr. CHAPIN for the section. Mr. WILLARD. Before that question is taken, I move to further amend this section by inserting after the word prize-fight." the words " either as principal or accessory before the fact." Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I would ask the gentleman making that amendment if the language of the section does not cover all that he wishes in regard to it. "Any inhabitant of this State who may be hereafter engaged in a duel or prize fight;" the second in a duel is engaged in it as much as the principal. Mr. WILLARD. I thought the question might arise; and in order to make it perfectly clear 1 offered the amendment. Mr. WALKER. I suggest that the amendment of the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WILLARD,) is a restric tion. The section reported by the committee covers the whole ground. The gentleman from Calhoun would restrict the operation of the section, so that it would not apply to any except to those who are in a particular man ner engaged in a duel or a prize fight. I am, therefore, opposed to the amend ment. The amendment of Mr. WILLARD was not agreed to. The question again recurred upon the substitute offered by Mr. CHAPSN. Mr. COOLIDGE. I am in favor of this substitute, and shall vote for it most cheerfully. If the object in pre venting any person engaged in a duel from exercising the right to vote, be as stated by the gentleman from Jackson, (M1r. PRInGLE,) then I think it is equally requisite that persons should be pre vented from voting who have been guilty of infamous crimes. The gen tleman says that there is this peculiar ity about duels; that they are generally fought by men of the higher classes of society, mostly by politicians. If that was so, it would make no difference, so far as the weight of argument is concerned. But I think it is not so; I think the large majority of duels are fought by rival lovers. Formerly it might have been somewhat different; but I am not aware that at the present day duels are usually fought by distinguished and aspiring politicians. But even if it was so, the argument would amount to nothing with me. I cannot see why, if you exclude a duelist, or a person' engaged as second or in any other way in a duel, why you should not also exclude a man who has been pronounced guilty, by a competent tribunal, of an infamous crime. If one object of this exclusion be, as stated by the gentleman from Jackson, and I think that is correct, to discourage the commission of the offenses, then it has full force when applied to this substitute. If the substitute will operate so as to deter men from committing infamous crimes, the object is a good one. I wish merely to refer to provisions contained in other State constitutions. I have examined the constitutions of nine of the States, and I find that six out -of the- nine have provisions similar to this. The Constitution of Minnesota contains this provision: "No person who has been convicted of treason or any felony, unless restored to civil rights, and no person under guardiatnship, or who may be non compos -mentis or insane, shall be entitled or permitted to vote at any election in this State." This substitute falls short of that provision, for although it is not now very easy to define what is an infamous crime, I can easily understand that there may be cases of felony which neither the courts, nor any one else would say are infamous crimes. An infamous crime I understand to be this; a crime whose recital shocks the human mind. The Constitution of Wisconsin contains this provision: "No person under guardianship, non compos rmentis, or insane, shall be qualified to vote at any election; nor shall any person convicted of treason or felony be qualified to vote at any election, unless restored to civil rights." The Constitution of Indiana contains these provisions: ", Every person who shall give or accept a challenge to fight a duel, or who shall know ingly carry to another person such a chal lenge, or who shall agree to go out of the State to fight a duel, shall be ineligible to any office of trust or profit." "The general assemby shall have power to deprive of the right of suffrage, and to render ineligible any person convicted of an infam ous crime." The Constitution of Illinois contains this provision: "'The general assembly shall haye full power to pass laws excluding from the right of suffrage persons convicted of infamous crimes." The Constitution of Ohio contains the following provision: " The General Assembly shall have power I 292 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. T "Uesday, July 2 v6 D A PROEE. 2- v; -.. to exclude from voting, or of being eligible to office, any person convicted of bribery, perury, or otherwise infamous crime." There is a similar provision in the Constitution of the State of New York. I do not refer to these provisions in the various Constitutions of the States as an argument, but I refer to them to show what is the law now in those States. I think this substitute is a proper one.. It is to me perfectly clear that men who have been convicted of infamous crimes should not be permitted to vote or to hold office. Mr. ALEXANDER. I do not think there is any change necessary in this section; I think, as it now reads, it covers the whole ground. "Any inhabitant of this State who may be hereafter engaged in a duel," etc. I fully concur in the remark of the chairman of the committee on elections, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) that the language of this section covers the whole ground; it includes all who may engage in a duel hereafter, either as principal, second, aider or abettor. I think I can see a distinction between a duelist and a man convicted of an infamous crime. I concur fully in the remarks made by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) that the object of this section is more to prevent this particular kind of crime, 'than to inflict a punishment for the crime. I do not think it is intended as a punishment, particularly, but to exert an influence upon society. The distinction between the duelist, and a man who commits an infamous crime, is this: some of the very best individ uals in the land have been led to com mit infamous crimes. I would not forever withhold the privilege of the elective franchise from such persons. The individual who engages in a duel, does it deliberately. To me there is a great distinction between these two classes of persons. It is a poor bid to a man to reform, to disfranchise him for having once committed an infa mous crime. Many persons through out our land, who have committed infamous crimes, are now among our greatest reformers; and it seems to me that, to forever place this stigma upon them, would be a very poor in centive to them to reform; therefore I am opposed to the substitute. MIr. CONGER. It seems to me that the word "citizenship," as used in the substitute is not properly used, and will not convey the true meaning or accomplish the true object. We have ratified in this State an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which contains this provision: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." That provision is followed immediately by another provision as follows: "No State shall make orenforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It is questionable whether under those provisions a person convicted of any infamous crime is not still a citizen, when he has served his term of punishment; whether a pardon can restore that which he has had all along, and which cannot be taken away from him. I take it that citizenship is not something which can be given or taken away by a pardon. In some States there are provisions that when a person is convicted of murder in the first degree, for instance, and is sentenced to be imprisoned for life, he is deemed to be to all intents and purposes dead civilly. But there is no case which I know of in which citizenship is taken away by imprisonment in the State prison. Our laws do not contain even the provision to which I have referred. Mr. CHAPIN. I apprehend the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) will concede that a person convicted of an infamous crime and incarcerated in the penitentiary, as a punishment for that crime, should no longer enjoy the rights of citizenship, particularly the right of suffrage, while restrained of his liberty, in consequence of crime. My substitute simply provides for the continuance of this disqualification unless the individual so convicted shall have manifested during his incarceration such penitence as will lead to the interposition of executive clemency in his behalf. Then if he is restored to citizenship by executive pardon, he becomes entitled to all the rights of other citizens, the elective franchise included. I have no particular tenacity upon this subject; I simply introduced my substitute in order to bring this matter before the committee. It strikes me that it would have a good moral effect in this State, tha~t it would have a good moral effect in any State, to incorporate into the organic law a provision of this kind. Our young men who are anxiously looking forward to the period when they shall become twenty-one years of age, and shall be clothed with the elective franchise, will value that right and prize it ll the more highly when they see incorporated in the Constitution of the State State a provision which will prevent them from being jostled at the polls by felons and persons convicted of infamous crimes. It strikes me that every honorable and high-minded citizen of this State will value this right all the more, if he is not obliged to march to the polls side by side and deposit his ballot with a man whose taint has not yet been removed by an executive pardon. It is for reasons of this kind that I have proposed my substitute, and I think it should be adopted. Mr. CONGER, MZy objection was not to the principle of the substitute, but to the fact that the right of citizenship was continued by force of the Constitution of the United States, although a person might have been convicted of crime; and that the word "citizenship" was not the word which snould be employed. Mr. T. G. SMITH. It seems to me that those gentlemen who are not satisfied with the penalty which the statute now affixes to a crime, may remedy that by applying to the Legislature, and having the penal laws altered, and the penalty increased, much better than by seeking to do it in this way. I think it is the intention to have the law fix the penalty for crime. If gentlemen are not satisfied with the penalty now fixed, then let them apply to the Legislature and have the law amended. Mr. COOLIDGE. That is one reason why I advocate this substitute; it leaves to the Legislature to declare what shall be an infamous crime. I cannot agree with some men here that dueling is a higher crime than any other; and it is not so. Take a case such as that I alluded to when I was up before; where - there are two. persons paying their addresses to the same young lady. Gradually, and by degrees, they become partially deranged, and their derangement leads them into difficulty one with the other. A duel grows out of it, and they go out, not very deliberately by any means, and they shoot at each other; that is one thing. Now, how will that compare with the case, and such cases are not very unfrequent, and they may be more frequent still, where a man watches day after day and finally accomplishes the disgrace of some member of your family, and inflicts a sting or wound such as would lead you to wish you had rather followed that member of your family to the grave. Sir, there is no comparison between the two cases. If the man who fights a duel should- be disfranchised, ero tainly the other should be ten times as much. Mr. PRING]4;. In the remarks which I made a few minutes ago, I tried to point out a distinction between the two cases. Take a community where dueling is a recognized practice. They may send a duelist to the prison, and he may serve out all his time, and then he comes back and enters society again as the equal of those who asso DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 293 July 23, 1867. ~~~~91q - COr SIUTO COV~I~ _ ierd'y' ciated with him befoie. He is deemed rather a martyr to the cause of honor, if he incurs such a penalty. It was to provide an adequate penalty for the discouragement of such a crime that this provision was placed in the Constitution. Take the case of. a person convicted of infamous crime who may have been led to it by poverty, or by some other cause. He is convicted and sent to the State prison for three, five, ten, or fifty years, as the case may be. From the day he enters that prison until the day he leaves it, the humanity of our laws and the general disposition of our people are such, as to lead to giving him such encouragement as may induce him to reform and become better when he leaves the prison. There are instances where men have served out terms in the prison for offenses of which they have been convicted, and who have come forth and become respectable citizens, and have enjoyed to a considerable extent the confidence of the community in which they reside. I have in my mind one such case in Jackson county, and there is another in this county. Now, to place this stigma upon such a man, and say that he shall not vote, is forever to hold him down, and to take away from him one of those weapons which I believe should be put into the hands of every man, to enable him to guard his personal rights and rights of property; the right to go to the polls and say who shall be his rulers, who shall represent him and make his laws. These men will be but one, two or three in a town or city; they will amount to but a few hundred scattered throughout the entire State, net sufficient to influence an election to any con — siderable degree. This class of men will not of course be the best of citizens; they will be a class who may con.tinue bad, or who may become better; they are a class for whom we hope. sNow, as I would talse off the prison clothing when such a man leaves the prison, so I would take off all the particular marks that show he has been an inmate of the State prison; I would not send him out with the closely shaven head required by prison discipline. I have alluded in somewhat imperfect language to the fact that a person's hair and whiskers are removed when he enters the prison. But they are allowed to grow again before he leaves. I would remove all the badges of infamy, and invite these men, by every iaducement I could offer, to become good and respectable citizens. I think our Christian community wish to have them invited to become good citizens again. But they will be very much less likely to become such if a perpetual badge of infamy be placed upon them, by depriving them of the right to vote. Mr. FARMiER. I hope this substitute will prevail instead'of the section as it now stands. I trust there is no impropriety in my saying that I opposed, in the committee that reported this article, the insertion of this section, and that I urged something similar to this substitute. My ground of objection to this section was, that dueling had become obsolete; that there was no necessity for us to say in this Constitution that a man should not be allowed to hold any official position if he was engaged in any such offense; that there was no' possibility, judging from the past few years, that there would be any such offense committed in this State hereafter. I favor the proposition embraced in the substitute, inasmuch as it leaves the matter to legislative action, so that the subject can be taken up at any time when any danger is apprehended, and a law passed to meet the case. I would not make an iron rule here for which there seems to be no necessity, and make it applicable as long as this Constitution shall remain in force. I hope the substitute of the gentleman from Gratiot, (Mr. CIUPIN,) will prevail, in place of the section reported by the committee as now amended. Mr. CHAPIN. I desire to make one remark in reply to some statements that have been made here. I must say that I am surprised at the distinction made by some gentlemen. They seem to think that there is great necessity for a constitutional provision in regard to dueling; but they can see no sort of reason for a provision relating to persons guilty of infamous crimes. I would ask if there has ever been a duel fought in the State of Michigan, or if there ever will be one? I have never heard of it. I believe from the earliest history of this State down to the present time a challenge has never even passed between two persons in this State. It strikes me that the term "infamous crime," covering as it does that class of offenses which involve moral degradation, and want of moral character and self-respect, is what is needed in an organic provision of this kind. It appears to me that a man guilty of any of those offenses should, of all others, be excluded from the elective franchise. The very fact that he is guilty of such an offense presupposes a want of moral obligation and character which should exclude him from the right of voting. I can see no earthly reason for retaining the section as originally reported, , which would not equally apply to the substitute. Mr. LUCE. I am opposed to both the substitute and the section. I do not believe in that way of punishing crime. If the substitute of the gentleman from Gratiot, (Mr. CHAPIN,) is adopted, it will make the inspectors of elections the judges of whether a crime is an infamous crime or not. Mr. CHAPIN. I did not offer my substitute for the purpose of providing a punishment for crime, but as a protection of the purity of the ballot box. Mr. LUCE. I do not thinlr we should keep up this distinction. I do not think there should be anything to remind the children of a man that their father was once in the State prison. I do not believe the inspectors of elections should be made judges of whether a crime is an infamous crime or not. I do not see any necessity for retaining this section in the article. As the gentleman from Gratiot has well remarked, dueling has gone out of practice. There has not been such a thing in this State, and there is no -likelihood that there ever will be. At the proper time I will move to — strike out this entire section, for I do not believe in this way of punishing crime. I know a man in my own community who was once in the State prison; yet his reputation now is as good as that of many of his neighbors. I do not think it would be good policy to remind him of his punishment for crime by debarring him from the right of suffrage. The question recurred upon the substitute offered by Mr. CHAPIN. Mr. LOVELL. The motion is to strike out this section and to insert the substitute offered by the gentleman from Gratiot, (Mr. CHAPIN.) I call for a division of the question, and ask that the vote be first taken upon striking out the section. The majority of us may vote for striking out the section, and not be willing to insert anything in its place. The CHAIRMAN. A division having been called, the vote will be first taken upon striking out section ten. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGtt.'- I hope this section will not be stricken out. I believe there is a similar provision in all the Constitutions of the several States of this Union. We hold up this provision as a terror to evil doers. It has been urged here that there has been no dueling in the State of Michigan. That may be so; I am not informed upon that subject. But whether there has ever been any or not, no injury can result from retaining this provision in the Constitution. The argu,ment which gentlemen have made in favor of striking out this section, do not appear to me to be very cogent. If it will have any influence at all in deterring men from this barbarous antd murderous practice, I think we should 29.1 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Tiiesdav, July 23, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDINGS 295 retain this section in the Constitution. I hope it may not be stricken out; it certainly will do no injury if allowed to remain. The question was.taken upon striking out the section; and upon a division, ayes 22, noes 31, it was not agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The motion to strike out having been voted down, the motion to insert, of course, falls with it. TOWNSHIP ELECTIONS. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 11. The Legislature may authorize townships to hold their elections within the corporate limits of adjoining cities. No amendment was offered to this section. The CHAIRMAN. The committee having gone through the several sections of this article, it is now open to amendment by way of additional sections. TIE OF HOLDING ELECTIONS. Mr. PRINGLE. I would like to call the atttention of the chairman of the committee on elections, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) to a question that was raised sometime since, upon the consideration of another article, by a suggestion made by myself at one time, and I think also made by the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LucE.) The question was whether there should not be in this article on elections a provision in regard to our general biennial elections, which I think we are all agreed about, requiring them to be held in November of each second year. This article is entitled "Elections;" yet what it relates to is suffrage, or the elective franchise. There is not one word said in this article about the time or place when these elections shall be held, who shall be elected, or any other details that might be provided for properly under the heading of "Elections." What I wish to inquire of the chairman is, whether the committee on elections have at any time considered this suggestion, and whether they have acted upon the question of the propriety of providing for this matter in this article? Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. The committee on elections took no action. at all upon that question. The suggestion of the gentleman was made after the report of the committee was made to the Convention. His suggestion struck me very favorably, and I hope he will offer a proper section upon the subject. Mr. PRINGLE. Availing myself of the invitation now given, and that given some time ago by the gentleman from Oaldand, (Mr. VAN VALKTENBUlGH,) in figurative language, which he bor rowed to some extent from the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) I offer the following as an additional section: SzCTIoN -. A general biennial election shall be held on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, in the year 1868, and in each second year thereafter, at which shall be elected a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and such State, - legislative, judicial and couuty officers as shall not be by law required to be elected at a different time." My understanding. is, and I believe it is the understanding of the legislative committee, who reported an article which was under consideration here nine days, that the members of the House of Representatives are to be elected for two years, and the Legislature is to hold two sessions for one election. I do not think it a very good plan myself, but I suppose that is what we have substantially agreed to. The section which I have proposed requires that there shall be biennial elections on the day that members of Congress are to be elected, and provides that an election shall take place on that day for all officers in regard to which the law does not prescribe a different day for the election. Mr. FARMER. I move to amend this additional section by striking out all after the word "thereafter," so that the section will read: "A general biennial election shall be held on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, in the year 1868, and in each year thereafter." I am in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) to insert a new section specifying the time at which elections shall be held. In the different articles which we have passed or may pass upon here, providing for officers, the mode in which those officers shall be elected or appointed as the case may be, will be generally specified, so that it would be a mere repetition in this new section to enumerate those officers. I should have other objections to this new section, in the form in which the gentleman proposes it; but without stating them, I will say that I am in favor of specifying the time of the elections; I am opposed to going further than that. Mr. PRINGLE. This is an article entitled "Elections;" to this article a person would naturally look for the specification of the time when our principal elections should take place. Therefore the repetitions will be in the other articles, if they contain provisions specifying the time when certain officers shall be elected. I think it at least proper, if not important, that somewhere in the Constitution there should be a rule by which everybody will know when an officer was to be elected, without its being expressly provided for by law; in regard to some new office, for instance, that might be established in a county, district, or State; a rule fixing the time when all officers shall be elected, unless there is some express provision of law in relation to some particular officer. We have fixed no special time for the election of several of our officers; our county superintendent of common schools, regents of the University, judges of the supreme court, etc. My idea is that the judges of the supreme court and the regents of the University should be elected at the time of the general biennial election. At the spring elections ,the people have on hand the important' business of electing constables, aldermen, justices of the peace, etc., and they do not stop to think much about judges of the supreme court, and regents of the University; these small matters absorb all the attention of the people. Hence, I think that it is important that State officers, who are elected by the entire State, should be elected at the autumnal elections. But this section will leave the matters to the Legislature, who will be at liberty to fix the time for the election of any 6o those officers. Mr. WILLIAMS. It appears to me that the whole difficulty arises from the fact that the title of this article is a misnomer. All the provisions of this article relate purely to the elective franchise, and have nothing at all to do with elections. Similar articles in the Constitutions of many other States are designated by the title of " elective franchise." This article relates wholly to persons entitled to vote. I think, on that account, there would be an objection to the introduction of the section offered by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE.) I should be opposed to electing regents of the University and judges of the supreme court at the ordinary biennial election held in the fall. I think the universal course is the one now adopted, keeping these officers outside, and away from the ordinary political excitement that surround our fall elections. I can see no necessity for any provision in this article of the Constitution, prescribing anything in regard to elections. This article relates simply to the rights of electors. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. FARMER to the section offered by Mr. PRINGLE; and it was not agreed to. The question was then taken upon the section offered by Mr. PRINGLE; and it was not agreed to. ELECTORS REQUIRED TO RiEAD AND WRITE. Mr. NORRIS. It will be readily understood by those who listened to July 23, 1867. DEB SAND PRO EDINGS, 295' 29 OOSIUTOA COV-I~.Ted the remarks I had occasion to offer yesterday, upon the question of Indian suffrage, that so far as my own personal views are concerned, I would be in favor, if we are to have manhood suffrage, female suffrage, Indian suffrage, and boyhood suffrage, that it should be qualified by something of the character of an intelligent vote. I have drawn up a section with some care, without consultation with any member upon this floor, my colleagues or any one else, and I offer it as an expression of my own sentiments. I have qualified it so that at some period, which I have fixed beyond the next Presidential election, we may enter upon the system of intelligent, thoughtful suffrage. I have done that because I desire not to avail myself of any of the advantages, or disadvantages, of this proposed method in the coming election. But at some period in the history of this State, I desire to have incorporated in our Constitution what I believe to be, and what I think the sober thinking members of this Convention, removed from allpolitical excitement, will bear me out in stating to be the true principle to be inaugurated. I will merely offer the section at this time, and let the committee vote upon it. In the Convention I may offer some further remarks upon the subject. I offer the following as an additional section: SECTION-. Every person who after the 1st day of January, 1869, shall desire to be come registered and cast a first vote, must be able to read the Constitution of this State, and -write his name: Provided, kowever, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to any person or persons prevented by physical disability from complying with, its requisitions, nor to any person who shall be sixty years of age or upwards, at the time this Constitution shall take effect." Air. CONGER. I move to amend this section by inserting after the words "must be able to read," the words, "and understand." I go for a higher order of intelli'gence still. The amendment of Mr. CONGER was not agreed to. Mr. LOVELL. I move to strike out "1869," and to insert "1875." The amendment of Mr. LOVELL was not agreed to. Mr. HARRIS. I move that this committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the ad ditional section offered by Mr. NORRIS; and upon a division, ayes 25, noes 35, it was not agreed to. Mr. BLACKMAN. I move that the committee rise, report this article with the amendmends back to the Convention, recommend that the amendments be concurred in, and ask that this committee be discharged from the flueher consideration of this article. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the chair, Mar. MORTON reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the'Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled " Elections;" had made some amendments therein, and had directed him to report the article with the amendments back to the Convention, recommend that the amendments be concurred in, and ask that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the article. The report was received and the committee of the whole discharged. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon concurring in the amendments in c immittee of the whole. Mr. McCLELLAND. I move that the article, with the amendments pending thereto, be laid upon the table, and printed at large in the journal. The motion was agreed to. The article as amended was as follows, the parts inserted being printed in italics, the parts stricken out in brackets: SECTION 1. In all elections, every person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in this State three months, and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote [ten] thirty days next preceding an election, belonging to either of the following classes, shall be an elector, and entitled to vote: First. Every [male] citizen of the United States; Secondc. Every male inhabitant of this State, who shall have resided in the United States two years and six months, and decelared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, pursuant to the laws thereof, six months preceding an election; Third. Every male inhabitant residing in this State on the twenty-fourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five; Fourth. All male Indians, natives of the United States. SECTION 2. In time of war, insurrectinn or rebellion, the right to vote shall be enjoyed by all persons otherwise entitled thereto, who may be in the actual military or naval service of the United States, or of this State, at suc7h place and in such manner as shall be prescribed by law: Provided, Their votes shall be made to apply to the township or ward of which they are residents. SECTIoN 3. All elections shall be by ballot, except of such township officers as may be authorized by law to be otherwise chosen. SECTION4, Every elector, in all cases except treason, felony, misdemeanor Or breach of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during his attendance at election, and in going to and returning from the s.-me,. SzCTION 5. No elector shall be obliged to do military duty on the day of election, except in time of war or public danger, or attend court as a suitor or witness. SECTION 6. No elector shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his being employed in the service of the United States, or of this State, nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this State or of the United States, or of the high seas, nor while a student at any seminary of learning, nor while kept at any alms house or other asylum at public expense, nor while confined in any public prison. SECTION 7. Laws may be passed to preserve the purity of elections, and guard against the abuses of the elective franchise. SECTION 8. No soldier, seaman nor marine in the army or navy of the United States shall bedeemed a resident of this State, in consequence of being stationed in any military or naval place Within the same. SECTION 9. No idiot or insane person shall be entitled to the privileges of an elector, nor any person w7o may, after the adoption of this (onstitution, desert Jrom the military service of this State or of the United States. SECTION 10. Any inhabitant of this State, who may be hereafter engaged in a duel or prizefight, shall be disqualified from holding any office, and from voting at any election. SECTIoN 11. The Legislature may authorize townships to hold their elections within the corporate limits of adjoining cities. Mr. LOVELL. I move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly, (at fifteen minutes before one o'clock p. m.,) the Convention took a recess until half-past two o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at halfpast two o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. - LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. LOVELL. I ask leave of absence for my colleague, Mr. HOWARD, for this afternoon, on account of indisposition. Leave was accordingly granted. CITIES AND VILLAGES. Mr. FARMER. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. WINSOR in the chair,) and proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled Cities and Villages." INCORPORATION OF CITIES AND VILLAGES, ETC. Section one of this article was read as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature shall provide for the incorporation of cities and villages, and shall regulate their powers of taxation, borrowing money, contracting debts, and loaning their credit. Mr. WILLIAMS. I move to amend this section by striking out the word "regulate," and inserting in lieu thereof the word " restrict;" so that it will read: "The Legislature shall provide for the incorporation of cities and villages, and shall restrict their powers of taxation," etc. I move this amendment for the purpose of ascertaining from the chairman of the committee who reported this article (Mr. MLES) the object of changing the phraseology used in the present Constitution. I think "restrict" is the word there used; the word used here is "regulate." It occurs to me that "restrict" would be a better term. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. .296 Tuesday, July~~~~~~ 23 87 EAE 0DPOED~S Mr. MILES. In answer to the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) I would say that this section is the same as section thirteen of the article of the present Constitution, entitled "Corporations;" except that the word "regulate" is here employed instead of restrict." The object of the committee in using this word was that it was a word of more general signification than the word "restrict." To provide that the Legislature may restrict the powers of cities and villages, is to merely allow the Legislature to limit and confine those corporations within certain bounds. But to provide that they may regulate, gives them more latitude. They can regulate the entire financial powers of a city or village, and adjust them by such rules or methods as they may see proper. It was simply for that reason that the word "regulate" was used instead of the word "restrict;" for the purpose of giving the Legislature more power than they have under the provision in the present Constitution. Mr. WILLIAMS. I supposed that to be the object. But it appears t' me not desirable for the Legislature to attempt to regulate either the minutie or the details of the powers which properly belong to cities and villages. I think that if we simply authorize the Legislature to restrict their powers of taxation, etc., we will provide all that is necessary upon this subject in the Constitution.. We ought not, I think, to require the Legislature to regulate all the minutise of those powers. Mr. MILES. Regulation also includes restriction; it is a word of almost the same meaning, but with a little more general significance. I think "regulate" is a better word to use in this section than "restrict." A large majority of the committee thought it was the best word to be used. As I said before, it gives the Legislature a more general power than they would have by the use of the word "restrict," which would confine them to limiting the powers of cities and villages in the respects mentioned in this section. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. WILLIAMS, to strike out "regulate," and insert "restrict," anduit was not agreed to. MJr. BIRNEY. I move to amend this section by inserting after the word "provide," the words s' by general law;" so that the section shall read, "shall provide by generallaw for the incorporation of cities and villages," etc. The object of my amendment is to save the trouble of requiring the Legislature at each session to pass special acts for~ the incorporation of cities and villages. It will be observed that the laws for Vol. 2-No. 38. this purpose passed by the Legislature at their last session fill a volume of double the size of the volume of general laws; that is, the local laws which relate mostly to cities and villages. The State of Ohio has a general law in regard to this subject. The cities there act under a general law; they are ranked according to their population, and have corresponding privileges. The operation of such a law is found there to be very good and very satisfactory. It seems to me that it would be a very great improvement in this State to have a-general law upon this subject, instead of a city or a village, every time it needs some little alteration or amendment of its charter, being required to go to the Legislature for that purpose. Mr. MILES. I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BmIRNEY,) will not prevail. The section as it now stands gives the Legislature power to provide for the incorporation of cities and villages; and they may do it by general or special law, as they nay think best. We have now a general law for the incorporation of villages; but it is found to be so defective that there is no session of the Legislature in which there are not amendments to that law called for, to a very great extent. That same provision was incorporated into the Constitution of the State of'New York in 1846. I notice one of their best lawyers and one of their best legislators, speaking upon this subject, says, "At the period of th'e formation of the Constitution of 1846, great jealousy was entertained of corporations, and accordingly a provision directed the enactment ot general laws by which corporations should be formed. This provision has been but imperfectly carried out. This provision is almost a dead letter, while our annual collections of -municipal laws have swelled from the size of' a school book to the dimensions of two large volumes." And we so find it in this State. A general law for the incorporation of villages, which would perhaps operate pretty well for a village in the interior of the State, would not operate well in other localities. It was, therefore, thought by the committee that it would be best to leave the provision in this respect as it is in the Constitution of 1850, giving the Legislature authority to provide for the incorporation of cities and villages, and leave it to them to say whether it shall be done by general or special laws, or by both methods. Our Legislature, under the present Constitution, have employed both methods; one by means of a general law for the incorporation of villages, under which all villages might form themselves into corporations; another by means of which villages are enabled to apply to the Legislature for special acts of incorporation. So far as the time of the Legislature is concerned, very little of it is taken up for the purpose of passing acts of incorporation for cities and villages. Those acts are drawn up by those most directly interested in the matter, presented by their immediate representatives, and upon being examined and found to conform to the general laws of the State, they are usually passed without taking up much of the time of the Legislature. In fact, not so much time was taken up during the entire session of last winter for the passage of acts incorporating a very large number of villages, as it would take to discuss a few provisions of a general law upon the subject. It became necessary to pass a large number of these acts, because the Legislature of the State for three or five years previously had been engaged mostly in the passage of laws concerning our troops in the field. Mr. BIRNEY. The gentleman says it takes but very little time for the passage of these laws; yet, he admits that when you come to publish them at last, two-thirds of the volumes of our session laws consist of legislation of this kind. Why is this? Because some one persbn interested in this matter sits down, writes out a charter, sends it to a member of the Legislature who presents it, and it is referred to the committee on corporations. That committee do not read it or examine it; they ask the member who presents it, if it is all right? If he says it is, they then report it and recommend its passage; nobody reads it, it passes aad goes to the Governor for his approval, and very likely he never reads it; if he does, he is a very persevering man. Now, it is not supposed that whoever prepares these acts is acquainted with the entire wants of the people; at all events, he is not probably in all respects the best person to prepare such an instrument. The result often is that great injustice and wrong is done to many interests. These acts are frequently got up to serve some peculiar interest. But if a general law is required, the people can understand what sort of a provision they can adopt, ~and what action they can take to secure what they desire. A general law, well drawn up, will provide everything that a city or village usually needs. It is said there is now a general law in this State for the incorporation of villages. It is true, there is such a law; but it is not observed, possibly because it may be somewhat defective. It is not observed because the process referred to here can be gone through by those who desire to charter a vil-. lage. Persons can send a bill here, July 23, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS, 297 I 298 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Tuesday, and get it,passed through the Legislature, more easily than they can arrange the matter before a board of supervisors. There are very few members of the Legislature who can understand the necessities and wants of any particular village. They do not profess to know about it; they do not attempt to judge. If any act of incorporation which is presented suits the member from that locality, they do not consult anybody else about it. The people of the vicinity are not consulted, and often know nothing about the charter provided for them until the act is passed, and frequently not for some time afterwards. There was an act passed for our city last winter, but I could not get a copy of it until a week ago; no one could get it, except those who prepared it. It seems to me that no objection can be made to- the amendment I have offered, for we have already incorpora ted the very same language in the ar ticle on the legislative department, in an amendment offered by the gentle. man from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND.) Perhaps it may be as well there as here; but I do not like to see this sec tion passed without having the same idea incorporated in it.. I think this is the place for a provision requiring the Legislature to provide by general law for the incorporation of cities and vil lages. If it is not provided for here, it might seem that something else:was to be done. There is a section in the article on the legislative department requiring villages and cities to be in corporated under general law. I think it would be a very great reform in this State to have such a provision as that inserted here. I respect very highly the zeal of the chairman of the com mittee on cities and villages (Mr. M[ILES) in behalf of this section as it stands. But we should provide that which is necessary; and I deem the .amendment I have offered one of great importance. Mr. MILES. The gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BIRNEY,) has well said that there has been but little attention paid to the general law which we have for the incorporation of villages. But I will say to the gentleman that those who have taken acts of incorporation under the general law before boards of supervisors, have been compelled from time to time to apply to the Legisla ture for amendments, in order to make those acts of incorporation of any ben efit to them. In relation to the city in which the gentleman re sides, I will say that it took more time for the discussion of that charter in the Legislature last winter, than any other charter that was passed. It was more closely scanned than any other charter; each section of it was examinedl carefully. There happened to be a difference of opinion between the Senator and Representative from :that district upon that subject, and the whole question was thoroughly discussed and examined by the Legislature; the provisions -of that charter were very closely looked into. I do not see the necessity for the gentleman's amendment to this section, if we have a provision in the article on the legislative department requiring the Legislature to pass general laws for this purpose., The two provisions do not clash with each other; the Legislature is left to act as they may think proper. I know that in the county where I reside, we have two villages ;chartered under the general law. Both of them have applied to the Legisla ture of this State to have their char ters amended; and they are now both intending to send in new charters to be passed by the Legislature, in order to meet the wants of those localities. And such will be the case all over this State, unless the Legislature have power over the matter, to act from time to time, as the necessities of the case may require. I am not tenacious with regard to this subject; I do not want gentlemen of this Convention to think that I am tenacious about it, because I happen to be the chairman of the committee who reported this article. We reported it because we considered it best adapted to the wants ,of the people o/ the cities and villages who are interested in this matter. ; The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. BIRNEY; and upon a division, ayes 14, noes not counted, it was not agreed to. No further amendment was offered \to this section. OFFICERS OF CITIES AND VILLAGES. The next section was read as follows: SECTIoN 2. Judicial officers of cities and villages shall be elected, and all other officers shall be elected or appointed at such time and in such manner as the Legislature may direct. Mr. WILLIAMS. I move to strike out this section; I see but one proposition in it, and that one I do not agree to; that all judicial officers of cities and villages shall be elected. It may be necessary to appoint some.of those judicial officers sometimes. Mr. McCLELLAND. I move to strike out this section, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "Mayors and members of the common council in cities, shall be elected by electors thereof, at large or in their proper wards or districts, as shall be provided by law; all other municipal officers or boards in whom is vested any portion of municipal authority, shall be elected as aforesaid, or appointed by the mayor and common council, in such manner as shall be provided by law." My object in offering this substitute, is to provide for the election of mayors and aldermen; all other officers to be elected or appointed as the Legislature may provide by law. This leaves the entire matter to the Legislature, but at the same time gives to cities and villages the entire control over the subject, after the law has been passed by the Legislature. Mr. FERRIS. I would inquire of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) if his proposition is broad enough to authorize the appointment of police justices in cities, instead of their election by the people? Mr. McCLELLAND. The object is to permit the Legislature to authorize the people of the cities and villages to do everything in regard to every officer in those cities and villages. Mr. MILES. I certainly hope this substitute will not prevail. I anm surprised that the gentleman from Wayne should offer it, he being one of the fathers.of the Constitution of 1850, and having stood- Up i n -this Convention time after time and claimed that provisions of that Constitution should be allowed to stand, because they had been the organic law of the State for a long series of years, and operated well. The gentleman has often said here that he had never heard any complaint of many provisions of the Constitution of 1850 which have been under con sideration here. I have never heard any complaint of this one; and as I know no reason why there should be any complaint of it, I do not see why the gentleman should ask to have it changed. In the next place, the substitute which the gentleman has offered may be very convenient for the locality the gentleman represents. But I doubt very much whether the people of the State of Michigan are prepared to say that the Legislature shall not have power to determine in what manner, and at what time, the officers of cities, villages and townships shall be elected. It is a question of policy whether the common council of a city, elected every year, or every two years, should have the appointment of all the other officers of the city. I believe it has been one of the fundamental principles of our Constitution that judicial officers of all kinds and grades should be elected by the people. I have heard no one dis pute the propriety of that. The other officers of cities and villages, the com mittee propose to leave to the discre tion of the Legislature; if they pass a law at one session in relation to the matter, and it appears to be defective, then at the next meeting of the Legis lature there would be an opportunity to amend it. This section leaves the i a v i e t I I Jul 23 187 EAE - POEDNS power of the people of the State of Michigan just where they propose to have it left-in the hands of the Legislature which they elect from time to time. Mr. FERRIS. I desire to state to the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) and also to the chairman of the committee on cities and villages, (Mr. MILES,) the reason why I asked the question I did. There is a great deal of complaint, from persons of both parties in the city of Detroit, in regard to the insufficiency of their police justices. They say those justices are mere creatures of the class of people who are ordinarily brought before them; and that it is almost impossible to get justice done to the community, as against those who are constantly violating the law. For one, as a member of this Convention, I shall be willing to favor any amendment or provision which would redress that particular grievance in that particular locality. That is the reason why I asked the question. Mr.'McCLELLAND. I am as much surprised at the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILES,) as he seems to be at me. In tllb first place, I would very much like to have that gentleman put his finger upon a single solitary word I have uttered here in favor of the Constitution of 1850 in the general or in the particular. I was as much opposed to the Constitution of 1850 in many of its particulars, and am still, as any member of this Convention can be. I have said here a dozen times that I prefer the Constitution of 1835 to that of 1850; and in my judgment, unless we do a great deal better than I expect, I shall prefer the Constitution of 1835 to the Constitution of 1867. Now, in regard to another point; the gentleman must have been paying very little attention to the proceedings of this Convention, or he would never have made use of the language he did in regard to judicial officers. There have been here applications upon appli cations for the appointment of judicial officers of the highest courts in this State, by, I presume, a majority of the bar of this State, and as a general thing the bar is considered, by lawyers at least, to be a~very considerable body of men. The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIs,) I think has spoken particu larly in regard to officers of cities. The complaint is, that where they are elective, that portion of the community which comes more frequently under the eye and under the heavy hand of power, is the portion that very often controls the election of those officers. There fore, we think those offices at least should be filled by appointment. The substitute which I have offered requires the election only of mayors and aldermen. It gives the option, and nothing but the option to the Legislature to have all the other officers elected or appointed. I confess that if I had the power I would not elect any officer in a city except the mayor and aldermen. From the little consideration I have been able to give to this subject, and from my own experience and observation, I am perfectly satisfied that you never have either the police, or any other department acting well, and for the best interest of a city or village, unless this system of appointment is adopted. Mr. LUCE. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) whether his proposition would affect the appointment of police commissioners of the city of Detroit, who are now appointed by the Governor? Mr. McCLELLAND. I confess to the gentleman, candidly, that such would be the construction I would put upon it. Mr. ALEXANDER. I would Buggest to the gentleman from Wayne to amend his amendment, so that it may include the president and board of trustees of villages, as well as the mayor and aldermen of cities. Mr. McCLELLAND. The gentleman can move that amendment himself; I have no objection to his doing so. Mr. LOTHROP. I desire to say that this substitute is offered with the concurrence of myself, and I believe of all the gentlemen who together represent the city of Detroit. We are perfectly persuaded that the government of all large cities must take either the one direction or the other; there must be imore power, and sufficient power, vested in the chief executive- and in the-legislative department of the city, or else the power of popular government must be taken' away, and exercised through boards provided for by' the Legislature. In my judgment this last system is utterly destructive of all popular responsibility, and government of cities. - In my judgment there is no choice left; the one or the other course must be adopted. The plan of appointing boards of control has been adopted, as we all know, very largely in cities of neighboring States; it has been commenced also in our own city. I am dissatisfied with that method, but I am perfectly satisfied that it must go on until we take another direction. The chief executive officers of the city must have the power and responsibility, and exercise it jointly with the legislative power of the city. In my judgment, in that manner an effioient, able and satisfactory government can be instituted and maintained in all cities. In the other form I believd it cannot be. We have, however, instead of determining it by the provision here, chosen to leave it to the Legislature, to impose upon the Legislature the duty of taking either the one course or the other, either to submit the matter to the people under this provision of the Constitution, or else determine the matter of appointment as here provided. Mr. P. D. WARNER. There is a difficulty which presents itself to my mind in regard to the adoption of this substitute. I think the gentleman has upon more than one occasion, expressed his desire to have judicial officers appointed by the Executive, and confirmed by the Senate, instead of having them elected as at present. Now, to illustrate the idea, I desire to present: while the recorder of the city of Detroit receives an annual compensation from the State treasury, I can conceive of no good reason why, if the system suggested is adopted by this Convention, of appointing judicial officers, the Executive of the State should not have the appointment of that officer, as well as the appointment of the judges of other courts in the State. I do see a good reason for the adoption of such a course in relation to the appointment of that officer I believe that the same principle that may be applied or advocated in favor of the appointment of the judges of our circuit courts in the manner proposed, has double force in relation to the appointment of the recorder of the city of Detroit. I believe that every member of this Convention is fully satisfied in his own mind, that it is much more difficult to administer justice with an even balance by a man in a place like the city of Detroit, who is dependent upon the electors of that city for the position he occupies, than it would be if he was entirely inde pendent of them in that respect. I only suggest this difficulty which has presented itself to my mind. If this Convention, in its wisdom, shall see fit to adopt the principle of ap pointing the judges of our courts, I should be in favor of adopting the same principle in relation to the re cords of flee city of Detroit; and, in that case, the adoption of this substi tute would stand in the way of the accomplishment of that object. Mr. LOTHROP. I think not. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I think the substitute provides for the appointment by the mayor and council. Mr. LOTIIROP. The jurisdiction of:the recorder's courtis only to a small extent municipal; the largest part of its jurisdiction is in the administration July 2ro, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 299 I :0 OSIUINLCNETO.Tedy of State criminal laws. It is municipal in only two respects; it is a municipal court within the meaning of the Constitution now in force, which authorizes the creation of courts in cities; and it has no jurisdiction of crime occurring out of the city, but it has jurisdiction of all crimes under State laws occcurring within the city. It has also another jurisdiction, which may be better taken from it, because it is not found to work well; that is, the administration of penalties for the violation of ordinances in the city. That is an administration that would be better exercised by the police justices, or some other officer of that kind. At present that part of the jurisdiction could be dispensed with, and not conflict at all with this provision. It is true that the recorder is paid in part from the State Treasury; but he is also paid in part from the city treasury. His salary now is two thousand dollars. He was placed originally upon the same footing in regard to salary as a circuit judge, fifteen hundred dollars a year, paid from the State Treasury; but he is now also paid five hundred dollars in addition, from the city treasury. But so far as that is concerned, we would just as soon pay his whole salary as not. Mr. ALEXNADER. Imove to amend this substitute by inserting after the word "cities," the words "and presidents and boards of trustees of villages;" so that it will read, " mayors and members of the common council in cities, and the president and boards of trustees of villages shall be elected by the electors thereof," etc. The amendment of Mr. ALEXANDER, was agreed to. The question was upon the substitute as amended. Mr. MILES. I do not know that I understand from the gentleman from Wayne what they want in the city of Detroit; this appears-to be a special provision which they are asking for that city. I only know this, that it has become a fundamental principle with the people of this State that~ the judicial officers of our courts shall be elected by the people. It has been so placed in our organic law that it could not be changed hereafter; it has been provided that judges of our supreme and circuit courts shall be elected by the people. If the people of the city of Detroit, or of any other locality, have become so corrupt that their corrupting influences are thrown around their judiciary, perhaps it would be well to take away from the city even the power of appointment by the mayor and common council, and place it in the power of the Legislature to govern the city as it should be governed. If the fountain of power is so corrupt that the people cannot be trusted to elect their judicial officers, thenfif they are allowed to elect their ward officers and mayor, who shall have power to appoint all other officers, I doubt very much whether the corruptioh would cease until the city would fall entirely into the hands of thieves and robbers, who, it appears, from arguments here, now control to a great extent the affairs of cities. I believe it would be better to leave the Legislature to look after these matters, as they have been free to do for the last seventeen years. If it becomes necessary for Detroit, or any other city, that boards should be appointed to carry on the internal government of those cities, then let it be done. I doubt very much the propriety of leaving the power in the hands of the common council and mayor to appoint all other officers of the city, and taking away the power from the Legislature to have any control over the-subject. I believe the provisions of the original section would be much better than the substitute for the government of the city of Detroit, even; and so far as other cities and villages of the State are concerned, I think the original section is far better than the substitute. The question was taken upon the substitute of Mr. MOCLELLAND, as amended, and upon a division, yeas 29, noes 25, it was agreed to. The article as - amended was then laid aside to to be reported to the Convention. //- ~ EDUCATION. The committee of the whole then proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled "Education." The first section was read as follows: SECTION 1. Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means ot education shall forever be encouraged. No amendment was offered to this section. INSTITUTIONS FOR DEAF, DUMB, BLIND AND INSANE. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 2. Institutions bfor the benefit of those inhabitants who are deaf, dumb, blind or insane, shall always be fostered and supported. No amendment was offered to this section. PRIMARY SCHOOLS. The next section was read as follows: SECTION3. The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools by which each district in the State shall maintain a school, free of charge for. tuition, at least four months in the year. Any school district neglecting to maintain such school shall be deprived, during the ensuing year, of its proportion for that year of the income of the primary school fund, and of all funds arisingfrom taxes for the support of schools. The instruction shall in all cases be in the Euglish language. Mr. VANVALKENBURGH. I move to amend the first sentence of this section by striking out the word four," and inserting in lieu thereof the word "six," before the word "months;" so that the sentence will read: " The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools, by which each district in the State shall maintain a school free of charge for tuition, for at least six months in the year." Mr. ALDRICH. I move to amend the amendment, sd as to insert "nine," instead of "six." Mr. CONGER. I ask for a division of the question, and that the vote be first taken upon striking out. The CHAIRMAN. A division of the question having been called, the vote will be first taken upon striking out the word "four," before the word "months." Mr. ALDRICH. I believe it has become the settled policy of this State, that we should initiate a system of free schools. When we come to fix the time that the school shall be kept each year, I believe thawr if we fix it below eight or nine months, we shall be fixing it below the point where we should locate it. I think we might as well leave this section to stand as it did in the Constitution of 1850, as to adopt it as reported by the committee on education. I therefore offer this amendment. Mr. WIILLARD. There is nothing in the provisions of this section which would prevent the Legislature from requiring free schools for any number of months in the year which they may choose. It was thought by the committee, that there were some portions of the State, where it would be a hardship to require the districts to have schools for more than four months in the year,; with the penalty of the deprivation of their portion of the primary school fund. For myself, I would go as far as any gentleman of this committee in providing for free schools in 'every district in the State. It was thought that the Legislature would probably make such provision in the future, when the circumstances and condition of our State would permit, as would be necessary. I have no very great objection myself to the amendment offered by the gentleman' from Oakland, (Mr. VAN V'ALENBURGH.) But [ think the amendment offered by the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. ALDRICH,) requires a school to be kept for a greater number of months than should be provided for in the Constitution. Mr. CHAPIN. I must say that I am decidedly opposed to either of the 300 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Tuesday, July 23, 1867. DEBATES AD PROOEEDIGS. 301 amendments which have been offered to this section. My opposition does not come from any want of interest in the common schools of this State; it is not from any objection to extending the benefits of those schools as far as that can practically be done. My objection consists in the fact that the adoption of either of the amendments. now pending would operate to the disadvantage of the schools in the newer portions of the State. It is a fact, with which I apprehend a great many gentlemen here are conversant, that in many of our new counties it is extremely difficult for them to raise the money necessary to support the schools the length of time they are required to do under our present Constitution. To increase that length of time td six or nine months, and then in case of their failure to comply oblige them to lose all the public money, it strikes me is establishing a principle which will operate very much to the detriment of the schools in the newer portions of the State. Those schools are small; they are in sparsely settled districts, where the in habitants comprise, perhaps, only ten, twelve, or fifteen families, cut off by portions of timbered land from com munication with other parts of the township. A provision of this kind would operate to the destruction of schools in such districts. We have very many such districts in the newer portions of the State. I believe that four months, the length of time,ixed by the committee on education, after a careful examination of the subject, is the largest limit to which these new schools should be compelled to go. I wish this committee to bear in mind that they are now establishing a prin ciple by which, if these schools are not taught for the length of time required by this section, they are to lose the little public money which otherwise they would receive from the State. In very many instances, this would have a tendency to destroy the poor man's school. Again, I do not see any great neces sity for a particular provision upon this point in the Constitution. I believe the people of this State, in the new coun ties as well as in the old, are sufficiently impressed with the value of education to their children, not to require any spur, or incentive, as is provided in this section. They are aware of the neces sity and importance of educating their children. They are as anxious to edu cate them as you are that they should do so. And in those new counties they are straining every nerve, and using every possible effort within their means, to accomplish this desirable end. Now, to establish a general rule which is to operate upon old andnew counties alike, and say that, unless they bring themselves up to this general standard, they shall be deprived of the little pittance they are to receive from the State to assist in the education of their children, will have a tendency to destroy the poor man's school, the free school, which of all others should be fostered and cherished. After considerable conference in the committee, I did consent to the four months restriction. I think that is the utmost limit to which quite a number of the districts in my county, and in other new counties with which I am acquainted, should be obliged to go. I really hope that the amendments offered will not be adopted, or if they are adopted, that their application will not be made general, so as to operate as they in evitably would to the destruction of the small schools in the newer portions of the State. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. It appears to me that the amendment offered by myself does not extend the time too long for the schools; that not only the older portions of the State, but the newer portions will be bene fited by it. It is a conceded fact that the perpetuity of our liberties depends upon the education of our people; and that the children of the people are the wards of the government. Now, sir, I hold that it is our duty, the duty of the people of this State, to see that the children of the State are educated. It appears to me that six months is as short a time as should be named in the organic law. A shorter time than that will not effect the object desired to be effected. A four months school does not and cannot produce that effect upon the children which should be produced in their early years. Four months appears to me to be altogether too short a time for limiting the schools in our State. The object of my amend ment is to extend the time, and then only half the year will be given to the schools. I hope that my amendment will prevail; notwithstanding the ob jections of the gentleman from Gratiot, (Mr. CHAHI,) it appears to me it will stimulate all persons in that section of the country in which he resides, to have their schools kept up for the length of time named in the organic law. I hope, therefore, the time may be extended to six months. Mr. WILLIAMS. I would cheer fully vote for six months schools, and for nine months if deemed necessary, and to have free schools throughout the State, were it not that the penalty for a failure in any particular, for a portion of that time, will deprive the school district so failing, not only of the primary school money, but of the money which they themselves have raised by tax to support their schools. I could never vote for it with the penalties provided for in this section, in case of a failure on the part of a school district to keep up the term of school provided. I was very much surprised to see such a clause in this article; and I shall, at the proper time,'if no one else does it, move to strike out that portion which deprives a district of the money raised by tax to support a school, in case of failure to comply with its provisions. I have always been a friend of the free school system. It is desirable that we should have a free school system throughout this State, as far as practicable. But, it is not desirable to place in the organic law an iron rule from which there can be no departure, and which will deprive a school district of their money in consequence of their failure, through any misfortune, to comply with the terms of that rule. A school district may be making every practicable exertion to keep up the school for the term named, and still, from some cause, fail to do so; in that case, they will be deprived of the money they have raised by tax upon them selves. Therefore, with this clause re maining in the section, I could not vote as I would, if the question was first taken upon striking out this penalty. Mr. HAZEN. I hope that neither of the amendments now pending will prevail, for if they should prevail, there will be many school districts in this State, which will be deprived of any school at all. There are school dis tricts in portions of the county which I represent, which are organized per haps with ten or twelve scholars. Their portion of the public money would be less than five dollars. The mill'tax will be-very small, for there is but little taxable property in the district, and they are authorized by law to raise by tax only one dollar for each scholar. With the provision in the Constitution, requiring them to maintain a free school for six or nine months, I would ask gentlemen, how can they do it? I appeal to the gentlemen of this com mittee, not to adQpt either of these amendments. If- they do, they result will be very bad indeed, in the newer portions of the State. Mr. BLACKMAN. I will go as far as any gentleman here in favor of free schools. I believe in making the com non schools not only entirely fiee for six months, but for a longer time. I am in favor of this amendment upon similar conditions to those alluded to by the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) and others. I see no dif ficulty in accomplishing this result. It DEBATES -AND -PROCEEDINGS. J-uly 23, 1867. 301 I I e ~3 2C-T T T O A.,.,..o: e -is not absolutely necessary that we should fix a forfeiture here, imposed upon the same length of time which we would require the Legislature to provide for free schools. I am in favor of this forfeiture, to a certain extent; but I would not be in favor of increasing the time to more than what is mentioned in the article as reported. I would prefer to leave it as it is in the present Constitution, that a failure to maintain a school three months in the year should forfeit the proportion of the public money to which the district is entitled. I am not so much surprised at this provision here as the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WVILLIAMS,) seems to be, because it is precisely the same provision that is contained in the old Constitution, except that the old Constitution provided for three months instead of four. Mr. WILLIAMS. I will correct the gentleman; there are no penalties attached to the provision in the old Constitution, and there never ought to be. Mr. BLACKMAN. If the gentleman will refer to page 111, of the Manual, section five of article thirteen, he will find the following provision: "A school' shall be maintained in each school district, at least three months in each year. Any school district neglecting to maintain such school shall be deprived ior the next ensuing year of its proportion ot the income of the primary school fund, and.of all funds arising from taxes for the support of schools." Mr. WILLIAMS. I am mistaken; I had overlooked that provision. Mr. BLACKMAN. I would be in favor of retaining that provision, not extending the time over three months; I would also be in favor of allowing the Legislature to provide for free schools, for six or eight months. Mr. P. D. WARNER. The provision in the present Constitution relates only to the maintenance of the school for three months. by a qualified teacher. The section under eonsideration proposes that the school shall be absolutely free for four months, and if the district fail to keep up a free school for that length of time, it forfeits all advantage to be derived from the public money. Mr. BLACKMAN. The present Constitution says nothing about "qualified teachers;" it is the law that provides in regard to qualified teachers: The Constitution provides that the school shall be maintained; it does not say that it shall be a free school. Mr. WILLARD. The gentleman will see, by reference to section four-of the same article, that there is a provision requiring a school to be kept, ,without charge for tuition," at least three months in the year. ~ Mr. BLACKMAN. The gentleman is correct. Our present law authorizes a free school for six months in those districts where the proper steps may be taken. And, I see no difficulty in providing here that the Legislature shall make provision for a free school in each district for six, eight, or nine months, and fix this forfeiture for three months, or at most four months. Mr HT!STON. I must say that I do not see this matter just as the gentleman from Gratiot, (Mr. C]AAPIN,) or the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. HAZEN,) seems to understand it. The gentleman from St. Clair says if this provision shall be adopted, providing for a free school for nine months in the year, there are many districts in which a school cannot be maintained. I understand that this simply provides that the Legislature shall adopt means to establish free schools; and the law to which he refers, authorizing them to raise only one dollar per scholar, will not be in the way. The Legislature is hereafter to adopt means by which these schools are to be maintained. Therefore, I do not see that the objection of the gentleman from Gratiot, and of the gentleman'from St. Clair, has any force in reference to this provision. The way the schools are maintained -in the newer counties, after they have exhausted the dollar per scholar fund, is by a rate bill. The gentleman from Gratiot spoke, the other day, of the large amount of non-resident lands in his county. I do not see but what the poor people to whom he refers will have their schools maintained at less expense than they are now maintained. I believe that will be true of all the new counties. I think the objection of the gentleman from Gratiot is not good, and the objection of the gentleman from St. Clair will not stand against this provision, as far as the poorer people are concerned in reference to this matter. So far as my constituency have expressed themselves in reference to this matter, they are in favor of having the common schools of the State free; they are willing to pay their proportion towards maintining them free, for they believe that is the true system. The Legislature is to make provision hereafter; and the law which provides that we can raise but a dollar for each scholar in the district, of course will have to be changed; and it will be the duty of the Legislature to so change the law, that these schools will either be supported by a State tax, and funds distributed as the primary school fund is now distributed, or by a tax levied on the property in the district. If the latter course is adopted by the Legislature, these poor people to whom the gentleman from Gratiot refers, will have less expense to pay than they do now. If theysupporttheirschools for nine months in the year, they will have to pay the greater part of it by rate bill. Under the new system they will pay it by tax levied upon the property in the district which may be, to a great ~extent, the lands of non-residents. That I think, will be the result in the newer counties. I have a substitute which I wish to offer for, this section. I propose to leave out the objectionable clause refer red to by the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS.) I offer the following as a substitute for the section: "The Legislature shall provide for a sys tem of primary scoools, by which each dis trict in the State shall maintain a school free of charge for tuition, at least eight months in the year. The instruction shall, in all cases, be in the English language." I think that eight months would be sufficient; making two terms, four months in the winter, and four months in the summer. -I must say that. I hope some provision of this kind will pass; I think it will give general satis faction throughout the State. I be lieve that the property of the State ought to educate the children of the State. I believe that is the true prin ciple; that these schools ought to be supported, not only in the southern, but in the northern parts of the State; in the new as well as in the old coun ties, by a tax upon the property of the counties. I believe they ought to be made free to all the children in the State. I do'not know but what I would go further, and provide, as has been suggested by some members of this Convention, that the Legislature shall by law provide a penalty upon parents who do not send their children to school. Mr. HAZEN. What system of taxation would the gentleman provide for these schools? According to the Constitution, it must be by a uniform system of taxation. Will the older counties submit to a tax for the newer counties? Mr. RUSTON. I have no doubt that the southern counties will at least acquiesce in such an arrangement, because if these schools are to be supported by a State tax, the tax to be imposed upon the property, and the fund distributed according to the number of children, the northern counties will pay more money in proportion than the southern counties, as any one can see by examining the equalization of property by the State board. I think, therefore, there will be no objection raised to this system by the southern counties. If that system is adopted, instead of the southern counties having to pay more than their due proportion, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Tuesday, .302 I July 23, 1867. I believe, from the investigation I have made in reference to this matter, that if any portion of the State will have to pay more than it should, it will be the northern counties. Still, I would not raise any objection on that ground. I would be in favor of having the schools supported by a general State tax. But my proposition is to leave this matter to the Legislature, and not have this Convention enter into details. I am satisfied that the Legislature will hereafter investigate this matter, and determine the best course to be pursued. All this Convention should provide is simply that the schools should be made free for at least so many months in the year. Let the Legislature enter into this matter of detail; we need not investigate that question here. I am satisfied that if we require the Legislature to make provision by which the common schools of this State shall be free to all the children of the State, for at least eight months in the year, they can adopt a plan which will be satisfactory to the people of the State. I think that all we should require is, that the Legislatnre should make this provision. I believe it is just, and for the best interests of the State, that we incorporate a provision of that kind into the Constitution. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. The gentle man ironm Tuscola, (Mr. HUsToN,) would leave this matter to the Legisla ture; that is, if I understand him, he would have that part which requires provision to be made for free schools, left for the action of the Legisla ture. He would have inserted in the Constitution a requirement, that those schools shall be maintained free for a certain length of time. This section as reported by the committee, with the penalty attached, provides that-if a district shall fail to keep up a free school for a certain length of time, it shall have no share of the public money of any description, either by tax or otherwise, for the next ensuing year. Now, why not leave this whole matter to the Legislature, the time for which the school shall be kept, and all the rest of it? If we fix the time for which the school shall be kept, fix it for six, eight or nine months in the year, and leave to the Legislature to provide the means for supporting those schools, it is possible that the Legisla ture will fail to do so, as they have failed heretofore. Still every district in the State will be held accountable every district must support a common school for a given length of time whether the Legislature discharge their duty in this respect or not. It strikes me that the better way would be to limit the time as proposed in the section reported by the commit. tee. I think four months is a sufficient length of time. There are many things which may occur in these new districts where they are poor, and the number of scholars is small, to prevent them from keeping their school for a greater length of time. For instance, they go to work and get up some sort of a house for the school to be kept in; it is a cheap thing,but it answers the purpose of a school-house for a time. That house may take fire and burn down; and there may be no place which they can procure for the purpose of holding school. Something of this kind may occur sometimes in the newer counties. It would not happen so in the older portions of the State; those portions which are nmore wealthy. If a school house should burn down in the older portions of the State, some other place could be easily obtained, in which to keep the school. But in some of the newer portions of the State, that could not be done, It seems to me that it would be very hard to compel all the districts to support schools for six or eight months in the year, with a pen alty in case of a failure, withholding from them, for the next coming year, all share of the public money. Mr. THOMPSON. This section re quires the Legislature to provide the means for supporting and maintaining a school free. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. I under stand that very well; but I understand the Legislature may do just as they please about it. There is a provision in the present Constitution something to that effect. Mr. THOMPSON. If the Legisla ture does not provide the means, then the requirement is not operative on the district. If the Legislature do provide the means, then it would be the fault of the district if the school is not kept up. ' Mr. M. C. WATKINS. It is left to r the Legislature to provide the means. Suppose they fail to provide the means, and the district fails to keep up the school for the required length of time; I the result would be that the next year they would not have any of the public b money. Mr. THOMPSON. That would not necessarily be so. Mr. BURTCH. I have thought, on several occasions, that we had reached the biggest subject which we would t have to consider; yet they seem to ; grow larger and larger. We are now engaged upon a very grave subject. , We are about to take on a tremend r ous responsibility, with regard to our action here upon the subject of educa y tion. The question is not what the i parent can afford to do for the child, -altogether; that is not the only ques DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 303 tion involved. There is another and a greater question involved; that is, what the public can afford to do for the child, rather than have it brought up in ignorance, so that in future, when it may possibly go into a Convention like this, it will not be capable of writing out what it wishes to say. It becomes the duty of the State, in order to preserve its digniity, its peace, its prosperity, its honor, in order to save its citizens from crime and degradation, to see well to it that every child in the State receives a fair degree of education. To that end it will be necessary to make some provision, and upon the wisdom of this Convention depends what provision shall be made. It is proposed here to leave that matter to the Legislature. That is a very uncertain body; it may be a body of wisdom, of intelligence, and of virtue; or it may be a body ignorant and vicious. These are among the possibilities, but not among the probabilities inthe State of Michigan, where perhaps as much light looms forth as in any part of the world at the present day, where settlements have been made for so short a time. There is concentrated wisdom in Michigan, there is no doubt about it. It has come from all parts of the earth to Michigan. We have here some of the most daring spirits, some of the most intellectual men; some who are inspired to go forth in the march of improvement and civilization, and all that raises man in the scale of human progress, equal perhaps to any portion of the earth. If they have not attained al ready to the height of their.glory, they are making a glorious effort for it. Let us not retard this matter, let not our footsteps be shorter and slower, but quicker and longer. Let us go forward in the march of education, so that we shall really be, not like a light under a bushel, but like a city set upon a hill that our light may be seen, and that our intelligence may be apprecia ted, and that instead of vice and crime, virtue and intelligence may adorn eve ry valley and every hillside. Now, there are both rich and poor nen in the State of Michigan; very few very poor men, because of the richness of the soil here. If a man comes here poor, in a very little time he is rich. He goes into the woods bare-handed with his axe, and the forest falls before him. One man, in his day, till make the forest disappear from over a space nearly as far as the' eye can reach. He builds his log cabin, and in a little time a fine, splendid mansion takes its place, with all the adornments of civilization. This I have seen done in this State, since I came into it in 1841. Families that came to this 0 1 t t s i t i 304 OOSTIPUTIOAL COVETION. Tuesday, State poor have become rich. They have undergone hardships, and have borne the heat and burdens of the day; and in many places they have suffered exceedingly for the Want of the means of education. -In some instances their children have been brought up without receiving that education which should be afforded to all. Those children are not the honor and glory of the State. If they fill any of the prominent places or institutions such as are in Lansing or near here, they perhaps will fill the most honored places they will ever fillf in the State. But they might have been saved from it, if the pittance which had been employed to charge them with the crimes they have com mitted, and the expenses of their trial had ggne into the common treasury to educate them, before the commission of the crime. Now, I entreat gentlemen do not, those of you who are rich, squander your means in lavishing it upon things which are foolish and unwise, but be stow it with wisdom, exercise the greatest wisdom of your lives by be stowing it for the education of the sons and daughters of Michigan. " He that giveth to the p6or, lendeth to the Lord." Give to the poor, give them education, and the Lord will be glori fied. He will be glorified, in that your sons and daughters will be able to live in consonance with the laws of their being; in that they will regard the rights of man everywhere, and the principles of equity and justice. I entreat you, gentlemen, to consider this subject well. I am for the school, for the free school; if it is for four months or for six months, my hand is to the plough never to look back. You talk about the penalty to be in flicted upon the poor, if from any cause they do not happen to keep up the school. Oh, shame! penalty upon the poor'! If the poor man is not able to-day, to do all he would for the education of his children, if there is a fund that justly belongs to him for that purpose, if there is no house in which the school can be held, let that fund accumulate until he has the means by which he can give his children the opportunities of education, by which they can go forward in the march of education, and save themselves, and save the community. Give the people, I emplore you, the ability to save themselves. Mr. LOVELL. I'do not desire to occupy any length of time in the discussion of the matter now under consideration. Still, it seems to me that our fr:iends upon the frontier are a little too fearful in regard to these amendments. I dq not agree with those who say that they will have no ability to maintain these schools, because they will not be allowed to tax sufficiently. As I read the section, the Legislature is to provide the system by which the district is to maintain the school. The Legislature has been wont, from time to time, to provide systems for our cities and villages, by which they may maintain schools free of charge in all respects, not merely for three months in the year, but for ten months in the year. I apprehend the taxes we pay in our cities anl villages, to maintain these schools in the manner we do, are not much lighter than would be neces sary correspondingly to support good schools in our most rural districts. I do not care anything about the penalty proposed here, except so far as it may go to encourage the keeping up of schools. Three months in the year is a very poor school, as every one knows, who has taught school. For children of the age when they attend our primary schools, three months in in the year is worth very little. If you will extend it to four months in the year, in my judgment, as a teacher of several years' experience, it will be worth twice as much as three months. And I believe if you will extend it to six months, it will be worth four times as'much as a three months school, and twice as much as a four months school. The expense for tuition in f country school district cannot be very large. I understand that in the rural districts the good, old custom of "boarding around" prevails; that is good for those who can stand it; by which there is no expense for board, and the teacher is considered an honored guest, most welcome in every family. There is then only the teacher's wages to be paid for; and at the present prices, or at any prices to which the wages of teachers are likely to advance-and they certainly ought to be duplicated several fold-the burden cannot be very great upon any district, if the Legislature will provide the system by which the school may be maintained. Suppose the Legislature provide that the school may be maintained by subscription; it cannot be maintained under this section by a rate bill. I can conceive of but one mode by which it can be maintained after the primary school fund has been exhausted, and that is by a direct tax upon the property of the district. What district in the State is so poor, that it cannot with the fund which thee State will provide from the primary school fund, raise annuatly from one hundred to a hundred and fifty dollars for this purpose? I undertake to say that one hundred and fifty dollars, as teachers' wages are now, will maintain a six months school in the rural districts; at any rate, it will not take much more than that. It will not be a heavy burden of taxation upon any district; or if it should be, we will find that the representatives of those districts in the Legislature will so state, and the Legislature may pro vide that there shall, be a specific appropriation to every district in the State. Supp6se that the Leg.islature should provide a specific ap propriation of fifty dollars to each district in the State, over and above the primary school fund, the mill tax, etc. The Legislature will do it, it will be their duty to do it; the clamor which will come up from these rural districts will compel them to do it. We will then have free education that will be worth something, in the rural districts as well as in the cities and vil lages. I want to see the most rural of our districts enjoy at least six months schooling for the children every year, I do not object to eight or nine months, though it may be perhaps too much under the circumstances; but six months school may be maintained without any great burden, I am sure, to the district or to the State. Mr. ALEXANDER. I have no doubt it will be acknowledged by all members of this Convention that a sys tem of free schools is next in impor tance to the people of this State to their bread and butter; and to my mind it seems to be absurd to provide a forfeiture, unless the school is kept up for a great length of time, say for nine months in each year. I do not think it is practicable, in every instance, or even possible with a great many-dis tricts, to keep up such a school. I would not fix upon them a system which will allow the big fish to eat up the little ones, which will compel the weaker districts to forfeit what little money they might otherwise have, be cause they cannot conform to the pro visions in the Constitution in this respect. I would not have this forfeiture at all. I coincide with the gentleman from Allegan, (M[r. WILLIAMS;) I would strike out the forfeiture clause entirely. I do not care what kind of a system you adopt to compel them to keep up a free school, but I do not think it is proper to rob them of what little they might otherwise have, because they cannot carry out this provision. That which is taken from them will of course be given to others; it will enable the big fish to eat up the little ones. Mr. BIRNEY. There is a practical view of this question, which it seems to ~me is overlooked by those who advocote the longer period of time for keeping up these schools. In the new districts it is very rare that they can maintain a school longer than the time I'll CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 304 . Tnesday, DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. mentioned in this section as reported. The means for supporting the school must come either from taxation, or from the primary school fund. If the primary school fund is not sufficient, it is not really a free school when you tax the inhabitants to pay for it. Those who pay no tax may send their chil dren free of charge; but those who own property must pay a very large tax, if the school is to be maintained for a long time. -Many of these districts are very feeble; they send but a few pupils to the school. If you compel them to maintain the schoolfor too long a time, they will not be able to raise the funds for that purpose; they will fail in keeping up the school, and then, under this for feiture clause, they would be deprived of any money which they might have received from the State. I think some penalty for the non-observance of the requirement would be very good. Business is managed so loosely in these newer townships, that unless there was some stimulus of this kind, they might neglect these schools, and this fund might be perverted, and not used for the, purpose of education. I like the section as it is; I think the time cannot be made longer with safety. It is sufficient for the newer counties, and in regard to the older counties, the desire for education, and the means they have for defraying the expenses of these schools, will enable them to keep them up as long as they desire. The older counties, therefore, need no such stimulus; but in the newer counties, I think it would oper ate well. Mr. ESTEE. I believe there is no uentleman upon this floor who is wil Iing to do more to increase the interest in the common schools of this State, or to do more to elevate them, than I am. Yet I am not willing to vote here for a measure that will ruin the common schools in the newer portions of the State. I am unwilling that they should be robbed of the money wbich rightfully belongs to them, and that it should be given to the older counties of the State, by requiring these new counties to keep up schools for a long period of time, which would be impossible to them. I think the section reported by the committee, requiring schools to be maintained four months, is about as near right ~s it can be made. I would not be willing to vote for a longer time. Gentlemen say there will be no difficulty in the new sections of the State in raising money for the support of schools, from the fact that they have large tracts of non-resident lands which can be taxed.i For the benefit of those gentlemen, I will say that I' VoL 2-No. 39. know some districts where not more than one-quarter or one-half of the land in the district is taxable. It is well known to many living in the northern part of this State, that there are large sections of country there which have been entered under the homestead law, and those lands are not liable to taxation. There are individu als there who have small parcels of land, scattered through this territory, which are taxable. And if you re quired them to raise taxes to support schools for a long time, the effect would be that the man who owned a little amount of land which is taxable would be glad to get rid of it. I know some districts where it would take from eight to fifty per cent. of the assessed valuation of the taxable prop erty there in order to. raise one hun dred and fifty dollars for the schools. I have no objection to making the schools free in the State, if the older portions of the State will furnish the money to do it in the newer portions, where they cannot do it for themselves. There is but one proposition in this section, as reported by the committee, to which I see any objection; that is the forfeiture attached to it, the loss of the primary school fund, and of all the funds arising from taxes for the support of schools. At the proper time, I propose to submit an amendment to this section. Mr. LEACH. Every gentleman who has spoken upon this question has said he is in favor of free schools. I, too, am in favor of free schools. The article reported by the committee on education, and the various substitutes and amendments, all look to a period when the schools would be free. I have drawn up a substitute for this section three, which I propose to offer at the proper time. I will read it for the information of the committee: "No charge for tuition shall ever be made in the primary schools of this State. All bonafare residents of school districts shall be permitted to attend the primary schools therein. The Legislature shall provide for giving effect to this section." This provides absolutely for free schools, and if it becomes part of our Constitution, no rate bill could ever be collected, and we would reach directly what we are trying to reach indirectly. Mr. CONGER. I do not remember exactly how the amendments now pending read. But Ihave one which I wish to offer to this section at the proper time. It is to insert after the words "at least four months in the year," the words "and may provide for the compulsory attendance of scholars in such districts." I find by reference to the report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, to be fonnd in our pro ceedings under date of the 11th inst., that there are 321,136 children in this State between the ages of five and twenty years, who should be scholars during the year 1867. I also find that there are 74,179 who never find their way into the school-room. Nearly 75,000 children in the State of Michi gan who do not attend school! With all the zeal and interest in schools man ifested in this State, with all our pri mary school fund, rate bills, mill tax, etc., there are nearly 75,000 children in the State who do not attend school. In my opinion, while we should pro vide for the support and maintenance of a school in each district, there should be a constitutional provision authorizing the Legislature to require the compulsory attendance of scholars at these schools. I wish to say, while I am on the floor, that I am now, as I ever have been, opposed to the principle of taking away the. fund belonging to a-school district one year, because of a deficiency in the school the previous year. A part of the fund is raised by tax; a two mill tax raised in the immediate dis trict for the immediate benefit of that district. By the provisions of this for feiture clause, all that fund is taken from the district, because the school there was not kept for six, eight or nine months of the year preceding, without any reference to the reason why the school was not kept. I think that provision in itself is unfair in every particular, and will have no tendency whatever to encourage education, for the reason that because the children have been left in ignorance one year, the Constitution itself would provide that the means for educating them the next year shall be - absolutely taken away from them, although those means may have been raised by taxing the people in that district. That is a pun ishment in the wrong direction. Mr. BLACKMAN. I desire to say that if the amendment now pending, to strike out "four" and insert' "six," shall prevail, I will at the proper time offer an amendment to the forfeiture clause of this section, by inserting after the words, "neglecting to maintain such school," the words "for at least three months during the year," so that the forfeiture will apply only to a neglect to maintain a school for three months. I will remark here, that I do not agree with those who are in favor of having no forfeiture whatever. I think such a provision in our present Constitution has had the effect of causing some districts to maintain schools, where they would not have done so but for such a provision. I think that is the design of it. I see no reason why, if they have no school at t July 23, 1867. 305 -x 306~~~~~~ 1 (3N~ITTOA. ())~I —- - Tu.~ all, they should have the publicmo.ney; I do,not see that,they would want it. .Mr. P. D. WARNER. I am in.,favor of applying the property.of. the .State,for the education of the you-th of the State. With.that understanding, I am in favor of striking.out 'four," and'.inserting', six," as, proposed by my colleague, (MIr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) SO that each.district may be. authorized to provide for the maintenance of a school, which shall be free to.every scholar within its,limits, for. at least six months of every -year. I shall vote for the amendment with the expectationthat the committee ofthe whole will.go with me in amending.this section, -so as to.-remove this forfeiture in case a district shall froom:some-eircumstance fail to have a school for six months; if no other member offers an amendment to that -effect, I will offer it myself. .Mr. HENDERSON. Notwithstanding other propositions have been.ostensibly the reason assigned by members for their speaking, it seems to me this forfeiture clause receives at their hands the greatest amount of attention. I can speak only of my actuai knowledge-and observation in regard to the workings of this clause. I -know it has had much effect to induce districts to provide for maintaining schools, where they- would not have done so but for this forfeiture. ButI am opposed —to it.just.so.far as indicated by the amendment,-offered by the gentleman from Midland, (-r. ESTEE.) I would strike out all-that applies to funds raised in the,immedi ate- district. Under the present.appor tionment, every district receives back what it -pays of the two mill tax. Un der the law passed last winter, they will be enabled to raise two dollars. per scholar. If they raise -,that amount, and are also.-subject to the two~mill.tax, it will all be taken -from them in the event they fail to-keep up a >school-for the time here required, for any reason, even though it be one over which they have no control. I-would provide only for-the forfeiture of the publicmo.ney of the -State. -- That,provision.has proved an incentive in the them. past, and it- will -in, the -future. I would not, therefore, be. in favor of striking- out that part of the forfeiture cla~ise. Mr. ~THOMPSON. I do not,wish at the.present time-to occupy the atten tion of the committee if -this subjec~t'is not to b'e-disposed of to-day. I hae some figures to which I-.would.like to refer, but they are at.my room;;sup posing the conclusion would.- not- be reached upon this-subject to-day, I did not- bring them over. I-will, however, make a few suggetions. "It is quite evident that if the Legis lature provides-for a system of —free ,schools.forany.-length of time, a.tax for that purpose must -be- raised upon :the'property of theState.:Those who have-given. attention-to this matter are ware that. —the two -— mill- tax, if -levied upon theproperty of the,State, as. equalized -.by the State. board, would very nearly-. pay he. entire. expense of.-the schools in each. district. Six- and-,twotenlths,.months.lper. year,-.was the average time that schools were kept in this State.,last year. The -two mill tax, if raised.on the equalized valuation-of the -property in ftle. State, would,- together with the -interest on -the primary school fund, fall. short of the entire expense of the schools, about thirtyfour thousand dollars. -Two-and.one tenth., mills;. on,the.,. equalization of -the State hoard -will give about thirtyafive -thousand dollairs more' than the amount -necessary for the expense of keeping up the schools on the aver age,for:six and:two-tenths months. Now, let me refer to the,new counties; take AMpena for instance; the -number of acres.. assessed there is about 349,000. I think the valuation for the county is two dollars and twenty-four,. cents per acre. -That amount of land would yield by tax be tween fifteen and sixteen hundred dol lars. IThe amnount' expended in that coumty has not been one-quarter of that sum. If the tax is based upon the State equalization, you will.obtain over three thousand dollars for that county. Now, what-..has become of that -money? My friend here (Mr. LOTHROP) lhas perhaps three: thousand acres of land there;.several other gen tlemen.,with... whom I am,acquaminted have from two to three or-four thousand acres there, and they, are taxed.for these..schools. Not onefourth part of the. money. hasbeen expended. -WVhat has become of:-it? The.money has been.,raised -in some counties, and,. as the report shows, not expended. I think a:little investigation of.this matter Will:set -us:.right — upon several questions pertaining to the schools throughout the State.: I think we, jwiil not be under the necessity of making ~much-: ad.vance -in the assessment to meet the; etire expenses -of the schools in the State. Thevaverage length of the sessions of schools in -the State, is six and two-tenths months per year; [not-three or four months..I think we have eovery reason -to. believe,: that -we Ec~. go..forward Wand make,these schools :ift.-forsix- or even,ei-ght mon.ths in the year.:But allow me to; suggest that w —when -the Legislature -have- provided tie:mens for free schools,:I do notsee why any gentleman should objet-to ,having these means — forfeited- in -.ny district, where they. do not:maintain the school. It-is not fair'to allow the district to:retain the fund without using.it; they claim the money and receive it; -why should they not be coinpelled to use it? M r. ESTEE. One word in regard to —what the gentleman from Hillsdale, (,Mr. THOMPsON,) has stated. I am not particularly acquainted with the county of Alpena, yet I know something of its situation. Alpena has one organized county attached to it. The country there is pretty much a lumber coun try; the settlements are principally on the bay and - on the rivers. I think that county contains but three or four .organized townships. The property of the county embraces large tracts of lumber lands; a great deal of it perhaps,- in-the new unorganized country attached. While they might in MAlpena county in some of their school districts be.able to raise by the two mill tax a sufficient amount of money, and even more than they would know what to do -with, in other districts they would not be able to raise-enough for the -schools. For'instance, a school district comprises four, five or six sec tions of land, as is usually the case in new counties. They are - entitled to the two mills tax upon the property in the district, provided that the whole territory embraced in the school dis trict,-is liable to that tax. But some of- it may belong to the county attach ed; and they do not receive anything of that tax, unless it is in their school district or township. Now, the town ship in which I live, -gets no benefit of the two-mill tax, except on the land embraced in their school districts, which, in many instances, does not amount to more than from five to thirty dollars. These are matters of fact, with which I am woll acquainted; and when I say it, I know what I am tal!king about. ,.Mr. CASE. I had prepared one or two amendments to this section, but I believe the substance of them has been embraced in other amendments which liave been offered. I am in favor of the longest time we can possibly get for our free schools. I know some thimg of the working of school mat ters in:the newer portions of the coun try, having had something to do with them. I think the case is a very rare one, when it; would be difficult to mnain tain a school, -even for nine months. Perhaps that would be going to the extreme, butg I for one, would be wil ling to sustain such a proposition. Still, I would be satisfied with six mo~nths.' Most of our school districts in the newer portions of the State are com posed of from six to nine sections of Iland;: most of our school districts put * in.tthe nine sections, which is the limit i $06 Q.WAL CONV gN.TTQN. .Tuesday July i,. 17............S i x.a..........I.... of the law. The two-mill tax on this territory, together-with the two dollars per scholar which we are allowed to raise, will enable most school districts to support a free school for six or eight months in the year. In these backwoods districts, as a general thing, we do not employ high-priced teachers. Our school inspectors favor those districts in respect to the class of teachers which they are permitted to employ.They do not require a teacher to come up to that standard in the backwoods districts that they do for other dis-' tricts. Perhaps that is wrong, and not for the best interests of the schools -of the State. As has been remarked here, almost the whole drift of the argument this afernoon has been upon this forfeiture clause. It seemns to me that it is almost the universal opinion of this Convention, that that clause should be stricken out. I think, therefore,' that there is no danger from that clause whatever; I think the Convention will be unanimous in striking it from, this article. I had prepared an amendment which I desired to offer at the proper time, but I believe the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) has suggested an amendment which comprehends nearly the same thing I had embraced in my amendment. The ameudment I have prepared was- to insert after the words ,'at least four months in the year, the words " and shall provide for the, compulsory attendance of all scholars between seven and fourteen years of age in some school, for at least three months in each year." I believe the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair is rather more sweeping than mine. I am not particular which one is adopted; I hope that one -will: be adopted. If we should have a report from our superintendent of public instruction some years from now, I hope he will not report that there are nearly 75,000 children in this State who do not attend schools. I am sorry to say that there is a disposition in our Legislature-!I have seen it for some years back-rather to fear that they would take a step too far in advance. They are afraid that they are going to be too headstrong; we must wait until the popular mind is educated up to this point, they tell us. We see the same spirit manifested in every body of men, even in this Canvention. Now this is an age of progress; an age of railroads; an age of free schools; and I trust that whoever sets himself in opposition to either will be run under by the locomotive, or by the force of public opinion. I hopethat we will have all the railroads that we want, and also all the public schools that we ant.-I hope that —ouir schoo6s -will be as-free as-the water that -flows in our streams. Mr. WILLARD. I desire to detain the- committee with but- awvery few remarks upon this question, before it is put -to a vote, as it may be — likely to come to a vote before the committee rises.: The question:now- -pending -is upon the — amendment to ~the -amendment offered by the gentleman from Oakland, (Mi!r. VAN VALKENBURGHI.) It may, be that- some members of -the committee would'vote- for or against the amendment under-a misapprehension. The forfeiture. clause of this section wvas pretty well disctssed in-' the-committeeon education., It isperhaps well known- to-every member here -that,we already have in-.our Constitution-:a requirement: upon the Legislature- to esta3blish a system of free schools. -- Yet if you will look at' our stat'utes you'will see: that that requirement- h/as not been complied -with. The rate-bill has -not' been abolished in most districts of the State,- although at the time of the adoption of the presenti:Constitu-tion it was contemplated that'that-' ratebill would very soon be abolished m- nearly all the districts'of the State.' There;was,- however, put into- the.present Constitution- a section; requiring, the school to be kept in each district of the State for-three -months of the year;: to that requirement there was a forfeiture and penalty' attached-. - Because there was such a forfeiture attached to it, there has. been'-a compliance on the part of the districts of this State —withthis requirement. I think it will be a mere brutumfulmen in the Constitution if we simply require the Legislature to provide —that a school be kept ineach district of the State three, four orsix months, without any penalty being attached. These are the, reasons why the committee reported this section as it is. If this committee can~ devise any better means for the; compulsory compliance with the provisions of this section in regard to- free schools,; than the' one devised by the committee on education, or rather the one - retained by the committee, taken: in part from the- present Constitution, I shall-: be willing toagree with-gentlemen in support of it. Mr. PRINGLE. I have notkept trackof the amendments and propositions-~ offe'ed here.: Bat there are two or three' things in regard to this section'.upon which- I desire -'to say a few.woids.7 I like-the first clause'of:thes section requiring'a free school to6be; kept up in each-district, whether- it -be for four, sixvor eighb months -sin thee year. Ths: is declaratory of what shall-be' the- le.: The forfeiture which follows, it seems to me, -is -inappropriate in the Constituition. It might be properly made a part-of the systemwvhich the Legislatureo shall - devise. BUt' that system might: very properly require that this forfeiture shall, be varied according to the circumstances of the case, as they occur in the changing conditions of this State., I do'not think too much should be presumed from the report of the superintend-ent of public instruction, as it has been quoted' here. The gentleman, from St. Clair (Mr. CONcER) has pointed to the fact that while there are in this State 321,000 children between !the ages of five and twenty years, 74,000- of them have. not attenided school- within the past year; at least i that the report of the school inspectors i do not show it. Now, I am- surprised that — this; report shows so large: an ati tendance.'- There are many other schools in- the- State besides our common schools; -there are Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, and I do not know what otherldenominational schools for- children; select schools, colleges, instituftions for males and females, scattered through the State, and attended by hundreds and thousands'of children. Then, of the number -of children ibetween five and twenty years of age, a large number are over-sixteen -or seventeen years of age who -do not ordina' rily attend common schools. MIany girls of that age are perhaps keeping ischool; the young/ men'are attendiing' college, or are in stores and other places of business. That more, than three-fourths of the -entire- number of children in the State, between five and twenty years of age, should have attended the common schools of the -State within the past year, strikes me as a fact which cannot be cited as any indication of inattention on the part of the -people -of the State to the-schooling of their children. It was never expected wheel the'age was raised from eighteen to twenty in the enumeration, that the majority of those between eighteen and twenty would attend the schools, or that even a majority of those between sixteen and eighteen, would attend- the schools. It-was expected that most of the boys and' girls, when they became fifteen or sixteen years of age, would not,-one year with another, ordinarily -attend the — schools. They having acquired their commont'school education'before that-age, are at work, busy in, one way or another; or if- they have been active boys and had' opportumities, they are tlirough, or nearly through college, befo'e they are twe/ty- years of age. So' that'i do'not -see; that' this fact is anytthin'; fromn': which much- can be' made. 3.07 DEBATE'S;'AND PROCEEDINGS. July 23, 1867. 308 ()1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tfl'UTIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AL CO~~~~~~~~~~~~~VE~~~~~~~TIO~~~~~~~~~.~~ I have no objection to the idea of enforcing the compulsory attendance of pupils in particular cases; but I imagine that subject should be left properly to the control of the Legislature. With this view of the case I do not spe how I can support, as a constitutional provison, the amendment suggested by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGErR,) or the other amendment to the same effect suggested by the gentleman from Montcalm, (Mr. CAsE.) I would simply have a declaratory provision here, that it should be the duty of the Legislature to devise and carry out a system by which free schools should be maintained for four or six months in the year, or eight months, if that should be approved. The medium probably would be about six months. From what I have heard said upon this plan, and from what I know otherwise, that would be generally regarded as the proper time, everything considered, by the districts of the State. But whatever time may be fixed, I would here have only the declaration that.the schools should be free during that time. I would have none of the pains or penalties here, because it may be found that different penalties, and more effective punishment for neglect, can be devised by the Legislature, than is here proposed. That can be left within the power of the Legislature, unless we attempt to cover all the ground here by the disposition we make of this subject. These ideas will govern my vote upon the various amendments proposed. Mr. MORTON. The first sentence of this section three, I think, should stand as it is. That sentence is as follows: "' The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools, by which each district in the State shall maintain a school, free of charge for tuition, at least four months in the year." That will not prevent the Legislature from providing for a longer time if the public wants shall demand it. I suppose the object of this portion of the section is more particularly in reference to the sparsely settled portions of the State, where it is difficult to maintain schools of any kind. We will find, on an examination of the newer counties, that it is very difficult to get parents to consent to allow their children to go to school during the working months of the year. If a school is provided for them during the four colder months of the year, they will have more advantages of education than they have ever had before. I do not sympathize with the cry set up here about poor people, and poverty, so far as education is concerned. I think the young men who would be affected in this matter would be the young men of the cities, who have parents to lean upon, and whb are lazy and vicious. They are the last people in the community who will hereafter stand promhlently forth as educated and intelligent men. They have enough to live upon, provided by their parents, and they will live and grow fat and die like pigs. The boy in the country, clambering over fences, with out a hat on his head, or shoes on his feet, with a tow shirt on, rough enough to almost take the skin off a rhinoceros, will stand a better chance to be President of these United States than our pampered youth of the cities. He knows that he must stand upon his own responsibility, and he will care more for the advantages which may be furnished himrn. Look at the honored President of the United States whom the Republican party, under Providence, have given us. He was once a poor boy, and now see to what a po-. sition he has reached. [Laughter.] If he is not a good one, then let us elect thenext one. [Renewed laughter.] There are many things in this section which I am in favor of, if properly amended. I do not believe in depriving all school districts of these funds, if -they do not keep up schools for so many months inl the year; I think it would be better to strike out the second sentence of this section; I think the rest would be sufficient. If the Legislature deem it prudent and wise, and the people demand it, they can go on and extend-the time to six, eight or ten months in a year, without any necessity for us to put it-here in the Constitution. I believe those men who, thirty years from this time, will stand foremost in this State, are now young fellows who would be glad to get even four months schooling in the year. Mr. LOHTROP. It seems to be supposed that these questions were before the committee on education, and that they reached some conclusion upon them. First, let me say as to the matter of time, four months; my own judgment is that perhaps the individual preferences of the majority of the committee would have been in favor of increasing that time; my own preference would have been to increase it. But there were gentlemen who said that by fixing a constitutional provision requiring more time than four months, it might in individual cases work badly. Therefore the time, four months, was agreed upon in limiting the Legislature upon the matter. Individually I would prefer that a school should be kept-a longer time. I reside where schools are kept up through the year, except during vacations. Therefore I have no personal interest in regard to this matter. This section would be subject to most serious criticism, if it is open to the attack made by several of the gentleman here. But the school required to be kept by the district, is only such a school as the State shall provide the means for. The first sentence of this section requires imperatively that the State shall provide a system for keeping a free school in each district, for at least four months in the year. It is not proposed to centralize this system so that it shall include merely an agency presiding here in the capital of the State. But the Legislature are required to provide a system by law, which shall involve the agency of the district t5 carry out that system; they shall provide the means by which the district shall maintain the school. And then what? If the State has provided no system by which the district can maintain the school, then no penalty can follow a failure on their part to do so; in my opinion.there is no doubt about that. It is said here, suppose that the school-house should burn down,- should the district be subject to a penalty on that account? Or, suppose that sickness should prevail in the district, and the schoolbeinterrupted on that account, should the district pay a penalty? That would not be a neglect on the part of the district; and there is no provision in this section imposing a penalty in such cases. If the school-house should burn down, and another place could not be found in which the district school could be kept, then there would be no penalty. But if the district could hire or rent another place in which the school could be kept, then, if they neglected to do so, the penalty would follow. You elect an officer and he neglects his duty, or commits a misdemeanor, and is subject to penalty. If the district neglects the duty imposed on it by law, why should not the penalty be imposed on that district? The committee will observe that we are here revising a Constitution, not proposing to make one entirely new. And in this article the committee on education have undertaken to condense two sections of the old Constitution. We found in that Constitution provision made for penalties; we did not understand those penalties to be working badly. It seemed to us perfectly clear that a penalty should follow an omissiqo of the plain requirement of the law. It is of no use to make provisions, unless they are enforced by a penalty. The committee understood that this provision had; worked well and we saw no necessity for omitting it. I do not understand that the money raised in the district is forfeited by the operation of this provision. I TtLesday, CO-NSTITUTIONAL -CONVENTION. 1308 Jul 23 16.DBTSADPOEDN. O understand that the words "- funds arising from taxes"-or, at least, I so understood them, but I may be in error-related to such moneys as the State might raise and distribute as such.. That, I supposed, has been the meaning attached to this provision, as there is no provision here, or in any law, for the taking of money raised in a district and sending it elsewhere. But the income from the school fund, or the funds raised by direct tax for distribution, is public property. The question is, shall it go to a district neglecting to maintain a school, or shall it not? The district has received its proportion of the income of the primary school fund, and its proportion of the property tax for one year, and has not expended it. Now, will you give to that district its proportion of this fund for the next year? They have not kept a school for the preceding year; they have the fund provided for that year now on hand, and therefore have the means for maintaini g the school this year. The purpose of,this provision, as I understand it, is, that this fund shall not accumulate without being used. It seems to me that in that point of view the provision is a a proper one. In conclusion, i would say that the expression "neglecting to maintain such school," does not apply to those cases where by reason of casualty, or of any other circumstance, beyond the control of the district, the school is not kept. Neglect implies a criminal omission of certain duties. When that neglect takes place, it seems to me that the penalty should follow, and that the district, having in its hands the means for keeping a school the coming year, should not have additional funds placed in its hands; but those funds should go to the other districts of the State.* Reading the section in this view, it seems to me that this provision is wise and just, and should commend itself to the approval of the committee. Mr. WILLIAMS. I would inquire of the gentleman how the word "neglect" here can be used in a criminal sense only? It seems to me that this is a plain, simple provision, that if the district shall neglect from any cause to maintain a school, the forfeiture shall apply. Mr. LOTHROP. I do not mean criminal within the statute. Mr. WILLIAMS. I understood the gentleman to so state. Mr. LOTHROP.'I meant criminal within the moral sense of the term, not criminal within the statute at all. In that sense, I supposed that either the district, or some officers, having duties to perform, and having the means to perform that duty, omit to perform it; in my judgment that would constitute the neglect referred to in this section. Mr. CASE. I now move that the committee rise, report to the Convention the article on " Cities and Villages," with the amendments thereto, recomsmend that the amendments be concurred in, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of that article; also, that the committee report progress in regard to the article on " EduLcation," and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the chair, lr. WINSOR reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Cities and Villages;" had made an amendment thereto, had instructed him to report the article with the amendment back to the Convention, recommend that the amendment be concurred in, and ask that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of that article. Also, that the committee had had under considertion the article entitled "Education," had made some progress therein, and had directed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. The report was received and the committee of the whole discharged from the further consideration of the article entitled " Cities and Villages;" and leave was granted for the committee to sit again, and further consider the article entitled "Education." The PRESIDENT. The question is upon concurring in the amendment made by the committee of the whole to the article entitled "Cities and Villages." Mr. P. D. WARNER. I move that the Convention now-adjourn; Mr. RICHMOND. Will the gentleman withdraw that me'otion for a moment? - Mr. P. D. WARNER. Certainly. STATE UNIVERSITY, &C. Mr. RICHMOND. I have here the memorialof a committee of the Alumni of the University, and resolutions, asking that provision be made in the Constitution for appointing the board of regents, and a provision for tax for the support of the University. As the subject to which this memorial relates will probably come before the Convention to-morrow, I ask leave to present it at this time, and that it be printed at large in the journal. No objection being made, the memorial was received, laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed at large in the journal. The memorial was as follows: To the Constitutional Conventioi of the State of Mi'chigan: At the annual meeting of the Alumni 6f the University of Michigan, held in the law lecture room of the University on-the twenty-fith day of June, 1867, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: Resolved, That in the judgment of the Alumni of the University of Michigan, the organic law ot the State should be so framed as to secure First. The entire management and control of the University by the Board of Regents; Second. That the Regen ts should be elected, on the nomination of the Governor,. by the Senate; - - -' Third. That it provide for a specific tax of one-twentieth of a mill as a fund in aid of the University. - Resolved, That with a view to carry into practical effect the above resolution, a committee of five be appointed by the chair from the Alumni residing in Ann Arbor, to draft a memorial to the Constitutional Convention, urging that Honorable body to incorporate into the organic law the principle contained in the first resolution. -- We, theundersigned the committee appointed in accordance with the above resolution, beg leave most respectfully to represent to your Honorable body that the great object we have in view in urging upon you the incorporation of a provision in the Constitution placing the entire control of the University in the hands of the Board of Regents, is that in so doing its future may be in the keeping of those whose position require them to study and investigate the necessities of the institution, and therefore are the most fit to judge of what had and what had not better be introduced therein, in order not only to promote the interests of the institution, but to carry into effect the original, broad and comprehensive plan of a true University, on which plan our own University is established. And in urging upon your Honorable body the propriety of the election of the Regents by tihe Senate, on the nomination-of the Governor, we would respectfully say that in our judgment the office of Regent is such an office, that it requires great care and prudence in the election of a person competent to fill it; something more than can be completely done in the hurry and excitement of a political convention. And although we are not prepared to say that in the present mode of selecting them there has been any great injury done, yet if it were lef.' with the Governor, of the State to-choose the Regents, he would have time and opportunity to select men who, from their known identification with the interests of the State, and familiarity with the interests and wants of the institution, would be better fitted and qualified to act for the best interests of the University, than those who might be selected by any political convention. The office of Regent is not a political office, nor should it become so by having the Regents the creatures of a political party, responsible in a great measure to-a political party for their position as Regents, or their retention -in office. And it is our great object and desire so to shield the University and its interests from the current of political strife, either in the Convention or Legislature, so that under the fostering care of the Regents, it may still grow and prosper, and continue (as it is, ) one of the most thorough ond complete institutions in the land; an institution of no city or county, or part of the State, but the University of Michigan, in fact, as well as name. We would also urge upon your Honorable body, the necessity of creating a permanent fund for the support of the University. Its present resources are not sufficient to meet its current expenses, and enable the Regents to carry out the originalplan of having taught in the University all the subjects that properly should have aplace in aUniversity, established on the broad and comprehensive plan of-the University ofthis State, It is our opinion that -1 DEBATES AND PROCEIDLNGS. .July 23-, 18670- - 309 CO::SOTITUTIONAL-.CONVENTIOl. the creation of a permanent fund, by the small tax ot one twentieth of a mill on a dollar of all the taxable property of the State, will accomplish that object. It will give the University a firm and permanent financial basis, so that it will not be necessary to apply,.froi0m time to time, to the Legislature, to r frther necessary appropriation, nor dependent onthe temper of tihe Legislature ior its future-:welfare.; This Institution is the child of -the State, and to the State it looks for encouragement and support. It is the great educationlal-center ot the State, and it is there'the young men of the State who seek to in,'fom:themselves in the higher branches of science, literature and arts, (and we hope to see agriculture and the sciences - connected:. thrwi6th, soon taught in the University,) may find an Institution at home, inferior to none in the country- where a complete eduCation may be had. There the student, seeking to edUcate himself in law or medicine, may find coimpe-. tent instructors and an ample'field for study, research and reflection. The State may well be'proud of what the University has already accomplished., What we ask now of your Honorable body is to establish the University on, a firm, permanent and independent financial basis." It is but little of the- greatresources of the Statethat we ask to be set apart for its University, and we humbly pray-your -Honorable body thatthe petition in behalf of ur Alma Mater may.be granted. E. P. EVANS,I Chtairman, H. M. GOODRICH, C. B. GRANT R. E. FRAZER, J. Q. A. SESSIONS, Commtn?nte. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I now renew the motion that the: Convention, adjourn. The motion was: agreed to; tand accordingly, (at fifteen minutes past five o'clock p. m.,) the'Convention adjournn ed. FO RTY-NINTH DAY'. .. NVEDNESDAY, July 24, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by-Rev. Mr. Hioxox. " The roll was called -and a quorum answered to their names. PETITIONS. Mr. HOWARD presented the petition of Levi Gillett, Rev. T. J. Joslyn, Edward Couse, Ira B. Gale, and- 45 other legal voters of Atlas, Genesee county, for a prohibitory clause restriceting the sale of intoxicat ig liquors; which was referred: to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr. W. E. WARNER presented the memorial of J Knigh Bailey and Mrs. Soda: Bailey, of Adrian, aslding the right of suffrage to be extended to wo-e men, and for other purposes.... So much of the petition, as relates tosuffrage was; referred to the com mite oni elections; so much asrelates to education was refeired to the. committees on education; so much':-as;.relaes to the legislative deparment ws referred to the committee on legislative. depart ment; so much as relates to crime was referred to the committee on crimes and punishments; and so much as rela-tes to other subjects was referred to the con,mmittee on miscellaneous provisions. Mr. LOTHROP presented the petition of L. Bonfoy, E. C. Walker and fift'een- other citizens of Detroit, in favor ofa license -law. Also, the - petition. of John Martin, H. B. Wallister and fifty-eight other citizens of North Brownsville, Kent county, in favor of a license law; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER' OF FIRST DEGREE. Mr. NORRIS, from the committee on crimnes and -punishments, submitted the following report-: The committee on crimes and punishmentsto whom was reterred the question of capital punishment, respectlully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have. directed me to report the tollowing section: SECTION -. The' Legislature shall provide by law for the punishment of murder of the first degree, by death; Recommending that the same be incorporated in Article -, entitled " Legislative Department," and ask to be discharged Irom the further consideration of the subject. LYMAN D. NORRIS, Ohairman. The report was received, and the committee discharged. - Mr., PRINGLE. I move that- the report be laid upon the table. The motion to lay on the table was not agreed to, upon a division; ayes21, noes 40. Mr. LUCE. I move that the report be placed on the, general order, and referred to the committee of the whole. Mr. NORRIS. I move to amend that motion, so that this report be considered and acted upon in connection with the article on the Legislative Department. Mr. LUCE. I have no objection to that; I will accept the amendment. Mr. BLACKMAN. I am not positive, but my recollection is that We have a rule which requires all these reports to be referred to the committee of the whole for consideration. The PRESIDENT. The i'nle upon the subject is as follows: " No article shall be committed or amended, until it has been twice read in whole or by its title, as the Convention shall direct; and every article reported upon by a conmmittee, shall be referred to the committee ot the whole, placed on the general order, and printed." That rule relates only to articles reported upon by; committees, not to separate sections of an article. The motion of Mr. LUcs as modified was agreed to. COUNTIES. -Mr. LUCE. I move to take- fr-om the table for consideration at this time,i the article entitled "Counties." lr. BIRNEY. Will that- interfere with the special order of the day? The PRESIDENT. No hour was fixed for the consideration of the special- order; consequently it cannot be considered until the Convention shall reach the order of business entitled Special Orders." The motion of Mr. LUCE was agreed to. SUPERVISORS FOR INCOR?ORATED VILLAGES. -The PRESIDENT. The question before,the Convention is upon concurring in the amendments to this article reported by the committee on counties. The first amendment is to section eight, which section is as follows: "Cities shall have such representation in the board of supervisors as the Legislature shall direct." The amendment recommended by the committee is to add to the section the following: ",Incorporated villages containing not less than four thousand inhabitants shall be entitled to one member of the board."'- Mr. T. G. SMITH-. I move to amend the amendment, by striking out the words " four thousand," and insertnig the words "twenty-five hundred." I do not propose to discuss this matter, because it was pretty fully considered in committee of the whole. If we are going to give any representation to villages, I think it would be proper to fix the limit-of population at twentyfive hundred. That is considerably more than the average population of townships; in fact there are very few townships in the State that have that amount of population, unless they have large incorporated villages in them, and there are few townships, even with villages, that have so large a population as twenty-five hundred. It seems to me that if we are going to give a representation to a village at all, a population of twenty-five hundred is perfectly safe- to give a representation to. I have consulted with the chairman of the committee on counties, (Mr. LUCE,) and I understand that he and other members of that committee, have no very serious objection to that amendment. I hope therefore, it will be adopted. Mr. HARRIS. I wish to inquire whether it would be in order now to strike out section seven of this article? Of course, if that is-stricken out, section eight would not be amended. The PRESIDENT. That would not be in order at the present time; section eight is now under consideration. Mr.:LUCE. Perhaps it is due to the Convention that I should say a word upon this subject. It will be recollecteed that when this article was re~comniit'ted to the- committee on counties,.this amendment was pending be 310 W'Cdnesday, DEBATES AND - PROCEEDINGS. fore the Convention. It has been a i subject of considerable discussion in: committee and out of committee. -The o whole amendment is something, that the committee did not regard of very ci great consequence. But still it has se been urged by different gentlemen that s in two or three large villages in the State they need another supervisor. m To meet that demand. the committee b have reported this amendment. It has been urged that a -supervisor from a s Tvillage would be unavailable for taking assessments. I apprehend that could b be regulated by law as it is in- cities. fc This section now reads: a C]ities shall have such representation in a the board of supervisors as the Legislature v may direct."; Under that provision, cities are vari- ously represented, according to their b wards and population. The section, if amended as the committee propose, as would read with the amendment of the gentleman from Genesee, as follows: " CitiesP shall have such representation in the board of supervisors as the Legislature may direct. Incorporated villages, containing not less than twenty-five hundred inhabitants, shall be entitled to one member of the board." a It is, perhaps, not a matter of very o great injustice that the amendment to r the amendment should be adopted. The committee opposed reducing the amount of population to so smalla i number, believing that members of the t board of supervisors were too numer- ous. For myself, I am not tenacious one way or the other, whether the t amendment or the amendment to the c amendment is adopted. -Mr. HARRIS. When I spoke about striking out. section seven a few min- utes ago, I meant section ight. It is proper that I should state my reason for desiring to.strike out section eight. Section seven provides - for a board of supervisors, and states of whom that board shall, be composed. -Sec- i tion eight merely provides that' cities may have a representationr upon the board.- Now, it:seems tonme that is wholly and utterly impractica- - ble and inconsistent; it is not what we mean. If I shouild ask any gentleman: from-Wayne county, of whom the: board of supervisors for *that county was composed, he wo~uld:-tell,me that it was composed of a -supervisor: from each town, and-two s.upervisQrs from each ward of the-city of -Detroit. -:Now, it seems to me that if we pass these two sections as they-.read here, -the su pervisors of the wards will have noth ing to do with that board; they wil not be part of it. T-he board, accordicng to section sev,en,:.consists of township supervisors. Wha.t are theso representatives of -cities:to: -do?::It seems to be- understood; at.hat:they:are a part of the board; but the Constitu ton does not.say so, for it.says.that th te board of supervisors is to consist i of.the township -supervisors. Now, u hat powers do the representatives of fe ties have upon these boards? It w ems to me, that.taking these.two T1 ctions together,.they would consti- r tte no part..of the board. If we p mean to make them- a part of,the e oard, with the'same powers of town- u hip supervisors,: why not say so in B ection seven? Why is there not as m uch propriety in saying that.the s board of supervisors for Wayne county n, or instance,-and the same would O apply to other counties where there t re cities-shall consist of the super- n isors of the several wards of the o ities, and then say:that each town I hall have a representative on the oard? It seems to me that thereis g s much propriety in calling-. township r. upervisors representatives, as in call- s ng the supervisors from the:.wards t f the cityi representatives. I think i we ought to define in, section.seven o precisely what.we mean to have li Lcluded in the board of supervisors, o ,nd not say that the towns shall have s ne: set, and the cities -another,.set of epresentatives or supervisors upon the t board. Therefore, I am in favor -of I striking out section -eight, and, amend - ng section seven, according-.to what is he fact,- so as to let it express just a what we.mean. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that the motion to:strike rut section eight is-not i' order at!the present time. If the ameundment- to the t section proposed by — the committee on ] counties should prevail, then the. motion to strike out the section,as amended would be in order, because the amendment proposes only an'addition to -the section. ,Mr.: MacCLELLAND. Why would it not. be better- to insert the word "'-villages,":after the word "cities," inl this -section? It will,then -read"cities and villages shall have such representation in the board of super- 1 visors as.the,Legislature may direct. 1 I think that- would be better -than fix- 1 Ln'g any number of population. It1 would: make the section briefer and more condensed. -As to the reasons assigned by the gentleman from Oak- i land, (Mr. HARIs,) I would state that the supervisors in -a city are different from the supervisors in the ~townships.::: Their duties in the city are divided be-: tween the duties of supervisor and al-. derman. iWhen aldermen act as:supervisors, they:. act in a different capacity-; om- what they do when. they discharge other duties. I cannot see; any practical use in the-amendment of the gentleman from Oakland. -Mr. PARSO-NS. -This Section, and te:.amendment to it, embraces a prinple in which a portion of my constitnts.feel a considerable interest. We eel-thlatunder the law as it now exists; e have no proper representation. he village in which I reside, has no presentation'upon the board of suervisors, although it has a population eual to the city of Owosso; the popltion of the two are-about the same. ut while the city of Owosso has two members upon the.board of supervirs, the village in which I live has one. The city, and township of wosso together have three representtives, while the township of Caledoia, and the village of Corunna, have nly one supervisor;.each has a popu[tion not far from two thousand. Now, while I.would be.opposed to iving every village in the State, a repesntation: on the board of superviors, or leaving it to.the Legislature hat they may incorporate a provision n the charter of each village, giving it ne or more representatives, I -do-beieve that avillage having a -population -f.two thusand or more, should have uch a representation upon the board of supervisors, as.:the.Legislature, in heir wisdom may.deem proper. At east the president of a village should ave a right and a voice in the board. MIf this amendment was changed so as to provide that- cities.and villages having a population of three thousand ad-more, or twenty-five hundred and more, should be entitled to represen.ation:.upon the board of supervisors, then I should have no objection to it. [f the amendment. suggested by the gentleman from Wayne,:(Mr. McCLELLAND,).should be adopted, the Legislature would. be under the necessity of watching every charter closely, much more so than they have been in'-the habit.-of doing,..in.order to keep out the provisions -which would give a village two, -or three, or four supervisors as they might desire. I recollect when the act was first passed, incorporating:the city of Owosso, it gave to that city four supervisors, although- at tha.;time it had a population of less than twelve- hundred. -Of course it was discovered, and the Governor would not. sign the bill with such a provision, and. another bill was passed. 'I hope this section may be so amended; as to give-: to cities and villages a representation upon the board of supervisors, when they have a population of two thousand or twenty-five hlundred. I.am nott tenacious about the number.:Still, a village like ours, having a population of two thousand or.thereabouts,:should have a repre sentation, upon,the: board of supervi sors,.espeeially::,,hen:a.city in our county with'no greater -population, has 311 july 24, -1867. I 31 OOSITTOA OO-~IN Wdedy two representatives on the board. If it was in order, I would move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Genesee,'(Mr. T. G. SMITH,) but that is not now in order. But I would suggest to the gentleman from Genesee, to modify his amendment, so that it shall provide that cities and'villages having a population of twenty-five hundred or more should be entitled to representation. Mr. T. G. SMITH. It would be perfectly satisfactory to me to have the amendment in that form. Mr. PRINGLE. I think there is a mistake in the amendment proposed by the committee, and also in the amendment proposed by the gentleman from GQnesee, (Mr. T. G. SMITH,) in the constituent body to which it is proposed to give a representative. Now, a village has no particular business to bring before the board of supervisors; it brings no tax-rolls to that board; there are no taxes to be equalized as between the village and the rest of the county. A village has no common interest with the township, in the sense in which a village is a political community. A village is no part of the township; it elects no justice of the peace, it has nothing to do with the return of taxes to the county treasurer; it has nothing to do with the support of the board; it has nothing to do as a village with all that large amount of business that is transacted by the board of supervisors, or which comes under their cognizance, and which may be investigated by them. But the township in which the village is situated has its representative upon the board; it has its business to do there. Now, if any township contains two, three, five or ten thousand inhabitants, while other townships in the county contain but, one or two thousand, there is an obvious reason why the township with the larger population should have a larger representation. But I do not see how this applies to a village. If a supervisor should be elected in a village, if you should create such an officer, he would not represent any particular interest, he would not bring any particular interest directly before the board. lie would be merely in the position in which a volunteer coming in would be, to assist some particular member of the board in the performance of his duties; having no vote, having no interest to look after which would make it proper for him to be a member of the board, for equalizing taxes or for any other purpose. I think if any additional representation should be given,it should be to the townships containing the villages. I can see the advantage of an additional representation in such cases. For instance, I think the township of Kalamazoo-should have four, or five, or six supervisors upon the board, because it has eight or ten thousand inhabitants, while the other townships of the county on an average, have but one thousand or fifteen hundred inhabitants.'So with Muskegon, compared with other townships in Muskegon county. So too, perhaps, with two or three other villages that might be named. But the representation should be given to the township. Take the village of Romeo; it is about one-half i one township, and one-half in another Where are its interests on the board of supervisors? One-half are with one township, and one-half are with another. There is no distinct independent interest connected with that village, which will come under the cognizance of the board. I think this matter could be got at in a niuch better way by leaving it to the Legislature to except from the ordinary rule the townships having the larger population. With that view, I have prepared a substitute for the amendment reported by the committee on counties. I move to add to section eight, instead of the amendment reported by the committee, the following: "And one or more additional representatives on the board ot supervisors may be allowed by the Legislature to townships containlug not less tlhan twenty-five hundred inhabitants.'" The effect of the adoption of such a provision would be to leave the towns represented as they now are, until the Legislature, either by general law applied to all the townships, or by some special laws adapted to Muskegon, Kalamazoo, Romeo, and other large townships, should create a special provision in regard to them, in the same way that they have created special provisions in regard to representation for the cities. I offer this as a substitute for the amendment reported by the committee. Mr. WILLIAMS. It will be recollected that when this subject was under consideration in committee of the whole, I opposed the amendment now under consideration, for the same reason stated by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE.) There is an incongruity about the amendment. We have adopted one article on townships specifying that there shall be elected annually in each organized township one supervisor, et~. The article on townships has, I believe, been adopted by the Convention. I see an objection, it may be a technical one, to villages being represented upon the board of supervisors. With this objqetion, I cannot consistently vote for the proposition-now pending, although I would not seriously object to having it adopted. Mr. BILLS. The case stated by the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. PARSONS,) indicates a case in which there is injustice in the present mode of representation in boards of supervisors. Yet the case stated by him, and the argument made by him,. only convince me that the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) is perhaps the best amendmeent which we can adopt. We cannot go into details in regard to every city, village, township and county in the State, and accommodate the Con-' stitution to the necessities of each case. But if the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Wayne should be adopted, it would leave the matter wholly to be provided for by the Legislature, as the exigencies of the case, from time to time, may seem to require. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Genesee, (MIr. T. G. SMITH,) places -the representative of a village —-upon -the- boards of supervisors in a very anomalous position. He is a representative of a village. When he goes upon that board as the representative of that village, what does he represent? What is he there to do? What interest is he there to'protect? He has no political interest as suggested by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,;) he represents no political organization. It is known to every gentleman of this Con'vention that there are in this State villages which embrace parts of'four townships even. Now, a represetative from such a village, if the population should amount to a sufficient number to entitle them to a supervisor, would represent what one of these towns? Would he represent one to the exclusion of the others? Or would he represent each one of the townships upon their respective boards? It will be seen by gentlemen that the case is a difficult one to legislate for in the Constitution. My own conviction would be that the proposition of the gentleman from Genesee is impracticable; because an individual when he appears on a board to represent a village, has really nothing to represent. There is more of practicability in the substitute of the gentleman. from Jackson, (.Mr. PRING(LE.) But after all, that will be attended with difficulties and embarrassments. My'own conviction would be, that it would be better to leave it to the Legislature to provide, if it should be thought necessary, for allowing villages to be represented in such manner as may be provided by law. Yet I can hardly conceive that that is a necessity to be provided for in the Constitution. I hard CONSTITUTION.AT,, CONVIMNTION. "Wednesday, 312 I July 2 186'i. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 313 ly think that these villages which have no particular individuality should be represented upon any board. Mr. BLACKMAN. It strikes me, that the same objections which have been urged against the representation of villages, by the gentleman last upon the floor, (Mr. B3ILLS,) and by others, would apply to the amendment sug gested by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND.) That amendment contemplates just such a representa tion; only it leaves it to the Legisla ture to provide for it. Mr. BILLS. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him a moment? Mr. BLACKMAN. Certainly. Mr. BILLS. By the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) no particular method of representation is provided for. If the Legislature should find it impracticable to provide any proper representation, of course they would make none. The amendment suggests no specific mode of representation. Mr. BLACKMAN. While the amendment suggests no particular mode of representation, it suggests a representation of the village as such, instead of allowing it to be represented as a part of the township; it suggests that just as much as does the amendment of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. T. G. SMITH.) I think that is a good objection to either amendment. I favor the substitute of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) in preference to either of the amendments. Suppose a township containing a village in which is one-half the population of that township. Supervisors on the boards of supervisors represent townships; no supervisor can represent a village properly, because it has no distinct political interests or questions to be represented on the board. Why should the entire township be allowed to elect one supervisor, and the half of the township comprised in the village be allowed to elect another? Why not give both representatives to the entire township, for they both represent the township? I think it is entirely incongruous to allow a village as such to have a supervisor on the board, when it is simply an integral part of that township, or of the several townships in which it may be situated. Mr. SAWYER. I would like to say a word upon this question. So far as I am personally concerned I have no particular interest in this matter. I do not know that a provision of this kind, unless left to the Legislature, will be worth anything to the several townships that have an'interest in the matter. I think there can be no objection to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PnINGLE.) There Vol. 2-No. 40. is no inconsistency in having two su pervisors from a township. Ater the supervisor has taken his assessment, and that assessment is placed before the board of supervisors, he is done with it. The township can then be represented by two members on the board; they both can hold places upon committees, and both can vote, the same as do two Senators from a county in the Legislature...I do not see any particular objection to the proposition of the gentleman from Jackson, though I do not know that there is any par ticular advantage in it, either. Mr. CHAPIN. I am decidedly in favor of the substitute offered by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINgle.) It strikes me that that substitute meets all the objections which have been intimated here, in regard to allowing the villages to be represented on boards of supervisors. It certainly would be rather an anomaly to give representation to villages. It is difficult to define what sort of business the peculiar representative of a village would have in the board of supervisors. But by allowing the township in which the village is located, to have a representation in proportion to the population in the township and village, you will get rid of all that difficulty. I shall therefore be in favor of the substitute. Mr. PARSONS. After hearing the substitute of the gentleman from Jackson (Mr. PRINGLE,) and upon due reflection, I am convinced that the best course that we can pursue, is to adopt the substitute. I can see that the other system would not apply in many cases, where a village was located, perhaps, in two or three townships. My idea was, that the Legislature should allow the president of the village to have a vote in the board of supervisors. There would be no assessment rolls, or anything of that kind for the village. I shall vote in favor of the substitute of the gentleman from Jackson. Mr. WALKER. I would like to ask the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) or any other gentleman here, who can tell me, what effect this provision would have where villages are located in two counties? 1here are some such villages incorporated in this State. I do not know that there is any in the State, that to-day have a population of two thousand or twenty-five hundred; but they are growing villages, and probably in a very short timne will have that number of inhabitants. I do not know how it would operate in the case of a village Situated in two counties. Mr. T. G.. SMITH. I have no objection to the substitute of the gentleman from Jackson,.(Mr. PRtINGLE.) It struck me at first, that my proposition would be more practicable, as a super visor would represent a distinct body, and there would not be two representing the same constituency. But I shall be perfectly satisfied with the substitute of the gentleman from Jackson. Mr. BLACKMAN.'As I spoke in favor of the substitute, I wish to add another word. I should be in favor of increasing the number of inhabitants to at least three thousand; I should prefer myself four thousand, for I think that twenty-five hundred would in a short time, multiply the members of the board rather too fast, if the suggestion was carried out by the Legislature, and all such townships allowed additional representatives. I should be in favor of increasing the number of population. Mr. HENDERSON. I have no disposition to discuss this proposition. But it will be readily seen that this substitute would not meet the necessities of the particular localities which feel that their interests need a fuller representation. Take a township in which there is an incorporated village, with two thousand inhabitants. It is fair to presume that in the balance of that township there are twelve hundred inhabitants. You say that in another township where there are twenty-five hundred inhabitants or more, there shall be an additional representative. In the first amendment, it is simply provided, that villages having twentyfive hundred inhabitants, or more, should have a representative. This substitute proposes to double the representatives asked for in the original amendment. I could not favor the substitute in its present shape. Mr. PRINGLE. The proposition stands in.the respect stated by the genm tleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HENDERSON,) but it proceeds upon this assumption; that ten or twelve hundred is the average number of inhabitants in a densely settled rural township, with no considerable village in it. Ten, twelve, or fifteen hundred at the most is the number contained in a rural township. If there shall be a village in that township, with a thousand or fifteen hundred more inhabitants in it, making for the township twenty-five hundred or three thousand, or more than double the average population of rural townships, I think a case might be presented where the Legislature in their discretion, if they saw fit, and there were no protests from other parts of the county, might accord the additional member to that town. And if, by-and-by, it should have two thousand or twenty-five hundred more, and the case was urgent, they could allow them a third and a fourth representa 1 s i s e e e 0 e e ,July 24, 1867. D'P,'RATES AND- PROCEEDINGS. 313 31 OOSIUTOA COV-I~ Wdedy tive on the board. In that way there would be no necessity for those villages to become cities, in order to protect their interests in this respect. My substitute provides for additional representation, though it does not necessarily provide for an additional supervisor. There may be a supervisor to each town as before to take assessments, sign township warrants, and be a member of the township board. But a'township may also elect, under whatever name the Legis!ature may provide, an additional representative, to act with a supervisor on the board of supervisors. I think this is but justice in relation to the numnberof inhabitants, and the property represented, and the greatly increased interests of a township, which has two or three times the ordinary population. There is a protection from the fears which gentlemen may have in regard to this matter, for it is left to the Legislature to provide. MIy idea is, that the Legislature might provide by a general law applicable to townships having at least twenty-five hundred inhabitants; perhaps they might fix it at three thousand, or thirty-five hundred, or some larger num ber than twenty-five hundred. But it is only justice that there should be some rule by which townships like Kalamazoo and Muskegon, containing nearly one-half of the population of the county, should have more than one rep resentative on the board of super visors. The substitute is so drawn that if it should be concluded to give to the township of Muskegon, one additional supervisor for eight hundred inhabit ants, as compared with the sparcely settled townships in Muskegon county, and give to Kalamazoo one for every fifteen hundred inhabitants, the Legis ture can make that distinction by a special law applicable to those cases. It leaves the matter entirely in the power of the Legislature, and is only intended to relieve the township from the rigid rule of section seven, which provides that each township shall have but one supervisor on the board, while a city like that of Owosso, has two su pervisors on its own account. I think that no harm can result from this rule which I propose; it will leave the Leg islature to meet all cases of existing hardships under the Constitution. Mr. CONGER. There has been a question raised, whether the represen tative spoken of in the Constitution, has the same power as a supervisor upon a board. The present Constitution uses the language contained in the pro vislon now under consideration. It is as follows: A board of supervisor s consisting of one from each organized township, shall be estab lished in each county, with such powers as shall be prescribed by law." The provision in the present Constitution, in relation to the representatives from cities, is the same as the provision contained in the article now under consideration. It is as follows: "Cities shall have such representation in the board of supervisors of the county in which they are situated, as the Legislature may direct." It has been a question sometimes, whether these representatives are not merely an adjunct of the board, and not really a part of the body itself. That proposition is liable to some such interpretation. It is not, perhaps, in order at this time to offer the proposition which I wish to offer at some time. When the proper time shall arrive, I propose to offer the following substitute for sections seven and eight: "A board of supervisors consisting of at least one member from each organized town. ship, and such members from cities and large towns as the Legislature may direct, shall be established in each county." Wren the proper time arrives I desire to offer that as a substitute for these two sections. The question recurred upon.the amendment of Mr. T. G. SMITH, as modified, to the amendment reported by the committee on counties, to strike out the words " four thousand," and to insert in lieu thereof the words "two thousand or more."' Mr. T. G. SMITH. I will withdraw my amendment to the amendment, apd allow a vote to be taken upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE.) Mr. BLACKMAN. Before the ques tion is taken upon the substitute, in order to obtain the sense of the Con vention, as to the'amount of popula tion, I will move to amend the substi tute, by striking out the words "two thousand five hundred," and inserting in lieu thereof, "three thousand five hundred." Mr. ALEXANDER. I move to amend that, if in order, by making it "three thousand." The PRESIDENT. That would not be in order, as the amendment of the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACK YAN,) is an amendment to the amend ment. The question wvas then taken upon the amendment of Mr. BLAcKMAN to the substitute offered by Mr. PRINGLE, and it was not agreed to. The question then recurred upon the substitut& offered by Mr. PRINGLE to the amendment reported by the com mittee on counties. Mr. LUCE. I move to amend the substitute, by striking out the words "two thousand five hundred," and inserting in lieu thereof, the words "three thousand." ~ - The amendment of Mr. LUCE was agreed to, upon a division; ayes 30, noes 29. The PRESIDENT. It is necessary for the presiding officer of the Convention to be absent the larger part of the day. With the leave of the Convention, he will call the gentleman from Oakland, the Hon. P. D. WARNERa, to the chair. No objection being made, leave of absence was accordingly granted for the day to the PRESIDENT of the Convention, and Mr. P. D. WARNER took the chair. The President pro tegnpore. The pending question is upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) for the amendmnent reported by the committee on counties. The substitute has been amended so as to read as follows: "One or more additional representatives on the board, may be allowed b~ the Legislature to townships containing not less than three thousand inhabitants." Mr. HOLT. I wish to say a few words in support of this substitute. Any one who has had any acquaintance at all with assessing property, and performing the duty of a supervisor in a township, must see the necessity of some additional representationupontheboard of supervisors in the case of large townships, and some additional means of carrying on the assessmentsofproperty. I speakmore particularly of the township of Muskegon, because I know more of that township than any other. As has been stated here, the township of Muskegon contains somewhere about six thousand inhabitants, the village of Muskegon con tains about five thousand, and the pop ulation of the county of Muskegon is about ten or eleven thousand. It will be seen, therefore, that the township of Muskegon contains more than one half the population of the county. The whole number of supervisors for that county, is thirteen. The six thou sand inhabitants in the township of Muskegon have but one supervisor, while the five thousand inhabitants outside of the township, have twelve representatives on the board. The five thousand inhabitants in the village of Muskegon, have not even one rep resentative upon the board for them selves; but are located in a township, which township has only one represent ative. This irregularity and lack of representation is also true so far as the property of the township is concerned. The property contained in the village of Muskegon, amounts to as much as the aggregate amount of property in the balance of the county. If I recol lect aright, the village of Muskegon pays more than one-half the taxes col lected in the entire county. 314 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Wednesda, .1 July 21, 1867. DEBATES AD PROGEEDI. 315 This is not the only objection to the mode of representation which now exists. There is the same difficulty in assessing the property in that village, that there is in all villages of that size. It is impossible for one supervisor to make the assessment of the village and do it properly. There are somewhere about five or six thousand lots and blocks in that village, aside from the scattering property around the borders of the village, each of which require separate valuations. They have no connection with the other property in that township; they make a large number of descriptions to be entered upon the roll. As I said before, every one who has had anything to do with assessing property, can see that it is impossible for one man to make the assessments and do it properly, in the short time allowed him by law. It seems to, me that it is necessary, I might say indispensable, that there should be an additional force assigned to the labor of assessing property. It may be said that the law as it at present exists, authorizes the election of assessors. That is true; we have in that township sometimes elected additional assessors, but we have found it impossible to get those assessors to accept the office. Of - course the office of assessor is not a desirable office. But if an assessor could go upon the board of supervisors to take care of his assessment roll, when the question of equalization comes up, he would not have so much objection to the office. But as it is now, without some one to protect the roll before the board, no man can be obtained to accept the office. It has been often found diffi cult to get a man to accept the office of supervisor. Often, two or three different persons have been appointed or elected, and then some one, out of patriotism, as you might say, has agreed to accept the office. But two or three different persons have been elected or appointed before we could get one to take the office. I hope this substitute or something similar to it, will be adopted. In re gard to our village, we do not wish to be incorporated as a city. WVe might do that of course, but we do not fee] inclined to put on city airs, and incur the expenses which would necessarily follow our incorporation as a city. Mr. DUNCAN. I move to amend the substitute by striking out the words "or more;" so that it will read "and one additional representative on the board, may may be allowed by the Legislature, to townships containing not less than three thousand inhab itants." The amendment of Mr. DUNCAN was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the substitute as amended, for the amendment reported by the committee on counties. The-amendment reported by the committee on counties was as follows: " Incorporated villages containing less than four thousand inhabitants, shall be entitled to one member of the board." The substitute as amended, was as follows: "And one or more additional representatives on the board, may be allowed by the Legislature to townships containing not less than three thousand inhabitants." The substitute as amended was then agreed to. a The amendment reported by the committee as amended by the substitute, was then agreed to. POWERS OF SUPERVISORS, ETC. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The committee on counties report also the following amendment; amend section eleven so that it will read: - "The board of supervisors, or the board of county auditors in the county of Wayne, and in such other counties as the Legislature may provide for the election thereof, shall have power to prescribe the compensation due for all services rendered, and adjust all claims against their respective counties. And such determination and adjustment shall be subject to no appeal. All claims for services for which fees shall have been prescribed by the Legislature, shall be audited and allowed by such board in accordance therewith. Supervisors and county auditors shall receive for their services such compensation as shall be prescribed by law." Mr. LUCE. It will be observed by comparing the section as it stands in the article, and the section as it will be if the recommendation of the committee is agreed to,that the amendment proposed by the committee, is to strike out the words "except as otherwise provided by law," where they occur, and also to insert after the words "subject to no appeal," the following: "All claims for service, for which fees shall have been prescribed by the Legislature, shall be audited and allowed in accordance therewith." That is all the amend ment which the committee have pro posed in connection with this section. When this article was recommitted, there was a difference of construction in regard to section eleven as it then stood. The committee have reported this amendment in order to obviate the difficulty in regard to the construction. We think we have accomplished that object, and have done away with the objection sometimes urged against the Constitution of 1850, that the board of supervisors were not compelled to allow fee bills as fixed by the Legisla ture. We think we have obviated the objection in regard to the construction of the section as it was reported in the first place by the committee, or as amended by the substitute offered by the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT.) Mr. DANITELLS. The very amendment which the committee propose to insert here, shows conclusively to my mind that the words "subject to no appeal," is a dangerous provision. They have found that it is necessary to compel boards of, supervisors to audit and allow that which the law prescribes that claimants should have. The board of supervisors heretofore have been in the habit at times, of refusing to give to claimants the compensation fixed by law. Now, the committee have proposed to put that into the Constitution. They are going to compel supervisors to give to claimants who are entitled by law to a certain amount, that which is just. But have we any provision compelling supervisors to allow just claims in other cases? Not at all. I venture to assert that threefourths of those present who have ever done any business before a board of supervisors, believe that we want a provision requiring that they shall allow just claims and fair compensation, and if they'do not, that -their decision should be subject to appeal. Now, it is' past my comprehension, why a board of supervisors should be made a final tribunal. If the committee will only put one more provision in here, where the law says that a man shall be entitled to a certain amount for services rendered, a board of super visors shall be compelled to allow that amount, it would be nearer right. If they did not believe that super visors were fallible, would they re quire such a provision as they pro pose to have inserted here? Not at.all. It has been shown here, even to the convincing of the chairman of the committee on counties, (Mr. LUCE,) that supervisors have absolutely refused to allow to men the amount which the law declares they shall be entitled to. Now, they propose to compel supervisors to allow what the law prescribes. Now, is a board which requires any such compulsion as that, a proper tribunal from whose decision there shall be no appeal? I submit that the very re port of the committee on this subject, is the most conclusive argument that could possibly be made in this Conven tion, to show that this is a dangerous provision. It is completely demonstra tive to my mind. If this board of supervisors is so immaculate, why then have a provision here requiring them to pay what belongs to a claimant? I hope the amendment will not prevail. Mr. LUCE. Nothing that shall be said here to-day by the genfleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) or any other gentleman, shall provoke me into a dis cussion over again of this. section elev en, or of any question contained in it. There is no section of any article that 8 r 0 t t c c c i i DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 315 .July 21, 1867. v16 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. ~ W~edne~day, has yet been presented to this Convention which has been so fully discussed, or discussed at so great length as this one, with the exception, perhaps, of section twenty-sevenof the article on the legislative department. The committee have introduced nothing here which they did not believe was contained in the original section, when they reported that section in the first place. That original section provided that the board of supervisors should provide for all services rendered for, and adjust all claims against their respective counties, except as otherwise provided by law. The committee believed that covered all the cases proposed to be covered here. I allude to that frobm the fact that the gentleman from Chlinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) seems to suppose that we have put this in here now, because we know of some cases where the board of supervisors have done heinous things. The gentleman from Clinton made a strong argument against leaving it in the power of the board of — supervisors to fix compensation, where that compensation was previously fixed by the Legislature. It never was intended by the committee on counties to place in this Constitution a provision which should place the supervisors above the Legislature in regard to compensation. It was intended by the committee that when the Legislature had provided a fee bill the board of supervisors should allow the sums so provided.' We think this provision will require the board of supervisors to take the fee bill provided by the Legislature as their basis of action. In regard to the question of appeal, I do not propose to re-discuss it. I will say however, one or two words. The board of supervisors act in a legislative capacity; as much so, to the extent of their jurisdiction, as the Legislature. There is no appeal from the Legislature, and I apprehend that the gentleman from Clinton would not desire that there should be. The Legislature fixes the compensation for the officers of the State prison, and other State officers, except where the compensation is fixed in the Constitution; and there is no appeal from their decision in that respect. I believe the board of supervisors should have the supreme control within their jurisdiction, as the Legislature have within their jurisdiction. But the amendment reported by the committee does not relate to that subject. We have recommended no change of this section in that respect. I believe we have fixed it plainly,:directing to the board the rule of adjzistment by which they should be governed. Mr. DANIELLS. I am glad to learn that the gentleman from Branch (Mr. LUcE,) does not conclude to discuss this question. As he has been very quiet all the time in regard to this matter, I rather expected that hereafter he would speak occasionally upon it. During the consideration of the article which he has reported, he has been so very free from saying anything upon it, I supposed he would discuss it a little when it came into the Convention again. Now, let us see what is this provision which he says does not apply to cases where the law prescribes the rate of compensation. The very instance to which you, Mr. President, (Mr. P. D. WARNER in the chair,) referred in debate the other day, where the board of supervisors would not only comply with what the law of the State required, until the Supreme Court issued a mandamus, compelling the board to comply with the law, that very case was one in point. The Supreme Court said, in their decision, that if the board of supervisors, who owed the sheriff of Oakland county some three or four hundred dollars, -had allowed him ten dollars, he could not have obtained any redress at all. But as the board would not pay him anything, the Supreme Court issued a mandamus to compel payment to the full amount. That is an instance where the board of supervisors would not allow what was required of them, and what the law said they should allow. The gentleman from Branch, (Mr. Lucr,) reports a provision here that in such cases the supervisors shall be compelled to allow what the law provides. But the gentleman says that the board of supervisors act in a legislative capacity, and that there is no appeal from the Legislature. I would like to ask the gentleman if there is no appeal to the courts from the action of the Legislature? Mr. LUCE. Does the gentleman desire an answer? Mr. DANIELLS. Yes, sir. There may beno appeal in Branch county, but there is in our county. Mr. LUCE. There is no appeal from the Legislature. Mr. DANIELLS. I know the gentleman has been a member of the Legislature for several years; yet I had supposed there was an appeal to the courts, firom the action of the Legislature. Mr. HOLMES. I hope that this section as reported by the committee will be adopted, for the reason that I believe that it is one of the most important sections that can be incorporated in this Constitution. After an experience of twelve years upon a board of supervisors, I have not found these objections which have been spoken of by gentlemen on this floor. My experience has been exactly opposite to what they have stated. I believe the case is a rare one where the decision of the board is not satisfactory to the claimant. Do away with this section, and you will open the door for appeal on all claims, where the law does not fix the compensation for the services rendered. Mr. D. GOODWIN. I move to amend the amendment reported by the committee, by inserting after the words i"all claims for service for which fees," the words,or compensation;" so that the sentence will read,,all claims for service, for which fees or compensation shall have been prescribed by the Legislature, shall be audited and allowed by such boards in accordance therewith." It seems to me that the words I propose to insert, are necessary to carry out what is avowed to be the intent of the committee. The amendment of Mr.D.- GooDwWI was agreed to. The question recurred upon the substitute for section eleven as amended. Mr. COOLIDGE. I desire to say a word or two upon this subject. The amendment which has been reported to the Convention by the committee on counties, is certainly a very remarkable one. It is a very remarkable clause to be inserted in the Constitution or any where else. The gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HOLMEs,) says he is confident that this section' ought 4o pass; he has no doubt about it; he thinks it one of the most im-' portant provisions which can be inserted in the Constitution. Neither he, nor the chairman of the committee on counties, (Mr. LUcE,) nor any other member of that committee can be any more positive, as to the propriety or importance of this section in the Constitution, than they were before this amendment was reported to the Convention. And yet, although, day after day, those gentleman persisted I was going to say stubbornly, but I will not say that-persisted that the section was then in proper shape; that these provisions were correct; that they were safe and necessary; yet they admit now frankly upon this floor, that according to the section as it then stood, power was given to the board of supervisors to nullify the action of the Legislature of this State. Mr. LIUCE. The gentleman will allow me to correct him. I think no gentleman here has admitted any such thing; the chairman of the committee certainly never has. The chairman of the committee stated distinctly that he believed the section, as reported in the first place, meant the same thing that CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Wednesday, 316 II DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. it does now, only it is now put into little different language. Mr. COOLIDGE. Be it so. A provision was brought in here when gentlemen contended that such. was the legal effect of it. Now, the committee on counties, fearing that such would be the legal effect of it, have brought in a clause providing that a board of supervisors shall not nullify the action of the Legislature. Such a provision is a very remarkable one, and will not receive my support. What is this provision? It is that the boards of supervisors, in the different counties in -this State, shall be compelled, in their adjudications, to follow the mandates of the Legislature. That is this provision, as though the chairman of the committee on counties and the other members of that committee, were fearful that the board of supervisors, with the enormous and irresponsible power that this section gives them, would override the power of the Legislature; therefore they have inserted in this section a provision that they shall not override the Legislature. In my estimation the section as now reported is more objectionable than the previous section was; and if either were to be engrafted in the Constitution, I should hope that the one first reported would be adopted. It takes away certainly one very objectionable feature, with the view the chairman has. While they say that the board of supervisors shall allow those claims which have been established by the Legislature, they say nothing at all about an appeal in those cases where the board of supervisors have now the power to declare that no such services were rendered. All they have to do is, as before, to take the matter into consideration, allow a claimant to whom a hundred dollars is justly due, the sum of five cents, and from that decision there is no appeal at all. Mr. HENDERSON. In order to understand how much weight and force the arguments adduced by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mhr. COOLIDGE,) and the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) should have upon the subject under consideration, it would be well for us to recollect the circumstances under which this article was recommitted to the committee on counties. A mere assumption is made on the part of those gentlemen that the Convention had a right to expect from this committee some modification of this section, with regard to appeals from the boards of superwisors. That assumption has no foundation whatever; there is no warrant for it. Mr. COOLIDGE. I have made no such remark as that. Have I said a word to the effect that we assumed that they would alter this section? I do not recollect of hearing any such language used. Mr. HENDERSON. I based my statement upon the expression of surprise on the part of the gentleman, that the original language is retained. It will be recollected that the chairman of the committee on counties, (Mr. LugE,) himself, asked that this report might be recommitted to the committee. For what purpose? Did he, in the remarks accompanying that request, make any reference whatever to this question of appeal? He did not. Mr. COOLIDGE. Will the- gentleman allow me to interrupt him? Mr. HENDERSON. Yes sir. Mr. COOLIDGE. Did I use a word of that kind? Did I say anything at all in this Convention about re-committment? Mr. HENDERSON. I have no answer to make to the question; it does not call for an answer. I have merely said that the expression of surprise on the part of the gentleman was sufficient to call out the statement I made. The chairman of the committee asked to have this report re-committed, so that this section. might be modified in such a way, as not to be susceptible of the two-fold construction which it was contended by some members it would have. No effort was made on the part of the committee to accomplish any but one object in reference to this section; that was to make it plain and explicit so that they could understand it; they being able to understand it, they were in hopes that the Convention would understand it. Butin reference to the subject of appeal, I will say that notwithstanding that question was not recommitted to the committee, some discussion did take place upon it. As a member of'that committee, I advocated a provision whereby some of the cases mentioned in debate might be met. We were confronted, and very naturally too, by this suggestion; that during the-entire range of debate upon this floor, the lawyers themselves had failed to agree. One member of that profession had asked for an appeal on ecrtiorari. Another member, in somewhat ludicrous phrase, was,very anxious to know where they Would "'hitch it on," and so they passed it -round. They demonstrated emphatically to those who were not lawyers, that there could be no appeal, unless the whole matter was thrown open. I think, when gentlemen come to think of it, the lawyers would not want it thrown open. I speak of this simply to state the fact that the committee did have some consultation with reference to that point, and the reason why no change was made, was that the subject was not committed to them with the expectation that they would make any change; nor did the discussion here afford them any ground to suppose that a change could be made to meet-the diversity of views here. Mr. CONGER. I move to amend the substitute by inserting after the words "shall be subject to no appeal," the words " except in special cases provided for by law."- UTpon that -amendment I call for the yeas and nays. Mr. WITHEY. I desire to say a few words upon this subject. My own mind is in harmony entirely with the amendment offered by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) I had myself drawn up, with a view of pro posing it, the exact amendment which he has offered.. I hope the Conven tion in its wisdom will see fit to adopt that amendment. I regard it as unwise to so trammel the just rights of- parties, because they have -been passed upon by a board of supervisors, or by any other body, officer, or court in the State, save the court of last re sort, as to" say there shall be no relief. The second clause of this - section, "such determination and adjustment shall be subject to no appeal," is a kind of Constitution-making which it seems to'me would be very unwise and unjust to the rights of parties who may come before boards of supervisors. Will any gentleman tell me, or tell this Conven tion, why a party, who has rights which are denied him by a board of super visors, shall not have an appeal in order that the question involved may be re viewed? It seems to me that there can be no more reason for denying that right in reference to a claim passed upon by the board of supervisors, than there would be in regard to a claim which has been'prosecuted before a justice of the peace, or any other officer or court; there is no more right in the one case than in the other, to say that the de cision upon that question shall be final. When a claim is brought before a justice of the peace, either party has the right to demand a jury. A jury is called, and witnesses are sworn, and facts are introduced, arguments are made, and the case is left to the jury to say how much, if anything, should be recovered by the plaintiff. But after the investigation there made, and the testimony of witnesses upon oath; after the facts have been elicited in the fullest possible manner, the verdict of that jury is not conclusive. I apprehend that this Convention would say at once, that it would be entirely unwise to provide that there should be no appeal from the verdict of the jury, 1 f t 8 f .1 317 July 21, 1867. CONSTITUTIONAL CON VENTION. and the judgment of tie court which followed their verdict. And yet, it would be quite as wise, and quite as just as to say that a board of supervisors shall be a court of last resort in reference to all claims that shall come before them. Now, I speak with confidence to this Convention, that upon a sober second thought, they will not render such a verdict here, as is proposed by the committee, as the verdict of the people of Michi gan. Therefore, I hope that the amend ment offered by the gentleman from St. Clair, will be adopted, as it sub stantially provides that the Legisla ture may make provision for appeals in certain cases, as in the wisdom of the Legislature shall be just and right, in order to protect the rights of the citizen. Mr. BILLS. I desire to say one word upon this subject, and will occu py the attention of the Convention but a single moment. I do it with a great deal of hesitation, in view of the fact, that on a previous occasion this question was somewhat largely discussed. Yet I have found from the experience which we have had here, that the Convention vote one way to-day, and another way to-morrow, sometimes perhaps hastily, afterwards more considerately. M1y convictions are so strong that this Con vention will not provide a judicial body in this State, to act upon the rights of individuals, to audit and allow claims to so large an amount as those passed upon hy boards of supervisors in the different counties, amounting, not unfrequently, to fifty or a hundred thousand dollars, without giving the right of appeal or review in some manner, that I feel encouraged to say one single word in regard to it. I wish to say a word in reply to the argument of the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LUCE,) that a supervisor acts in a legislative capacity, and therefore there should be no right of review of the proceedings of boards of supervisors He likens the boards of supervisors of the respective counties, to the Legislature of the State. He rises in his place here and-tells ins that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Legislature; he therefore supposes that he clinches his argument that there should be no appeal or review in regard to the matters adjusted by a board of supervisors. Now, that argument to my mind, is not very cdnclusive. If the gentleman will reflect but a single moment, he will understand how much weight should be attached to his argument, when I say that b5y the Constitution of 1850, the Legislature was precluded from auditing and allowing any claimns whatever. This is a prerogative which we do not take away from the board of supervisors. We assign to them judicial powers to a certain extent, to adjust, audit, de termine and allow claims of individ uals, and to pass upon those claims in a semi-judicial capacity. This right is not possessed by the Leg islature of our State. When this power is given to a smaller legislative body, and there are many of them in different counties, the argument is not good that because they possess legisla tive powers, therefore there should be no right of review of their action. In regard to those matters in which they are engaged in the exercise of their legislative powers, there should be no review or appeal. We do not ask it; we admit that their decisions should be final. But when acting in a judicial capacity, auditing and allowing claims, we ask that there should be a right of review. And in this respect, it will be seen by the gentleman from Branch, and others who advocate that there should be no right of review of the decisions of boards of supervisors, the argument is not good that there should be no review because they are a legislative body. I do not propose to go over the argument which has,been so clearly, distinctly and forcibly stated by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITUEY,) who lias just preceded me. He has stated the argument better than I can state it. I rise more for the purpose of calling attention to the fallacy of the argument of the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LUCE,) which has been urged upon the consideration of members here; that because boards of supervisors act as legislative bodies, there should be no right of review. I desire to ask the Convention to consider this matter, and to reconsider their former action upon it; to give such right of review as the Legislature may provide. I deem it but just and right, and I believe it will meet with the approval of the people. Mr. CONGER. It will be recollected that when this subject was under consideration before, along and interesting discussion was had upon it. I said then that I should not further discuss it at that time, but that when the proper time arrived, I should offer an amendment and ask that there should be a record of the vote upon it. 'Ihis section has been altered by the committee on counties in such a way, that it seems to me still more desirable to have the amendment inserted which I have proposed, than in the section as originally reported. I desire to call the attention of' members of the Convention to the difference between this section and the other; and ask them whether, with this new provision, it is not still more desirable that the Legis lature should at least prescribe certain cases in which there may be an appeal. In the section as originally reported, the provision is-" The board of su pervisors, or in the county of Wayne the board of county auditors shall, ex cept as otherwise provided, have the power to prescribe and fix the compen sation for all services rendered for, and adjust all claims against their respec tive counties, and the sum so fixed or defined shall- be subject to no appeal." The board is to prescribe and fix the amount to be allowed for services. That has been changed in this new section reported by the committee on counties. This new section provides that after services have been rendered, the board of supervisors shall have power to prescribe the compensation to be paid for those services. I will read the provision in this new section: "The board of supervisors, or the board of county auditors in the county of Wayne, and in such other counties as the Legislature may provide for the electioni-thereof, shall have power to prescribe the compensation due for all services rendered, and adjust all claims against their respective counties." Now, it may perhaps be less objectionable that the board of supervisors should have the power to fix and determine beforehand what the compensation might be, for then those who perform the services would know of course what they could expect to receive, and would be held liable as under a contract. There is also another change in this new section: ": And such determination and adjustment shall be subject to no appeal." In the old section the provision was: "The sum so fixed or defined shall be subject to no appeal." Under the old section, as the Supreme Court decided, if there was a sum fixed, that is, if the account was audited, whatever the allowance might be, there was no remedy; but if the board refused to audit the account at all, then there was a remedy. But by this new section, providing that from the determination and adjustment of the board of supervisors there shall be no appeal, it even takes away the right to control the board of supervisors, if they determine not to adjust or allow a claim at all. Under the old provision, we had at least a right to expect that the board of supervisors would allow something on the claim, and from that sum so fixed and allowed therewas no appeal. But, by this new provision, it is provided that their determination, even if their determination be that they will not audit the account at all, shall be subject to no appeal. It was certainly hard enough before; but it is certainly bound down now by an iron rule, in regard to which I 0 3-Lo Wednesday, Juy2, 87 DEBTE At PRCEIG. there is no remedy, and in reference to which there is no control. It seems to me sometimes, as if members of this Convefition had talked and heard so much about the iron treasures and iron mines of- Michigan, that they must apapply iron rules to every proposition here. But, seriously, I cannot vote for this proposition as it stands; I cannot record my name in favor of it here;. I shall be unwilling to have such a proposition stand in our Constitution during the future. I do not wish that it shall be recorded here that I have voted in favor of a proposition which declared that the final determination of a board of supervisors, although they determine that they will not even audit a claim, to say nothing about allowing it, shall be final and subject to nob appeal. As I said before, the old provision was severe enough, and hard enough. I should have thought it was sufficient to satisfy any board of supervisors in the world. Yet, under that provision there was a remedy by a court, and several cases were cited from the rulings of the Supreine Court, where, when a board refused entirely to audit or determine an account, or allowed such a sum as showed that they paid no cpnsideration to the subject-matter, the Supreme Court would take it in hand. But, by this new provision, the Supreme Court is precluded from any supervision of the action of a board of supervisors, however wrong it may be. But I will not review what I said on a former occasion. There is, perhaps, no need of any further argument on this subject. I venture to say that those who are in favor of giving su preme power to boards of supervisors, will vote for this new section; and those who are willing to give the power to the Legislature to fix the matter in some way, will vote for my proposition. With that, I will leave it to the record which we are to make. Mr. LuCa. A word or two in reply to the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoDGER.) I regret that he has offered this amendment now; it is not a legit imate amendment to the one proposed by the committee. I doubt whether it is strictly in order. The amendment proposed by the committee was to strike out the words "except as other wise provided by law," and to insert the words, "all claims for services for which fees have been prescribed by the Legislature, shall be audited and al lowed by such board in accordance therewith." The amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair is to another portion of the section. Whatever objection he may raise to this new section, which he thinks did not exist against the original section, the committee to whom the article was re-committed are not responsible for it. The section as it was re-committed to us, was a substitute offered by the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT,) and adopted by the committee of the whole. I do not suppose that the language means anything widely different from the original section in that respect, although the gentleman has made an ingenious argument to the contrary. If I thought it did, I would favor the amendment. I would not be in favor of taking this matter from the reach of a mandamus, to which they had the right before. I do not think this new section will have that effect.'It was no part of the intention of the committee to provide for any such thing. So far as the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair is concerned, it was once before offered and rejected by a vote of thirty to forty-four, although by a miscount it was made thirty-one to forty-three. I have regarded it as the least objectionable of any of the amenlments proposed. But I object to it because, as I have said, the board of supervisors ought to be as independent in their jurisdiction as the Legislature. I believe they are as competent to decide questions before them, as the Legislature in their sphere. If they do a thing that is unconstitutional, there should be a review, and I appre hend that review can be had, with out the amendment offered by the gentleman from St. Clair. As I said in the first place, I do not propose to ar gue this question, as it has been fully debated and the debates have been printed. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. -If the committee on counties had reported only the amendments which the chair man states, then the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoN GER,) would not be in order; but the committee have reported a substitute for the entire section, which substitute is open to amendment. Mr. CHAPIN. I do not rise to dis cuss this question at all, but simply to express the hope, although, perhaps, it may be hoping against hope, that the proposition of tke gentleman from St. Clair will be adopted. I am in fa vor of it, and I shall vote for it. I am happy at having the opportunity of placing myself on the record in favor of this amendment, and in opposition to the provision contained in the report of the committee, which proposes to erect an irresponsible tribunal in our midst, from which there shall be no appeal. Mr. CONGER. I omitted a remark whichoI desired to make, in regard to the comparison between the Legisla ture and boards of supervisors. It is true, that for certain legislative purposes they are similar. But we have a provision in our present Constitution, and we have already adopted a provision in the new Constitution, that the Legislature shall not audit or allow any private account. Now, taking the gentleman's argument that a board of supervisors is like the Legislature, from the decision of which there is no appeal, why should we not apply to them in their legislative capacity the same provision that we apply to the Legislature of the State, and say to them that they shall not audit or allow any private account? I thank the gentleman for his argument, and the suggestion he has made in regard to the relative powers of the two bodies. I would ask him why we should not take from that, body, possessing these legislative powers, the right to audit or allow a private account against the county for which they are the local legislature? The objection is, that they are the legislature to fix the compensation, to make the laws, and to determine the rules in all such things; and they are also, one of the parties to the claim upon which they are to act as judges. It is in their judicial capacity that they are to act without appeal, according to this new section; and it is to that that we object, and not to their action in'a legislative capacity. I would have it so that they shall not have the power to make a law determining compensation beforehand for the service, and at the same time determine, without appeal, after the service has been rendered, the amount which should be received there for. Mr. LTUCE. I desire to say one word more; I want to say it because the gentleman might have said it him self. The Legislature, it is true, do not audit accounts, but they have a board to audit accounts for them, and from that board there is no appeal. Mr. D. GOODWIN. It is true that from that board there is no appeal pro vided. But the board of auditors is clothed with judicial powers, with au thority to summon witnesses and to hear every matter in full. The power the Legislature might otherwise exer cise themselves is given to that board. But the Constitution does not take away from the Legislature the power to provide for an appeal:from the decis ion of that board, and a review of that decision by the Supreme Court. That power already existed under the old Constitutionns It exists now with out the provision we propose to insert in the Constitution here. They act in a judicial capacity, and they may re view their decisions themselves as they .July 24,-1867. .DEBATES AND'PROCF,'PDINGS. 319 M2 COSIUTOA CVETO9Wdedy sometimes do. But the analogy which the gentleman assumes to draw be tween the board of supervisors and the Legislature, in reference to that power, does not now exist in the Constitution The power is not taken away from the Legislature to provide that the decis ion of the board of auditors may be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The provision taking away the power of appeal from the board of super visors, is a perfect anomaly in the Con stitution of this State. In reference to every other tribunal you provide for a review where the party thinks his rights have been injuriously affected. But as this section now stands, it is contemplated that parties may have their rights disposed of by a board of supervisors, absolutely and finally, without any power to review their action, no matter what the amount of his claim may be, or how extensively he may suppose his rights may have been injuriously affected. It does seem to me that if this provision is adopted, some such qualification as that suggested by the gentlemian from St. Clair should be inserted. It will stand almost as a reflection on the good sense of this Convention. Mir. LAWRENCE. I do not intend to occupy the attention of this Convention but for a moment. I believe if there was any oie thing most fully conceded by every one who has heretofore addressed his arguments to this subject, it is that if there is any danger, in any direction, that errors will be committed by the board of supervisors, it will be by allowing greater sums than justice demands; that there is no great danger that any man will be defrauded out of a just claim. To my own knowledge men frequently claim more than should be given to them; and they frequently get it. In that case who will take an appeal from the decision of the board? [Is itthe man who has got more than is honestly due to him? The tenor of the arguments that I have heard on this subject, seem to convey the idea that boards of supervisors are without competency, judgment, ability or moral honesty, to act in any such capacity. For the purpose of showing that they have, in some instances, exhibited great financial ability, and have been good judges of law, I propose to read an extract from the message of Gov. Oglesby, of Illinois, to the legislature convened by him in special session, in June, 1867. The message relates to the power of the,State to levy a tax upon the national banks. The extract is as follows: ,, In the town of Peoria, the First and Second National Banks resisted the assessment, and the board of supervisors ol Peoria county, upon a hearing before them, abated the assessments made on the shares of those banks. The case of'Tobias S. Bradley et al. vs. The Peopleof the.State of Illinois,' was taken to our supreme court, where, after an able ar gument of the whole question, that court held that the assessment had been properly made; that a tax on the capital stock was equivalent to a tax on the shares; that our law was in conformity with the proviso of the forty-first section of the act of Congress be tore referred to. The case, upon a writ of error, went to the Supreme Court of the Uni ted States, and was heard and decided there last winter. That court held that there was no distinction between this case from our State, arising un(ler our law taxing the capi tal stock of banks, and the Van Allen case, from the State of New York, reversed the de cision of the supreme court of this State, and entered a judgment affirming the decision of the board of supervisors of Peoria county." So it seems, in the history of the world, a board of supervisors have ex hibited some legal ability, some com petency to decide as to the right and wrong of questions brought before them. After the whole argument upon this matter, my opinion has not been changed. I hope none of these amend ments will be adopted. Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not rise to take up the time of the Convention in any extended discussion of this ques tion. In fact I do not feel that great interest in it which other gentlemen seem to feel; I do not consider it a question of such very vital importance. I think that in consequence of the facility now offered for appealing from one board of supervisors to another, a man rarely fails to get in his full rights. I rise more particularly to call in ques tion the construction which I under stand the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGEr,) puts upon this clause of the substitute: All claims for services, for which fees shall have been prescribed by the Legislature, shall.be audited and allowed by such boards in accordance therewith." The gentleman took the position that that provision actually cut off all remedy by the courts; that a mandamus would not lie. Mr. CONGER. I made no remark in regard to that clause; I have not referred to it, or to any word, or syllabie, or character of it. The part to which I referred was —" shall Slave power to prescribe the compensation due for all services rendered, and adjust all claims against their respective counties. And such determination and adjustment shall be subject to no appeal." I claim: that the construction of that was that it implied that the board could fix the compensation after the service had been rendered. I did not allude to the other clause at all. Mr. WILLIAMS. Iy idea was that in any case where fees were prescribed by law, or the compensation prescribed by law, the board of supervisors would be compelled to allow the claim in accordance with that law; if they did not do it of their own motion, the courts would set them in motion, and compel them to do it. That I under stand to be the effect of this provision. I rose more particularly for that putirpose, as I understood the gentleman to refer to that part of this section; not so much perhaps from what I heard him say, as from what the gentleman from Branch (Mr. LucE,) said- about the position of the gentleman from St. Clair.. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. CoNGER to the substitute, to insert after the words "sub ject to no appeal," the words "except in special cases provided for by law," upon which Mr. CONGER had called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken and the amendment of Mr. CONGER was agreed to; yeas 42, nays 35. YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Bills, Birney, Blackman, Bradley, Chapin, Chap mani Coolidge, Conger, Crocker, Daniells, Ferris, D. Goodwin, Harris. Hull, Huston, Ingalls, Leach, Longyear- Lothrop, Lovell, McClelland,'McConnell, — Miles, Morton, Ninde, Norris, Parsons, Rafter,- Richmond, Sawyer, T. G. Smith, Sutherland, Turner, Utley, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, W. E. Warner, Withey, Williams and Woodhouse-42. NAYs-Messrs. Andrus, Brown, Burtenshaw, Case, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Estee, Farmer, Germain, W. F. Goodwin, Hazen, Henderson, Hixson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Kenney, Lawrence, Luce, McKernan, Miller, Musgrave, Pratt, Pringle, Sheldon, Stockwell, Thompson, Tyler, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard and Winsor-35. Mr. MILES, when his name was called, said: It is due to myself, bj)einga member of the committee on counties, to say that I have been from the beginning in favor of allowing an appeal from the decisions of the board of supervisors. I state this merely to show that I am not now voting contrary to my convictions. I vote "aye." Mr. BURTCH not answering when his name was called, Mr. MORTON moved that Mr. BURTcII be excused from voting. The motion was agreed to. - The question then was upon agreeing to the substitute as amended. Mr. PRINGLE. It does not seem to me, from this discussion, that the section originally reported by the committee on counties, as it stood before the adoption of the substitute introduced by the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HIOLT,) is subject to the criticism made upon it, that it was uncertain in its meaning, that it could not with certainty. be understood. I do not think that the objection which the committee on counties have consented to find in it, is well taken. I think the section as it stood was a safe and proper section; I think it met all cases, or provided the way in which they could be met, where any injustice 8 :s i 320 CONSTITUTIONAL. CONVENTION, Weduesclay, 6 July 2~, 1867. DEBATIS A~D PROGEED'NG & 32 could be done by a board of supervisors. It left all matters sufficiently within the power,of the Legislature. Hence, little as I wish to act counter to the wishes of the committee, I believe I shall not vote for the substitute proposed by them. The section as originally reported by them was as follows: SECTION. 11. The board of supervisors, or in the county of Wayne the board of county auditors, shall, except as otherwise provided, have the power to prescribe and fix the compensation for all services rendered for, and adjust all claims against their respective counties; and the sums so fixed or defined shall be subject to no appeal. They shall receive for their own services such compensation as shall be provided by law. They shall have power to do this, except as otherwise provided by law. If there should be a case of any kind, such as the compensation of probate judge, prosecuting attorney, or persons who have taken care of small-pox patients, or anything else, in regard to which the Legislature may deem it proper to make special provision, then it will be within the power of the Legislature. I cannot conceive how it is possible that there should be any difficulty in construing the section first reported by the committee., They shall "have the power to prescribe and fix the compensation for the services rendered;" and to that is added, " except as otherwise provided by law." This recognizes the power in the Legislature to provide by law for the allowance and adjudication of claims, for such services as they may see fit to make other provisions for. If this be so, if this be the meaning, if it can have no other meaning, I do not see how it is liable to the charge of uncertainty. It is true, that in the debate which occurred upon this subject a month ago, it was said that, no matter what the Leislature might do, or wish to provide for, these matters were still to be subject to the supervisors any way, that there could be no appeal from them even to the Legislature, that there could be no way to reach and determine in individual cases, where everybody will agree the supervisors were not the proper tribunal. I re member that I met that by reference to this exception p' except cases other wise provided by law;" leaving it to the Legislatureto provide another tribunal, if they saw fit to do so, rather than provide for appeals in special cases, which I think would interfere with the independence of the board. It was upon the idea of this particular: excep tion, as I judge, that a large number of the members of the Convention voted in favor of this substitute. The vote was two to one, and I supposed at the time, and now suppose, that it was to a considerable extent upon the idea Vol. 2 — No. 41! that, by means of this exception, the Legislature could provide for these special cases such other tribunal as they might deem necessary; such other method of adjudication as would be satisfactory to the parties, and avoid all these objections made to the board of supervisors. I would do that now, rather than adopt the substitute reported by the committee, with the clause injected into it upon the motion of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) which will certainly interfere to a material degree with.the independence of the board. Every little pettyfogger, every little claimant who has a bill for services as constable, every justice of the peace from year to year, will be threatening the board with appeals, etc. This will be doing what will be an interference with the independence of the board, what will be felt as an unjust restriction upon them. We can reach every case that will be reached by special appeal, by providing some other way of determining the fact in those particular cases. Let these words, "except as otherwise provided by law," stand here; give them their ffil force and effect, and I imagine no court will say that they mean anything else than to give power to the Legislature to provide for particular cases as" they may see fit, and by any mode of adjustment which they may think proper. After a case has once been committed to a board of supervisors, and they have acted upon it, their independence as a board should not be interfered with. Hence, as the matter now stands, I think we should vote down the sub stitute as amended, and retain the sec tion as recommitted to the committee. Mr. LUCE. I fully concur with the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRNGLE,) and shall vote against the adoption of this substitute. The section, as orig inally reported, is certainly not materi ally objectionable. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) tells us that the substitute is worse than the original section; and I trust we shall hsve his support in voting against the substitute, and for the original section. Mr. CONGER. That we may know exactly what we are voting for,mI would say that it would seem from the remarks made by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) that there was a sub stitute pending, offered by; the gentle manfrom Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT.) NOW, when we-speak of substitutes, I would like to know whether we are to vote for the one offered some time ago by the gentleman from Muskegon, or up on the substitute reported by the com mittee, and which has been amended? The P'RESIDENT pro tempore. The question is upon the substitute report ed by the committee on counties, for section eleven of the article on counties as it stands. Mr. PRINGLE. My understanding was, that the section as it stood was a substitute for the section originally reported by the committee, the substitute being offered by the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT.) It was onlyin that point of view that I referred to it. Mr. FARMER. I hope the substitute reported from the -committee, as now amended, will not prevail. I have been opposed to appeals from the board of supervisors in trivial cases. The special cases sought to be provided for by the amendment offered by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGEsR,) I take it must be provided for by a law of the Legislature. An individual having a claim before a board of supervisors, which they reject, will go to the Legislature for a special law for his benefit. Now I leave it to members of this Convention, whether they are in favor of allowing an appeal from the decision of a board of supervisors in a claim of say but one, two, three or even five hundred dollars, to the Legislature of the State, thereby imposing a heavy burden upon the State in the way of passing special laws for the special benefit of particular individuals? I hope that section eleven of this article, as passed upon by the Convention, and recommitted to the committee on counties, will be adopted, and that this substitute as amended will be voted down. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will direct the Secretary to read for the information of the Convention, section eleven of this article, as it now stands, and also the substitute reported by the committee, as amended, upon the motion of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) The Secretary accordingly read section eleven as follows: "The board of supervisors, or the board of county auditors, in the county of Wayne, and in such other counties as the Legislature may provide for the election thereof, shall, except as otherwise provided by law, have power to prescribe the compensation due for all serv ices rendered, and adjust all claims against their respective counties, and such determin ation and adjustment shall be subject to-no appeal. Supervisors and county auditors shall receive for their services such compen sation as shall be prescribed by law." The Secretary also read the substi tute reported by the committee on counties, as amended, which was as follows: - "The board of supervisors, or the board of county auditors in the county of Wayne, and in such other counties as the Legislature may provide for the election thereof, shall have power to prescribe the compensation due for all services rendered, and adjust all claims against their respective counties. And such determination and adjustment shall be subject July, 24, 1867., DEBATES AND -PROCEEDINGS. 321 CONSTITUTIONAT, CONVENTION. to no appeal,except in special cases provided tor by law. All claims for service for which fees-or compensation shall have been pre scribed by the Legislature, shall be audited and allowed by such board in accordance therewith. Supervisors and county auditors shall receive for their services such compen sation as shall be prescribed by law." Mr. CONGER. If that is the way in which this matter stands, I now move to amend section eleven by in serting after the words "subject to no appeal," the words "except in special cases provided for by law." Mr. HENDERSON. There is in that section another provision to that effect. Mr. CONGER. That provision has no reference to an appeal; that ex ception is, that they shall have power to prescribe compensation due for all services rendered, except when the compensation is otherwise provided by law. If the law prescribes that they shall not fix the compensation, then they cannot do it. But the proposi tion I make kas reference only to ap peals. If my amendment is adopted that portion of the section will read: " And such determination and adjust ment shall be subject to no appeal, except in special cases provided for by law." Mr. LUCE. I would ask the gentle man from St. Clair (Mr. CoNGER) to withdraw his amendment now, and let us vote upon the substitute reported by the committee. If that substitute is adopted, then there will be no ne cessity for his amendment to the original section; if the substitute fails, then the gentleman can offer his amendment to the section. Mr. CONGER. I understand that we must amend the original section, if at all, before we take the vote upon the substitute. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. No amendment to the section would be in order after the question is taken upon the substitute. Mr. BLACKMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays upon the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was upon the amendment of Mr. CONGER to section eleven. Mr. LUCE. This amendment appears again in another shape, and I desire to way that I think the objection raised by the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. FARMER) is a good one. This provides that there is to be no appeal unless in special cases brought to the Legislature, argued there, and laws passed for their benefit. It seems to me that this is a strange proposition, to appeal from the board of supervisors to the, Legislature. The board of supervisors have all the facts before them, and they can review their decisions. But it is proposed to take spe cial cases out of their hands, and bring them to the Legislature. Mr. CONGER. I cannot conceive how it can be possible for anybody to suppose that the provision " except in special cases provided for by law," has anything to do with bringing special cases before the Legislature. We are contesting this matter tolerably closely, I Know. I admit that it is all fair and square to endeavor to throw a reason able amount of doubt around my prop osition. It is intended to apply to special cases provided for by law; not by an ex post facto law, or by a law retroactive in its operation; but such cases as the Legislature may provide for by a general law. There can be but one meaning to this: the gentle man is mistaken; the zeal of his house hath eaten him up. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. What is meant by "special cases?" -Mr. CONGER. Such cases as are brought to the notice of the Legisla ture; such cases as may require some particular law, under which law tvere may be an appeal provided to the courts, to determine upon questions of law. I think we can trust the Legisla ture to make a general law providing for certain classes of cases, involving certain legal propositions, in regard to which a board of supervisors may very well desire, and ought to desire, the opinion of our courts. In my opinion, it can have no other meaning than that. Mir. THOMPSON. Under the term "special cases," will not the Legisla ture provide for an appeal in every case? Mr. CONGER. I admit that they may -do so; I admit that in my place. But if gentlemen think the proposition, that there shall be no appeal in any case, is so dangerous to the people of this State, that they believe the Legis lature, if allowed, will provide in their wisdom, that there shall be an appeal in every case, is not that a conclusive reason against putting this proposition in at ail? If there be danger that the Legislature will grant an appeal in every case, then it is perhaps better to leave the appeal question out of the Constitution entirely. W~hen it comes to that, that the people demand an appeal in every case, then there will be a revision of this Constitution, and that right suddenly. - Mr. LONGYEAR. I had not intended to take any pait' in the discussion of this question. But when the gentleman from St. Clair (M~r. CoNGER) rose a few moments ago to reply to some remarks of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. FARMRE,) and the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LUcE,) in regard to ihis amendment, I was about to rise and ask a question. I did not know that I understood all the amendments that were before the Convention. I had not heard any amendment read here which allowed any appeal from the board of supervisors to the Legislature; and I could not conceive that any gentleman would suppose for a moment that the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair would admit of any such construction. I propose in that connection to analyze for a single moment the effect of that prop osition. It is said by the gentleman from Branch (MB-. LUcE) that, without that amendment, section eleven as it now stands would permit the Legisla ture to provide in relation to appeals from the board of supervisors. MIr. LUCE. I did not make that declaration; I said that it was doubt ful whether that construction might not be put upon it. Mr. LONGYEAR. The gentleman's. statement was that it might bear that construction. A single glance at the position of the phrase " except as other wise provided bylaw," in the original saection, in its connection with the prohibition of appeal, will show at once to any gentleman at all familiar with language, that it cannot bear such a construction. When the Legislature have provided by law for the submission of claims to the boards of supervisors, or in other words, when they leave claims to go before the boards of supervisors without any special provision of law, then the claim is within the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors, and is subject to no appeal. The phrase "except as otherwise provided by law," relates to the inception of the jurisdiction of the board, and not to its final decision. That is, this constitutional provision of section eleven would give to the board of supervisors jurisdiction of all claims, unless the jurisdiction is taken away by legislation. When they have such jurisdiction, there is no appeal from their decision; there can be no other construction given to the section. Now, what is the effect of the amendment offered by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER?)' The amendment is to insert after the words " subject to no appeal." the words "except in special cases provided for by law." It is contended by gentlemen here that that means that in special cases an appeal may be taken to the Legislature. Now, that certainly cannot be the constructionof the amendment. It means that there may be appeals in certain classes of cases provided for by law. For instance, cases where constitutional questions may arise would be special cases; that would be a class of special cases in which constitutional questions may arise, and in regard to which it e 8 s r e d y 0 t d e e s t e 322 Wednesclay, 'July 24 - D A a-D PR -.E IN. 3.- l e *mxight appear highly proper for the Legislature to provide an appeal to the circuit court, or to the supreme court. This subject of appeal is used in a judicial sense entirely. This whole matter of decisions of boards of supervisors on claims is clearly one of judicial power, and not of legislative power. And appeals from such decisions would, of course, be to the courts, and not to the Legislature. I have already mentioned one class of cases-those in which constitutional questions might arise. There might be another class of cases in reference to the amount of claims, when the amount was such that the Legislature might deem it proper to give the power of appeal to courts for review of the decisions of boards of supervisors. I regard that to be the effect of the amendment, and I hope it will be adopted. Mr. HENDERSON. If the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) to section eleven shall prevail, then we will have no choice, or at least the difference between that section and the substitute will be so small that the choice will be of very small moment. It was stated, when this subject was under consideration in the Convention of 1850-whether truly or 4ot I am not prepared to say, for I was somewhat young at that time, and did not participate to any consid erable extent in the discussion of the question-it was stated there that the people were laboring under a heavy grievance, owing to appeals from boards of supervisors; and the incor poration of this provision in our pres ent Constitution met with greater ap probation, and was looked upon per haps with more favor, than any other provision in that Constitution. If that was the case, it seems to me that un less there has been a call for a change, and that call wide-spread and extend ed in its nature; unless, in fact, the call for a change was suggested by and was the result of some special griev ance, this Convention should not change the policy of the State with reference to these things. I stated, it is true, in some remarks J made here before, that while this subject was under consideration by the committee on counties, I was in favor of an appeal in some special cases. I wish to qualify that remark by saying that I wanted those cases pointed out in the Constitution. I do not want that we shall provide, as we will, if we adopt this amendment, that the Legislature may have power to-provide for appeals in all these cases. If these cases could be specified, something in the manner of the amendment offered by the gen tleman from Midland, (Mr. ESTEr,) when legal questions were involved; if we could specify those cases in the Constitution, I would be perfectly willing to do it; but I do not think we should throw the whole question open in this way. Since we had this matter under consideration here before, I have been home. I did not seek for information in regard to the opinions of my constituents upon this point. But I have been met with such remarks as these, from members of the legal profession: "Why, you are going to be exceedingly liberal to us in the Constitution; I apprehend you are not fully aware what you are bargaining for; you are going to provide a harvest for us;" and so on, and so on. They said that the lawyers here were looking out for their own interests. I do not say this with reference to any class allusions here; and then they would close the'r remarks to me by saying: " It will be a dangerous experiment, you should not do it." Andcl then they would cite the experience of the State under the Constitution of 1835, when our courts were flooded with appeals, and the grievance became so great that it led to the adoption of that clause in the Constitution of 1850, to which I have referred. The gentleman on this floor, who was the President of that Convention, (Mr. D. GooDwiN,) has been a very zealous advocate of this proposition. I do not know that the fact of his having been a very honored member of that Convention, leaves any room for me to suppose that he favored the old provision. But it seems to me that the experience of the past seven teen years will not warrant us in mak ing so radical a change as that now proposed. Mr. CONGER. I could almost de sire the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HENDERsoN,) would name those distin guished men who declared to him that there was such a rich opening here for the lawyers; so that the legal profes sion of this State might at least have the opportunity to bow down before them with reverence. I wish their names might be given to me in private, if the gentleman does not desire to state them publicly in the Convention. But I cannot consent to take the opin ion of such gentlemen as the gentleman from Calhoun met in the streets, as authority for my own legal opinion. I venture to say that this proposition does not open any harvest for the legal profession whatever. There is no claim of any magnitude which comes before the board of supervisors, in which at torneys cannot be employed to advocate or resist the claim. That is done con tinually and repeatedly; and in those irregular cases, where there is no fee bill fixed by law, where the Legislature do not pretend to control the matter at all, there is where the lawyers may reap a harvest. - Sir, the whole statement is an indirect way of casting an aspersion upon the lawyers in this Convention. - As for myself it passes me by as an idle wind; neither the aspersion of the gentleman himself, nor the aspersions of anybQdy else which he may retail here, will prevent me from deciding for myself what the proper construction of anything is. If-any one should want a free field for such a harvest, where he could charge without restriction by law, it would be in cases where he could go before the boards of supervisors and argue questions, especially in those cases where there could be no appeal. That would be a great harvest field for the profession, and is so to my knowledge. In all other cases in our courts, fees are fixed for the services so rendered, and the profession is restricted by law to those fees. For myself, I am particularly desirous that this amendment should be made; still, I do not expect the State will perish, if it should be lost. It is not essential to the dignity, and importance, and honor, and usefulness of the board of supervisors that they should have possession of this power, without any revision or restriction. I venture to say the members of the boards themselves would not desire it, if they were thus precluded from having, in some manner, the opinion and advice of judges and courts. As I said before, it is uniformly the custom for boards of supervisors, wherever they have an opportunity, to submit certain questions to the court in an informal and indirect way. I ven ture to say that there is no board of supervisors that would not, if in ses sion where a court was in session, in some way obtain or steal the opinions of the judge, for their benefit on the occasion. Now, if the Legislature shall see fit to prescribe a class of cases in volving questions of constitutional law, or questions of law of any kind of great importance, or of doubtful solu tion, all that we desire is, that the Leg islature in its wisdom, acting for the people, may prescribe during the exis tance of this Constitution, that class of cases, and that this matter shall not be tied up forever.: The gentleman from Calhoun (Mr. HENDERSON) says there is no complaint about this provision as it is. He has forgotten that many members have spoken of special cases; many repre sentatives of the people here declared that there are to be found in their own counties special cases of hardship or wrong. The-mere admission here that such cases may exist, is all that we . July 24,1867. .DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 323 324 CO-STITUTI~i~AL COXVEWTIO,~. r edlle- ayr need for our argument on this occa sion. The admission that cases of hardship and wrong may exist in any county of this State, is a sufficient reason why we should leave an open ing for an equitable remedy in these cases. But I have already. spoken more than I expected to speak; I have already expressed my views upon this subject. I had intended silently and quietly to offer my amendments here, and ask that we might have a record upon them. Mr. LUCE. It is a fact that I feel a great deal of interest in the retention of this'provision making a board of supervisors an auditing board, and not giving that duty to the Legislature, or to the circuit court. It is certainly a fact that, if the amendment of the gen tleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGEa.,) prevails, the Legislature will become essentially an auditing board; they will pass laws for special cases, or make it a general thing to have appeals. If the gentleman from St. Clair has a claim against his county, he can come up here and get a special law passed for his special benefit. I presume he will not deny that. Mr., CONGER. I do deny it. Mr., LUCE. Or if you take the other alternative, you must make a general law, and make the courts a tribunal for fixing the compensation for services rendered to counties, as before the adoption of the Constitution of 1850. At that time, whatever the board of supervisors did went for naught; their action was a mere farce. Now, if we conclude to adopt that alterna tive, I shall submit as gracefully and with as good feeling as I can, as I did the other day. I am op posed, and I say here that my constitu ents are opposed, to allowing the courts to fix the compensation, instead of boards of supervisors. We believe it will give more individual satisfaction to leave this matter where it has been for the last seventeen years, than to restore it to the condition it was in for the fifteen years preceding the adoption of the present Constitution. I have arrived at this conclusion from observation, and from reading the debates of 1850, in which it was stated over and over again, that this shelter and protection, which it was supposed existed in a board of supervisors, was but a farce, for it was not in their power really to fix the compensation. I apprehend that will be the case again if this amendment is adopted. The gentleman from St. Clair will admit that even under his amendment the Legislature may pass laws for appeals in all cases, or in special cases. Now, I am opposed to all appeals. There has been no application to this Convention for this change. I know the boards of supervisors are attached to this principle, and they would re gard the adoption of this amendment as a blow against them. I know some boards of supervisors who have been in session since this matter was dis cussed before; I know they are of this opinion in regard to it. I know that some of the ablest attorneys, and legal men outside of this Convention, are opposed to this change; they think it would be the most unwise thing we could do. That accords with my own opinions. However, if a majority of this Convention decide against me, I will submit, as I did in regard to female suffrage. I was opposed to that, but the majority was against me, and I am willing to submit to it. Mr. HENDERSON. I am not anx ious to continue this discussion. Yet it may be supposed that I would say something in reply to the gentleman from St. Clair, (MKr. CoNGER.) It is a feeling common with us all to desire to have the last word; but it is not ex actly with that view that I rise at this time. The gentleman seems to have manifested a great deal of ingenuity, which has led him to discover offenses where none were intended. With that ingenuity I shall find. no fault. He has mar ifested a great deal of zeal in be half of this last proposition here, as he did in defense of his own article. I have not forgotton the blowing-up he gave the chairman of the committee on counties, (Mr.- LoucE,) for his zeal in defense of his article; but that zeal was merely in regard to the article he had himself reported. There has been a course pursued in regard to this proposition, different from that in regard to others. WThen we voted upon this proposition before it is true it presented itself in a some what modified form. There were then a fair majorityin favor of retaining the clause in substance which is in the present Constitution. But from thata day to this no opportunity has been omitted on the part of-at least one member of this Convention, where there was any relevency whatever, and sometimes where it seemed as though it was entirely foreign and; irrelevant,to bring up something-to reflect upon this proposition, and to cast odium upon it, and to throw odium upon the boards of supervisors. They have beent held up to ridicule from the very first. The gentleman who has done this, during his remarks, acknowledged that he had been a member of, and had presided over, a board of supervisors. Now, I have had some experience in that way. And if this course is to be pursued, my humble judgment is that my reputation did not suffer more in consequence of being associ ated with a board of supervisors, than' it will by my having been associated with this Convention. I protest against this constant effort to cast odium upon boards of supervi sors. I do not mean that these re marks shall have any reference to the gentleman from St. Clair; but I speak of the course taken here to weaken the degree of favor with which the Con vention were disposed to regard this provision of the Constitution. I could have d6ne no less, and represented my constituents, than I have done in favor of this provision. Mr. NORRIS. I desire to make a suggestion, in order to facilitate a vote. It strikes me as somewhat wonderful that it has not occurred to those who are now, unfortunately, in the minority, but who were in the majority a few days ago, that the supervisors in this State are the power of the State, and that the victory we have wrenched from their hands here will be but a barren victory, after all. -For the next five years, no Legislature that will assemble in this State will be found to carry out this provision, for the ma jority of the Legislature will be, as they have been heretofQre, supervisors. I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will yield gracefully, and allow us to have this barren victory. Mr. FARMER. If it is a barren victory, I do not think it is necessary to urge it here. Mr. HOWARD. The proposition of the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIS,) would satisfy us, if we needed any argument, that the boards of su pervisors in this State, by their actions, by the character of the men who are usually upon them, have made them selves at least respectable in the eyes of the people. It is true that a large number of the members of the Legislature, ever since the organization of the State, more especially'for the two or three last sessions, have been members of boards of supervisors. That fact, at least, shows that these supervisors have acted in a manner which gives the people confidence' in their integrity and their intelligence. My opposition to this amendment is that it is not an open and fair proposi-k tion; it is seeking by covert means to accomplish that which the Convention refused, when the proposition was up before them four or five weeks ago. I do not agree with the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LUcE,,) in his construction of the language of the amendment; it cannot fairly be confined to the construction he gives it. It would not apply simply to the case of an individual who had a claim before a board of supervisors, and was defeated in accom i i 1824 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Wednesday, July 24, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 325 plishing what he desired; and then came before the Legislature and obtained a special law for his particular case; it would not stop there. The interpretation I give it is this: that it applies to classes of cases and not to individual cases. Who is to determine the classes of cases? My objection is that we might as well open the door entirely, and say that the Legislature shall in all cases provide for an appeal, as to say that they shall in certain cases, or in special cases, provide for an appeal; for when a proposition is made to provide for an appeal in any case, that is a special case. The same difficulty will arise in legislation of that character, that would arise if we made provision here for an appeal in all cases. Now, it is a remarkable fact, that the great evil, which has induced members to get up here and fight this proposition from the beginning to the present time, and now apparently with a prospect of success, has never called forth from the people a single petition upon the subject. I admitted on aformer occasion, that there were cases where complaint were well fouDded; but I believe this will give us an adequate remedy. I said that it is in the very nature of our institutions, that there should be somewhere a discretionary power; and where can it be more safely vested than in the board of supervisors; a body more directly answerable to the people than any other body? They may err, it is true; but their error may be remedied by their subsequent action. How are we to remedy those errors, bv taking an appeal to the circuit court, and submitting it to the adjudication of that court, with or without a jury? That is impracticable; it will not only fill the records of the courts with cases of litigation, for which the court is not so well adapted as boards of supervisors; but it-will open a door for litigation, which will be taken advantage of by claimants. There Are a hundred instances where the courts have discretionary powers, which boards of supervisors cannot exercise. Those discretionary powers are right, they are necessary. But I fail to see the force of any argument, that has been brought to'bear upon this question, which shows that the discretionary power, from which there is no appeal. is not more safely lodged in boards of supervisors, in regard to matters that ordinarily and legitimately come before them, than it would be in any other tribunal known to our laws. They are more conversant with the facts and circumstances, upon which every case is based that is brought before them for adjudieation, than any circuit court, or a jury acting in a circuit court, can possibly be. It is not in the nature of things that a circuit court, or a jury in a circuit court, will be as well infomed in regard to the merits of cases as boards of supervisors. We are told that a circuit court can take proof and ascertain the facts in those cases, the same as in the trial of ordinary cases. I reply that the same means can be used before boards of supervisors. In what county has a claimant ever been deprived of the privilege of presenting proof? In the nature of the case, the boards of supervisors are bound to hear proof. But the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) says that the board of supervisors, through their prosecuting attorney, or some other means, are in the habit of stealing the opinions of the circuit judge. This is the first time I have ever learned that a subordinate tribunal, whether a justice of the peace, or highway commissioner, or township board, or any other board asking an opinion of the circuit judge, whose duty i, is to give that opinion, not by express law, perhaps, but by every implication that is brought to bear upon him, is stealing the opinion of the circuit judge. I hope and trust that I may never live in a county when the circuit judge, when applied to pro.perly for advice, will consider that if he gives me that advice, I am stealing it, or taking that to which I am not justly entitled. I believe we -have upon the bench, in every circuit in this State, men who are too high minded and too noble to view this matter of advice sought by subordinate officers in that light. I do not believe it ever entered into their minds whether the advice was stolen or not. It is obtained by parties to be benefited by it much cheaper, more directly, and with less litigation than it would be if they had to go through all the litigation by way of appealing from the action- of the board of supervisors. I agree fully with the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HENDnESON,) who spoke upon this question condemning the spirit which has been manifested here in regard to boards of supervisors. I am not wedded to: that institution; I have never acted upon such a board, and I suppose I never shall. But I have been officially connected with them for years, and I have learned to respect them, as being composed of the most prominent and worthy men in the various townships in the county. And although they may not understand as many Latin phrases as the gentleman who has continually applied his epithets to them, still they universally carry with their action the approval of a large class of the community. Although like all human institutions they are liable to error, I believe that in the board of supervisors exist all the elements necessary to a correction of error to a greater extent than there exists in any other tribunal in the State. I see a broad smile on the face of my friend from Shiawassee, (Mr. TUrNER,) and I imagine I can tell of what he is thinking. Although I have been very successful with boards of supervisors, I think that success has been deserved. My friend will bear me out in saying that wherever he has been called upon to advise board~s of supervisors, he never felt that they, were stealing anything from him, how ever it might have been in the district; represented by the gentleman from St: Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) Whether in that district the board of supervisors, were afraid of the circuit judge, or whether the circuit judge buttoned up his pocket every time he went into the town, for fear the board of supervisors or the members of the board would be stealing something from him, I do not know.: I believe that where circuit judges have been called upon to give their opinions, in cases where they could properly do so, and it would not have an improper bearing upon any question pending before them, they have always done it; and I hope we will never see the time when they will refuse to do it. Now, I would say to those who are opposed to allowing this appeal, that in my opinion this proposition is noth ing but a shift or device to accomplish what, by direct, fair, open warfare, the enemies of our proposition could not obtain. Who is to decide what cases are special cases? Let the advocates of this measure come up to the next Legislature with a bill prepared to al low appeals in certain cases, and the Legislature will find in the Constitu tion that they are to grant appeal in special cases. If the advocates of this appeal will define the cases in which the Legislature may provide for an appeal, then there will be a shade of fairness about it, which it does not now possess. But to say that in special cases appeals shall be provided for by the Legislature, is covering the whole ground as fully as though the doors were thrown wide open, and we should say here that the Legislature should in every case provide for an appeal. I submit that we have not arrived at that time in the history of this State when we are" prepared to fill our circuit courts with' all the trivial claims that come before the boards of supervisors; tQ open the doors of the circuit courts, and to allow -them to usurp the powerand authority which for years has been vested:in;- the boards-of supervisors, DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. .,-T i-i- I y 2 4, 1 8 6 7.' 325 I 32 CO.I UT O A OO,!TO: In_.; _......__ s_tb fay,_V'g nd which the safetyof the State and of its citizens requires should be in the uture vested in them without appeal. Mr. SHELDON. As the yeas and nays have been ordered upon this question, I wish to give the reason for the vote I shall give in this case. 1 am uncompromisingly opposed to this appeal from boards of supervisors. Iam perfectly willing to be placed upon the record; I am perfectly willing that my constituents should know that I stood up here and defended the boards of supervisors. The intimation hat been thrown out here, that if a subordinate tribunal call upon a judge for his opinion, it is stealing that opinion. Is it a wrong, is it a theft, or what will you call it, if you go to a judge and ask his opinion upon the law of a question? Is the board of supervisors of any county in the State of Michigan to be aspersed here as a dishonest tribunal? I think the supervisors are necessary, to stand up as ma wall of adamant against the trickery of the lawyers; I consider them as a court of equity. We haveheard a great deal here of law, but not a word of equity. Why this determination to have this appeal? Any man of common discernment can tell why it is. It is to create law-suits and promote litigation. Mr. D. GOODWIN. I call the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. SHELDON) to order.' The PRESIDENT pro temnpore. The gentleman is not in order in the remarks he is making. Mr. BRADLEY. In explanation of my vote, I desire to say that I voted for the amendment to the substitute recommended by the committee for the section, because I prefer the section as it passed, and as it stands in the article, expecting to have an opportunity to vote against the whole substitute. Consequently I am now compelled to vote againstthe amendment to section eleven as it stands in the article. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. CONGER to section eleven of the article to insert, after the words "subject to no appeal," the words "except in special cases provided for by law," upon which the yeas and nays had been ordered. The question was taken, and the amendment was not agreed to; yeas 32, nays 41, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Bills, Birney, Black) man, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Crocker, Daniells, D. Goodwin, HarriS, Hull, Huston, Ingalls, Leach, Longyear, Lothrop, Lovell, McClelland, Miles, Ninde Norris, Parsons, Rafter, T. G. Smith, Sutherland, Turner, Utley, Van Riper, Withey and Woodhouse-32. NAYS-Messrs. Andrus, Bradley, Brown,. Burtch, Burtenshaw, Case, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Germain, W. F. Goodwin, Hazen, Henderson, Hixson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Kenney, Lawrence, Luce, McConnell, McKernan, Miller, Mus grave, Pratt, Pringle, Sawyer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Thompson, Tyler, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winsor and Williams-41. The question recurred upon the substitute as amended. - Mr. T. G. SMITH. I move that the Convention now take a recess until three o'clock this afternoon. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly, (at half-past twelve o'clock p.m.,) the Convention took a recess until three o'clock p.m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at three o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT pro tempore, (Mr. P. D. WARNER.) The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. MORTON asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. CORBIN, on account of sickness. PAY OF FIREMEN. Mr. DANIELLS. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following preamble and resolution, for consideration at this time: Whereas, The Convention did, by resolution adopted the 20th inst., increase the per diem allowance of the firemen who officiate for this body. And whereas, this hall has been, ever since the adoption of said resolution, too warm for the comfortable discharge of bust ness; therefore Resolved, That the wages of said firemen be reduced to three dollars per day, until such time as this hall shall be made cool enough to be comfortable to the members occoupying the same. (Laughter.) Mr. HUSTON. I move to lay the resolution on the table. Mr. DANIELLS. Oh! if it is objected to by any member, I will not offer it.. COUNTIES. - The Convention resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Counties." POWERS OF SUPERVISORS, ETC. The question was upon the substitute reported by the committee on counties, as amended, for section eleven. The section was as follows: "The board of supervisors, or the board of county auditors in the county of Wayne, and in such other counties as the Legislature may provide for the election thereoe, shall, except as otherwise provided by law, have power to prescribe the compensation due for all services rendered, and adjust all claims against their respective counties, and such determination and adjustment shall be subject to no appeal. Supervisors and county auditors shall receive for their services such compensation as shall be prescribed by law. The substitute as amended was as follows: "The board of supervisors or the board of county auditors in the county of Wayne, and in such other counties as the Legislature may provide for the election thereof, shall have power to prescribe the compensation due for all services rendered, and adjust all claims against their respective counties. And such determination and adjustment shall be subject to no appeal except in special cases provided for by law. All claims for service for which fees or' compensation shall have been prescribed by the Legislature, shall be audited and allowed by such board in accordance therewith. Supervisors and county auditors shall receive for their services such compensation as shall be prescribed by law." The PRESIDENT pro tern. Upon this question the yeas and nays have been asked. The yeas and nays were then ordered. Mr. CONGER. I move that there be a call of the Convention. The motion was agreed to. The roll was called, and the following members failed to answer to their names: Messrs. Barber, Corbin, Denoyers, Giddings, Gulick, Haire, Henkel, Howard, Lamb, McKernan, Murray, Mugsey, Purcell, Shearer, W. A. Smith, Stoughton, Van Valkenburgh, Winans, Wright, Yeomans and the President. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Seventy-eight members have answered to their names. Two nmembers are absent without leave. Mr. HARRIS. I ask leave of absence for Mr. VANVALKENBURGH, for this afternoon, on account of sickness. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is not in order to move a leave of absence pending a call of the Convention; but if no objection is made, leave will be granted. No objection was made, and leave was accordingly granted. Mr. ALEXANDER. I move that further proceedings under'the call be dispensed with. Mr. CONGER. I think the proceedings under the call had better be completed. The motion of Mr. ALEXANDER was not agreed to. Mr. BURTCHI. I would like to have leave of absence, not to go home, but to go out when I please, and to come in when I please. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A motion for leave of absence is not in order, pending a call of the Convention. Mr. LEACH. I hope that the rule will be enforced, and that the doors will be closed, so that members cannot come into the hall. Mr. HOLT. I see that the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOwARD,) is outside the bar. I move that he be admitted, in order that he may render his excuse. The motion was agreed to, and Mr. HowARD was accordingly admitted within the bar of the Convention. The PRESIDENT Ipro tempore. Mr. HOWARD, yOu have been absent from this Convention without its leave. What excuse have you to render therefor? Mr. HOWARD. I have no excuse I 326 .CO.NSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Wedilesday, I Juy2,16.DBTS N RCEIG 2 to make, except that I was a little late. Perhaps my exhaustive efforts this morning will be considered a sufficient excuse for the few minutes delay this afternoon. Mr. BURTCH. I move that the gentleman from Genesee be excused. The motion was agreed to. Mr. HOWARD. After the vote of the Convention, I desire merely to state that I started to c.)me here by the time of the place where I board. I would have been here in season had the time there corresponded with the time here. MIr. WILLARD. I move that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with. The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending question is upon the substitute, as amended, for section eleven of the article on counties, upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered. Mr. CONGER. I have but a word or two to say. The substitute reported by the committee on counties, I have no doubt, met their entire approval as they reported it. The Convention have made a slight amendment in it, with which, I believe, we are all satisfied. I hope the substitute will now be adopted. I think it is preferable to the original section. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. The amendment made to the substitute has spoiled it; the committee on counties do not at present own it, and they wish to have it voted down. . The question was then taken upon the substitute, and it was not agreed to; yeas 35, nays 43,'as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Bills, Birney. Blackman, Chapin, Coolidge, Conger, Grocker, Daniells, Ferris, D. Goodwin, Harris, Hull, Huston, Ingalls, Leach, Longyear, Lothrop, Lovell, McClelland, Miles, Morton, Ninde, Norris, Parsons, Rafter, Richmond, T. G. Smith, Sutherland, Turner, Utley, VanRiper, W. E. Warner and Withey-35. NAYs-Messrs. Andrus, Bradley, Brown, Burtenshaw, Case, Chapman,* Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Germain, W. F. Goodwin, Hazen, Henderson, Hixson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Kenney, Lawrence, Luce, McConnell, McKernan, Miller, Musgrave, Pratt, Pringle, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Thompson, Tyler, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winsor and Williams-43. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The article is still open to amendment. ORGANIZATION OF NEW COUNTIES. Mr. FARX MER. I move to amend section three of this article by striking out the word "majority," and inserting the words "two-thirds," so as to provide that when new counties are formed in such a manner as to reduce any organized county to less than sixteen townships, it shall require a vote of two-thirds of the electors residing in the county or counties so reduced. Mr. LUCE. I rise to a point of order, which might perhaps as well be settled here as at any other place. When this article was before under consideration, a motion was made to strike out the third section, which motion failed. My point of order is that it is not now in order to amend that section. The PRESIDENT pro temipore. It is not now in order to amend section three, according to the practice of the Convention, if a motion to strike it out has been made and rejected by the Convention. Mr. MILLER. I think if the gentleman from Branch (Mr. LUCE) will refer to the journal, he will see that he is mistaken in regard to that section; no motion was made to strike, out the entire section. Mr. LUCE. I believe I am mistaken. The PRESIDENT pro temipore. Then the amendment is in order. Mr. STOCKWELL. By reference to the journal.of the 22d of June, it will be seen that a motion was made by Mr. W. E. WVARNER to strike out section three, and the motion was lost. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Then the motion to amend the section is not now in order. REMOVAL OF COUNTY SEATS. Mr. HUSTON. Section nine of this article now reads as follows: "No county seat once established, shall be removed, until the place to which it is proposed to be removed shall be designated by a majority of the board of supervisors of the county, and two-thirds of the electors voting thereon shall have voted in favor of the proposed location, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law." I offer the following substitute for that section: "No county seat once established shall be removed, until the place to which it is proposed to be removed shall be designated by a two-thirds vote of the board of supervisors of the county, and a majority of the electors voting thereon shall have voted in favor of the proposed location, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law." Mr. CONGER. I rise to a point of order. This same proposition was made in Convention, when this article was before under consideration, and the word "two-thirds" was stricken out, and the words "a majority" inserted in the place where the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HUSTON,) proposes now to insert the word "twothirds." Mr. HUSTON. The original section was amended in one respect in committee of the whole; that was all. The PRESIDENT pro ternpore. An amendment having been adopted to the section, does not preclude a substitute for the'whole section. If the whole section has not been adopted by the Convention as a section, upon a mo tion to strike out,. then the substitute is in order. Mr. CONGER. This section nine has been adopted as a section, as much as any other section of the article has been. The only change proposed by the gentleman from Tuscola is one in tended to overthrow the action of the Convention so far as they amended this section. It will be found by refer ence to the proceedings of June 21st, that the Convention struck out the word "two-thirds," and inserted the words "a majority," and the yeas and nays were taken upon that amendment. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The adoption of an amendment to the sec tion does not preclude a substitute for the entire section. Mr. HUSTON. I had a substitute drawn up for this section, when the article was before under consideration, intending to offer it. Before I did so, the chairman of the committee on counties (Mr. LuCE) moved to have the article recommitted, which motion was agreed to. Therefore no oppor tunity was offered for amendment to the body of the article. I do not pro pose to take up much of the time of this Convention in the discussion of this question. But there are a few considerations to which I desire to call the attention of members. Mr. CONGER. I would like to have the ruling of the Chair, whether, after an amendment has been made in com mittee of the whole and concurred in by the Convention, a mere form of substitute can so change the section as to destroy the amendment adopted by the Convention. That, I understand, is the only change proposed by the substitute of the gentleman from Tuscola. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The adoption of the amendment reported from the committee of the whole does not preclude the offering of a substitute covering the entire section. Mr. HUSTON. There is another change proposed by my substitute, besides the one to which the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER) refers. I propose a change in reference to the vote of the people, requiring a majority of the electors, instead of twothirds, as the section now provides. Mr. CONGER. Both of those propositions were voted upon. I do not care much about the matter, except as a precedent. ~Mr. BIRNEY. Can that be regarded as a substitute for the section, which merely alters one or two words? Is it not really in the nature of an emendment? The PRESIDENT pro termrore. If this substitute only changes the original section, so as to embrace the IDEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. July 24, 1867. 327 .1 '32S OOSTITUTIOAL OOVETIO odneda amendments concurred in by the Convention, it would not be regarded as a substitue. Mr. HENDERSON. I suppose the point is this; that the substitute proposes to restore this section to its original form. Mr. HUSTON. To restore the secfion as it is in the Constitution of 1850. Mr. BLACKMAN. I understand that this substitute simply proposes to reverse the action of the Convention, in adopting amendments to this section. That is all it proposes to do; consequently it is the same question we passed upon when this article was before under consideration. The PRESIDENT pro tenpore. If the substitute only embraces the propositions already decided by the Convention, it would not be in order; but the Chair supposed that it went further. M-r. HUSTON. I understand that the Convention concurred in the amendment of the committee of the whole, changing " two-thirds"' of the board of supervisors, to " a majority;" that was the action of the Convention. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the substitute propose merely to change that back? Mr. HUSTON. I propose by the substitute to change that back, and to change the vote of the electors from two-thirds to a majority. Mr. BLACKMAN. I rise to a point of order; my point is, that that question was also passed upon by the Convention. Mr. HUSTON. I do not understand that the Convention acted upon the portion of the section relating to the vote of the electors. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is a question upon which the Chair would like to be informed. Mr. IHUSTON. I remember distinctly opposing the motion of the gentleman from St. Clair, (MIr. CONGER,) and I stated at the time, as will be found by reference to the debates, that if his amendment was not concurred in, I proposed to make an effort to accomplish what I now propose to do. My amendment was voted down in committee of the whole; the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair was agreed to. in committee of the whole by a small majority, and was concurred in by the Convention. At least, that is my recollection of the matter. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Can any member inform the Chair, upon what page of the journal, the action of the Convention will be found recorded upon this question? Mr. FERRIS. It will be found in the proceedings of June 19th. Mr. D. GOODWIN. The article has been recommitted generally to the committee on counties, since the Convention had it under consideration before; and this comes from them as their report. I would ask if this entire article is not now open to amendments, having been reported back by the committee? My impression is that the article having been recommitted to the committee and reported back, it is now open to amendment. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is not customary to receive motions or amendments that have already been acted upon by the body. The Chair finds by reference to the journal of the day named by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FERRIs,) tiat this amendment was moved in committee of the whole and lost. There has been no action by the Convention on that part of the proposition which is embraced in the substitute.offered by the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HUSTON.) The Chair will, therefore, rule the substitute to be in order. Mr. HUSTON. I wish to call the attention of the Convention to this point for a few moments. I consider it a matter of great importance. If my substitute is adopted, it will leave the provision of the Constitution, in reference to the removal of county seats, the same as it is in the Constitution of 1850. I might say here, that I do not know of any case under our State government, or under the United States government, where a matter is submitted to the people, that a twothirds vote is required. It is foreign to our institutions to require anything of that kind. WVe allow people to decide matters by a bare majority vote; matters of much more importance than the removal of a county seat.' All our governmental matters of much greater magnitude than the simple removal of a county seat, which only concerns the people of a single county, are acted .upon every day in our government, by a majority vote. So far as the stability of a county seat is concerned, I believe it is sufficient to require a two-thirds vote of the board of supervisors. I do not think the members of this Convention propose to incorporate into our Constitution a provision which will require a two-thirds vote of the people upon any matter submitted to them. I think if that was done in this case, it would work a great injustice in many counties. Now, to illustrate; take the county of Tuscola; the county seat there is situated where a large majority of the people do not want it, but perhaps a two-thirds vote could not be procured to remove it to some-other place. I assert that that is literally true in reference to the county I represent. The county seat is where a majority of the people of the county do not want it, and where they never did want it; still it is impossible to get a two-thirds vote to remove it from that point. Now, what is the position in which our county is placed, in reference to this matter? We have not yet expended a cent for county buildings. If we now build a court house and jail, where the county seat is at present located, we must build those buildings where a majority of the people of the county do not want them; else we must go without the buildings as we have done ever since the county was organized, some twenty years ago. I say it is not fair for this Convention and I believe the same will apply to the whole State as well as to Tuscola county, although the older counties have their buildings and will not suffer the same inconvenience-I say it is not fair for this Convention to say to a county,which has not yet put any money into county buildings, that the people when they are called upon to raise twenty-five or thirty thousand dollars, or whatever sum they see fit to raise for county buildings, shall not place those buildings where they want them placed. Now, in order to remove a county seat where a county has no county buildings, all you have to do is to load your records into a wagon and bundle them off to another town. It is a matter of no very great amount of' expense and of no inconvenience; it is soon done. But if the county seat happens to be where a bare one-third of the people can hold it, as it can be done under this provision of the article, then they can hold it there for all time to come, or at least so long as they can control one-third of the votes. I am informed that there are other counties situated as Tuscola is in regard to this matter. As long, therefore, as the votes of one4hird of the people can be controlled for the purpose, the people of those counties when they come to build county buildings, can be forced to build them at a p(oint where the majority of the people do not want the. county seat, or else not have any buildings at all. Now, I say that is not fair. My amendment proposes simply to leave this matter just as it is in the Constitution of 1850; to allow twothirds of the board of supervisors, to designate a point where the county seat shall be located, and then, in accordance with the spirit of our institutions, in accordance with the democratic rule under which we have acted in all past time, permit a majority of the electors to ratify the action of the board of supervisors. A board of su ,'328 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. . W ei4day, July 2, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDGS. 329 pervisors is a body, in regard to which this Convention can very well say what shall be its powers and duties. We can say that the board can act in a certain way, by a two-thirds, three-fourths, or a majority vote, as we please. But when we come to say that the people shall not do thus and so, unless by a two-thirds vote, we are assuming a power which does not properly belong to us. I claim that we have no right to restrict the people in reference to this matter. While this Convention can very well prescribe the duties and powers of boards of supervisors, we have no right to restrict the people in their votes upon any proposition submitted to them. We might, for instance, if we propose to submit to the people the question in regard to the prohibitory liquor clause of this Constitution, with just as much propriety say that it shall be adopted, only by a two-thirds vote. Now, no gentleman will endorse such a proposition as that. Suppose a proposition should come up here upon the question of extending the right of suffrage to colored people; we could with the same propriety say that it shall require a two-thirds vote of the people to be adopted. I take this position; that in all cases where a matter is submitted to the people, the true rule is to say that a majority vote shall be sufficient to carry it. It is not democratic to adopt any other principle. It strikes me that so far as the old counties are concerned, those counties which have their buildings already erected, this provision is sufficiently guarded, when we say that the county seat shall not be changed, except by a two-thirds vote of the board of supervisors, and a majority vote of the people. I do not believe that in any of the counties a two-thirds vote of the supervisors can be procured to remove the county seat, unless there is a great demand for the change among the people. Looking at the matter in that light, I believe the stability of these county seats sufficiently secured by having a provision in the form in which I have submitted it; not to require a two-thirds vote of the people, so that it will be almost impossible to remove a county seat-in any county. But, as I remarked, I do not wish to take up the time of this Convention in regard to this matter. I only wish to call the attention of this Convention to these facts, in order that we may act understandingly upon this subject. WVhen the vote comes to be taken, I will ask- that it be taken by yeas and nays. Mr. CONGER. I do not rise to dis cuss this question again. I find in the proceedings and debates, that the gen Vol. 2-No. 42. tleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HUsToN,) made exactly the same motion which he has now made here, and that it was argued then by many members on both sides, and that the gentleman himself submitted at that time the same argument that he has just now made. It was then argued that there should be a restriction upon the facility of changing or removing county seats, by requiring a larger vote of the people than a mere majority. The Convention accordingly modified this section so as to leave it to two-thirds of the people to change a county seat, when called upon by a majority of the board of supervisors to do so. It seemed to be supposed by the friends of the proposition, that this section as changed gave sufficient permanency to tre county seat, and was the most satisfactory way to arrive at that result. I hope, therefore, that this section will remain as changed by the Convention; I believe it-is fair and just. I believe that this section will satisfy my constituents, and the constituents of my colleagues. Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to say one word by way of explanation of the vote which I shall give. It will be recollected that during the discussion upon this subject, I stated that in committee I labored hard to retain this provision, which is simply the provision of the Constitution of 1850. The Convention by a fair majority decided upon the other course. Hence, I shall feel bound to vote against the proposition of the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HUSTON.) Mr. BURTCH. I wish to answer the argument of the gentleman from Tuscola (Mr. HUSTON) in reference to a majority having the right to do things. A majority has the right to do everything which is right; but no majority, no matter how large, has the right to do wrong. Let me suggest one idea; suppose a majority of the people of a county lived altogether on one side of the county. A large majority of the people might be in some city or village, and the majority of the people of the county might vote to locate the county seat in that city or village. If the gentleman lived at the other extreme of the county, would he consider it a matter of justice for the majority of the people to remove the county seat so far from him? It seems to meithat his own sense of right and justice would lead him to say that they should not be permitted to do so, even if they were the majority. The question was upon the substitute of Mr. HUSTON, for section nine of the article. Mr. HUSTON. I call for the yeas and nays on the substitute. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken upon the substitute, and it was not agreed to yeas 26, nays 51, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Alexander, Bills, Case, Daniells, Elliott, Estee, Ferris, D. Goodwin, Holmes, Howard, Huston, Ingalls, Lovell, Miller, Ninde, Norris, Pringle, Richmond, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Thompson, Tyler, P. D. Warner, W. E. Warner, F. C. Watkins and M. C. Watkins-26. NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Andrus, Birney, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Burtheb, Burtenshaw, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Crocker, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Farmer, Germain, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Hazen. Henderson, Hixson, Holt, Hull, Kenney, Lawrence, Leach, Lotbrop, Luce, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Morton, Musgrave, Parsons, Pratt, Rafter, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Utley, Van Riper, Walker, White, Willard, Winsor, Withey, Williams and Woodhouse-51. Mr. WOODHOUSE not answering when his name was called, Mr. BLACKMAN moved that he be excused from voting. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. WOODHOUSE then voted as above recorded. -Mr. MORTON not answering when his name was called, - -.. Mr. W. E. WARNER moved that Mr. MORTON be excused from voting. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. MORTON then voted as above recorded. No further amendment was offered to the article on counties. The article as amended was then ordered to a third reading, and referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, for correction and engrossment. PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTITION TO BE SEPARATELY SUBMITTED. Mr. SUTHERLAND. On the 16th of July, I offered a resolution in relation to submitting certain questions separately to the people. The resolution is as follows: Resolved, That the question of electing or appointing the judges of courts of general jurisdiction, of prohibiting or granting licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors, of extending or withholding the right of suffrage in respect to women and negroes, and of annual or biennial sessions of the Legislature, shall be separately submitted to the people; that to this end sections pro and con, upon those subjects, shall be settled by this Conven tion, and submitted as alternative, separately from the body of the Constitution. It seemed at that time to be prema ture to consider the resolution, and on motion of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGEE,) it was laid upon the table. It may be premature at this time to take it from the table, for the purpose of finally disposing of it. If a majority of the members of the Con vention should be of that opinion, it is perhaps better that it should still lie upon the table. But when the proper time comes, I shall desire the action of the Convention upon that resolution, DEBATES AND- PROCF,'F,,T)INGS. July - 24:,'1807. 329 :3 GoT~T(~L~Wdody and I shall have something to say upon the subject of adopting it. I now move that it be taken from the table, for the purpose of designating some time for its consideration. I would respectfully suggest Thursday of next week as the time -for which it should be made the special order. Mr. FARIMEER. I hope- this resolution will not be taken from the table-at this time. I considered that it was premature when it was offered; I consider that it is premature now. I think: we should first pass these articles, and the proper time for discussing the question of-submission to the people will be-when the whole question of submission comes before this Convention. We should not discuss it separately and by piece-meal, and decide before the articles are passed, whether we will submit tile Constitution separately or as a whole. I think it is right and proper that we should first pass upon the several articles. I hope the resolution will be allowed to remain where it is now, until we reach a further stage of our proceedings. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I think, if we postpone the consideration of this resolution, as suggested by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. FARMER,) there will be much labor of the Convention which will necessarily come to naught if the resolution is finally adopted. It is better that this question should be determined at an early day, in order that the provisions to be separately; submitted may be framed in such form as they must necessarily assume, to admtnit of such - separate submission to the people. WVhen the questions proposed to be separately submitted are passed upon by the Convention, the mode of submitting them must be considered; and there is no time so suit able for that as when the provisions themselves are before the Convention. *,. BILLS. If the proposition contained min the resolution was so far amended, that it would relate onlyto: the question of submitting these several' propositions, it would meet with my approval. But I think the resolu. tion, as it is now drawn, proposing that these several sections referred to, shall be taken from the articles in which they are now embraced, and considered along with the question as to the separate submission of them, is not what the Convention desire. We have already, in the legislative article, passed upon and considered, at least in the comnnittee of the whole, the question in regard- to prohibition. We have also passed upon,.-in that same articie, or considered to some extent, at least, the question of annual sessions. And in another article, we have considered, in committee of the whole, the question of suffage. The course which, it occurs to me, is the one which will facilitate the disposition of all these questions is this; that thiese Several provisions relating to the several subjects referred to in this resolution be matured in the places where- they are introduced; that we pass upon them in committee of the -whole and in Convention, and mature -these articles to meet the views of this ,Convention. Then we can take up the -question of separate submission as a distinct proposition, and fix upon some certain day for the discussion in relation to these several provisions. Take, for instance, the- provision in relation to suffrage; we can mature it in Convention, in the form we desire to have: it, provided it is to be sub: mitted: in any -way, either in.the Constitution, or by a separate submission. Take also the question of biernnial sessions. We can determine that, irrespective of the question whether it shall be submitted separately, or in the Constitution, and pass upon it and perfect it in its proper place where it should be, to be adopted either by a separate submission or in connection with thle Constitution itself. If this resolution could be so far amended as not to take from these several articles these several subjects, and fix on some day certain for the discussion and de termination of the question, as to whether these several subjects, or any one of-them, should be submitted sep arately, the resolution would meet with my approval. But I should hardly think it would be in accordance with the views of this Convention, I would not myself desire to take these several provisions friom the places in whichthey are properly situated, for the purpose of being considered in this way. Mr. PRINGLE. I shall vote to take this resolution from the table; then I shadl propose myself, if no one else maages the motion, to refer this resolu tion to the committee on the schedule, where, in my judgment, the considera tion of this matter properly belongs. The schedule of the Constitution I imagine to be the proper place for pro viding for the manner and time of sub mitting the Constitution, dr any part of it, to the vote of the people. The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. SUTHERLAND to take the resolution from the table; and upon a division, ayes 34, noes, 41, it was not agreed to. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Mr. MtILES offered the following resolution, which was agreed to:: Resolved, That the committee on arrange. ment and phraseology be requested to take into consideration the propriety of arranging the articles entitled "Counties," "Townships," and "Cities and Villages," into one article entitled "Municipal Corporations." DEBATES OF NEWV YORE CONVENTION. Mr. LOVELL. A day or two since a resolution was adopted by the Convention, that the members be divided off into sections of eleven, and that each section be supplied with, and have the control of, one copy of the debates and proceedings which are regularly sent to us from the New York Convention. I am unable to find out to which eleven I belong. Having, myself, introduced the resolution originally, by which we obtained the exchange, I have been laboring diligently, but have been unable to find out to which eleven I belong, and where I must look for the -copy of the debates to which I am entitled. I do not see how the thing can be managed, unless we put it under the control of the officers of the Convention. I, therefore, move that the Sergeant-at-Arms of this Convention, be instructed to divide of-f the Convention into sectionkof eleven, and to take charge of these documents as they are received, I suppose the fact is, that one-half of these copies of debates are not within this building at the present time. Mr. CONGER; I wish to state for the benefit of gentlemen, who are not so enterprising, perhaps, as they might be, that the debates have been distrib uted to our section of eleven, and tbey are all looking very nicely. Tklat has been done simply by the request of one of the members. The name and num ber of the section as e all written upon it, and it is arranged in very good or der. If the gentleman will come over this way, we will iustruct him how to acquire these things. MIr. LOVELL. The fact in regard to the matter is, that the resolution under which we made this exchange, required that these debates should be kept in the library. But the librarian has, without authority, allowed them to be taken away, and whether we can ever recover them or not, I do not know. There is a section of eleven in this hall who have got one copy, and perhaps they can courteously own up to several more, they are so very enterprising. I do not know how that 'may- be. Mr. MILES. I think the gentleman put the wrong construction on the word "courteously." The PRESDENT pro tempore. The gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOv~ELL,) will reduce his motion to writing, and send it to the Chair. Mr. LOVELL. I will not detain the Convention now, but will ask permis sion to introduce it hereafter. 330 co 1, CONVENTION. Wednesda -- Y) July 21, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 331 THIRD RE&DING OF ARTICLES. The PRESIDENT pro teipore. The next business in order is the third reading of articles. Mr. LUCE. I move that that order of business be passed over for the present. Mr. PRTINGLE. We havejust passed a resolution directing the committee on arrangement and phraseology, to consider certain articles which we have passed, with a view to combining them all into one article. I, therefore, move that such articles as are now upon the order of third reading, be laid upon the table, so as not to take up the time of the Convention every day by considering'the order of articles on third reading. The motion of Mr. PRINGLE was agreed to. CITIES AND VILLAGES. The Convention then resumed the consideration of unfinished business, being the article entitled "Cities and Villages," which had been considered in committee of the whole, and reported to the Convention with an amendment. MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. The PRESIDENTpro temnpore. The pending question is upon agreeing to the substitute reported by the committee of the whole, for section two of the article entitled "Cities and Villages." That section is as follows: " Judicial officers of cities and villages shall be elected, and all other officers shall be elected or appointed at such time and in such manner, as the Legislature may direct." The substitute reported from the committee of the wholes is as follows: "Mayors and members of the common council in cities, and presidents and boards of trustees in villages, shall be elected by electors thereof, at large or in their proper wards or districts, as shall be provided by law; all other municipal officers or boards in whom is vested any portion of municipal authority, shall be elected as aforesaid, or appointed by the mayor or common council, in such manner as shall be provided by law." Mr. MILES. I move the following as a substitute for the amendment reported from the committee of the whole. "The mayor and aldermen of cities, and the president and trustees of villages, shall be elected; and all other officers, shall be elected or appointed at such time, and in such manner as the Legislature may direct." Mr. LOTHROP. Appointed by whom? - Mr. MILES. As the Legislature may direct. Mr. HcCLELLAND. This substi tute changes entirely the features of the amendment which I proposed in committeee of the whole, and leaves the matter to the Legislature. I sup pose the gentleman intends that the cities and villages of the State of Mich igav shall be hereafter controlled by the Legislature, as thel have been heretofore. The object of the amendment proposed by me yesterday was to prevent that. Although the Legislature of the State is empowered, byvthe amendment I offered, to prescribeby law how these officers shall be elected or appointed, yet, after that is done, it submits the whole matter to the choice of the people. That choice ought to be regarded. I call upon the gentlemen of this Convention, who have from the commencement of this session, up to the present time, advocated the doctrine that the people, and the people alone, were to control their own matters, to stand by my amendment. We think that any system different from the one proposed by the amendment adopted yesterday, would lead to difficulties and embarrassments. We now are in the midst of those difficulties and embarrassments:in the city which several of us represent here. Those difficulties and embarrassments are not confined to our city, but they have arisen in other cities where al similar attempt has been made. ]M-y impression is that wherever this power is confided to the Legislature, and is exercised by the Legislature, these difficulties and conflicts will always occur. In the Convention of New York, now in session, where the different counties are represented by some of their ablest men, this very question is giving them a great deal of trouble and difficulty. I apprehend that if they were rid -of that difficulty now, in the city of New York, they never would permit it again to occur. The jurisdiction of the dif ferent bodies there, are constantly com ing in conflict with each other; and we very well know that thus far the-resilts have been very disastrous. We-know from experience that this is the case in our city. We want to rid ourselves of it in some way if possible. We care not what provision the Legislature may make, if they will only confide it to the pegple, so that we will have a fair vote upon any question of the kind; or if they will confide, as I said yesterday, the whole power to the mayor and aldermen. Unless you do confide that power to as few as possi ble, so as to confine the responsibility and hot divide it up as it usually is, you cannot have that government in the city which is most desirable and salutary. I hope, therefore, that the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Hr. MILES) will not prevail. We care nothing about this in a politi cal point of view. We do-not view it in its political aspect, except so far as the interests of the whole people of the city of Detroit, without regard to party, are concerned; It is with no partisan spirit that we come forward here and ask this at the hands of the Conventiot. Our only motive is to preserve, if we possibly can, good order, and to promote as far as possible the happiness and prosperity of the people. Mr. PRINGLE. We owe it to ourselves and to the people of the State, to make such provisions in our Constitution, that there shall be certainly order and good government in all-parts of the State, during all future time. I speak of this as our bounden duty; I speak of it:in view of that class of legislation which has been found necessary in almost all States and countries, where there arelarge cities. It has been found necessary.that there should be some power outside of'these cities in our republic, generally in the Legislature of the State, to provide for their metropolitan police system. I live my self in one of the little cities of this State; it is now about as large as De-troit was twenty years ago. We expect it will be two, three, or five .times as large as it is now. When the time shall come, if it ever shall come, when we cannot control those - elements which make cities unsafe for people to reside in, or visit, or pass through, then it will be time for the Legislature of the State to do, as the Legislature of New York :has done, in regard to the city of New York, and as Illinois has done in re gard to Chicago, and as has been done in regard to all the considerable cities of the country, where such difficulties have occurred. It will be necessary for the Legislature to take the case in hand, and devise some police system, bywhich good order and good gov ernment can be secured. In the next twenty-five years, or fifty years, it is likely that there will be half a dozen or more cities in Michigan, in which it is possible such a system may be needed. Wheth er it is needed now in the city of De troit, I will not argue, except to say that heretofore the Legislature of this State, acting without any political pur pose, so far as I have been able to see their purpose, without any political bias, so far as I have been able to ap prehend the motives with which they have acted, but with a view alone to the order and good government of the citv of Detroit, have passed what is known as the metropolitan police bill of that city. I have the personal assurance of a greatmany persons: residing in that city, that that police systemworks well, and that such good order and govern ment have been there as there neverwere before, of was likely to be,, while these Jmatters were entrusted to their honors ithe:mayor and aldermen of that city. While I would go, if I wan ~ mere il/ 33 COSIUI-LCNV~I ~ ~ dedy ber of the Legislature, as far as I thought I might safely go, in leaving this matter to local organizations, yet I would say, that at all hazards order and good government must be secured, not only with reference to the interests of those cities, but with reference to the interests of the people in the State, who go to those cities, or through them, for the purpose of transacting their business. I shall not vote here for an amend ment which would be as plain and di rect a censure as it is possible for us to cast upon several previous Legislatures, who have had this matter under consideration, and who, by very large majorities, upon full examination, adopted the system now in force in the city of Detroit. I do'not think there is occa sion now to apply this system to any other cities in the State. I will not argue the question, whether it is neces sary to have it apply to the city of Detroit; I will merely say that the Legislatures who have investigated the matter, have deemed it proper to make the application there of the rule which is prevalent throughout the several States, and in other countries, with reference to large cities. To adopt the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, would be to cast-a censure upon the Legislature, and to put it beyond their power to adopt systems which may be necessary at some future time in some of our larger towns, in order to secure their good government. In regard to the amendment offered by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MiEs,) it seems to me to be exactly right; that the mayor and aldermen of cities and the president and trustees of villages shall be elected by the people, and all the other officers elected, or appointed as the Legislature may direct. This seems to me to be exactly right; it is in accordance with the usage of this and other countries, from the time municipalities grew up, and were the first homes of liberty on the continent of Eupope, down to the present time. It has been the rule of municipal governments, that these officers should be for the most part elected by the people, and that subordinate officers should be elected or appointed, as might be provided in the charters of the cities, or as usage might indicate. It may be necessary for police purposes sometimes that the police system adopted should embrace more than the limits of a single city. I believe that is the case with reference to the metropolitan system of New York city; it includes the city of Brooklyn, and several other smaller cities in the immediate neighborhood of New York. So it may be in our own State. I men tion this for the purpose of showing that for the great ends of government, all this matter should be left subject to the control of the Legislature, when ever in their judgment a case shall arise for the exercise of the power. Mr. LOTHROP. We do not like very well to have municipal government, and all self-government taken away from us, under the specious and sounding pretext of the cause of general good government. If this Convention proposes that the community in which we live shall be governed at the city of Lansing, very well. If it proposes that we shall govern ourselves, and receive the means of governing ourselves, as the other communities of the State are governed, then we demand that we shall be guaranteed those rights here in this Constitution. The gentlemen of this Convention, in organizing other towns, have been specially careful in preventing the interference of the Legislature in regard to those towns; so careful that we have named here in the Constitution all the small officers of the township, and so prepared the Constitution in that regard, that all future Legislatures cannot reorganize the townships. Now, we claim for the city of Detroit the same privilege. We, do not ask for the same minute organization; but we claim the same privilege in this, that we shall be enabled to govern ourselves, and shall not be governed by some power outside of the city. That is the whole question. The pretext is that we are not able to govern ourselves. If that is true, then I demand at once that all the forms of self-government shall be withdrawn from us, and that we shall be put under a guardianship that will vindicate that great cause of good government in behalf of the State, that the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRIGLE,) speaks of. It will be idle for me, it will be idle for him, it will be idle for any vaan in this Convention, to talk about this matter in this regard, except as it shall be aimed at the community in which I live. My friend from the city of Jackson will not be willing to surrender the administration and the liberties of that city to the Legislature of Michigan. No other member, from any other city in this State, would permit the administration of his city to be surrendered, or would be willing that it shall be surrendered, to the control of the Legislature of the State of Michigan. He will demand and rightfully demand for himself, and for his constituents, the same measure of self government that is maintained for all the other municipalities of the State. We make the same demand for the city of Detroit. We affirm that we are just as competent to govern ourselves, being clothed with the means (as any other community in the State. If it be not so, then, as I have said before, it is all mockery to organize our large cities with the form of self government. I maintain that the difficulty on this subject arises from the departure from the proper forms of that organization I am well aware that these departures have taken place largely in the State of New York, and that the city of New York to-day has nothing but the mere form of municipal self-government. It is governed in the main by organizations imposed upon it, which might just as well'be imposed uponh it by the Congress of the United States as by the Legislature at Albany. That system has been commenced elsewhere, and it is to go on. Now, I put the question to this Convention, deliberately do you propose that we, in the city of Detroit, shall be governed by boards, or do you propose that we shall be governed after the form of municipal organizations, namely, by our own executive and legislature, embodied in a mayor and common council elected by the people, and responsible to them for good government? Why are we not governedawell-now? So far as the imposition of boards upon us, I beg leave to say that we are now no better governed in that regard than we were formerly. I have lived in the city of Detroit since it had a population of only ten thousand. My office and place of business has been at a considerable distance from my residence; I have been accustomed to traverse that city day in and day out, at all hours of the day and night, and I aver that a more peaceable, quiet and orderly city did not exist in the State, at the time the metropolitan police system was imposed upon us. We had between forty and fifty thousand population. The sole officer we had in the city to control the police organization, was the same officer you have in any municipal township, the constable. I wish to say that the order of the city in that regard was remarkable. I repeat again, I have traversed the streets of that city, at all hours of the night, and I have never encountered the slightest difficulty; I have never encountered an insult, much less an assault. We organized a police organization in that city, not because there was disorder in the city, for there was not; but because it was attaining those dimensions when it was thought expedient, as a matter of prevention, that the police should be organized. It took the form of organization under a board. Why was it so, rather than CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. -W'ednesday-, 332 July~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ 21:8b EA]~AU)POED~S 3 under the control of the mayor and council? Were not they just as competent as a board? I know the matter of which I speak; I know they were just as competent. And, I know still further that the sole ground of that organization under a board was that love of power which will possess individuals, who thought that the best means of attaining that power. I have no fault to find with the police organization in the city of Detroit; it is in the hands of very respectable men, who have handled it very well. It is true, it has cost great expenditures, which have already reached $70,000, or about that amount. But that is not the point; what is the condition of our municipal organization now? First, the whole matter of the water works is taken from the control of the municipality; the whole matter of sewers is taken from the co~ntrol of the municipality; the whole matter of paving is taken from the control of the municipality; and finally the whole of the fire department has been taken from the control of the municipality. Will any one tell me what is left? We are to-day governed, not by our own will, but by about fifteen or twenty very respectable gentlemen, whom we are not permitted to choose, or even to nominate; they are appointed here at Lansing. Why is this? Are we not competent to govern ourselves? Clothe us with the power. I agree without the least hesitation that there is a defect and difficulty in our organization, which should be, and will be, remedied. A long time ago we adopted the form of electing all the officers of the town, even the smallest and most unimportant officer in the city. The mayor and common council have little or no control over them. They are not responsible to the mayor and common council; they are responsible directly to the people. But in a large place like Detroit, this responsibility becomes so diffused that it ceases to be effective at all. The only practical method of governing cities-I suppose any gentleman who has examined the matter understands it, and it is now beginning to be well understood in New York, as elsewhere the only method of governing cities with the retention'of any of the aspects of popular control, is to elect the mayor and council by the people, and clothe those officers with power to govern the city, and let the people hold them responsible. I contend that as responsible men can be elected for mayor and council, as can be elected for any other body. And let them appoint such other officers as may be necessary, and let them be responsible to the people for the exercise of that power. Either this has to be done or the whole matter of popular government in cities must be abandoned, and then we may be governed by boards, or some other authority. If we must be govened by some other power, I prefer not to be governed by boards. I prefer to be governed by a proconsul, to be responsible to the Legislature. I do not want these irresponsible boards, this municipal government, parceled out into a little portion here, and a little portion there, and another portion somewhere else, each one running his office irrespective and independent of the others; though their duties from the nature of things, are so minutely and indirectly combined, that they must be administered as a whole, if administered effectively at all. I say, therefore, instead of sending us these boards, and parceling out our-city government, and administerting it in portions, each independent, of the other, send us some one strong arm, that will administer it with power, effect, unity and responsibility. Now, let me repeat; my own idea of effective government in a large city is this; we must come to it, and they will come to it in New York, because I believe there is no worse governed city on'the face of the earth than New York is. It is governed almost entirely by boards; the mayor and common council there have no authority, or at best, but a very limited authority. They are not responsible directly to the people. Those boards which are multiplied over them, and which are eating up their substance, are giving them no good government at all, and can give them no good government. It is just so with us; we are not large enough yet-to be conspicuous for our vices, and gentemen will not allow us to be conspicuous for our virtuies, large or small. But it is perfectly certain that we are not a well governed city, while the greater part of our powers are already taken from us, and parceled out among different authorities. We have not asked by the amendment we have offered here, that these boards shall be ab6lished by the action of the Convention, or that such boards shall be prohibited. We have only asked that, if boards are to be instituted in the city of Detroit, they shall be elected by the people, or, as in my judgment would be proper, be appointed by the mayor and council. My idea of the true democratic system of government for a city, as I have already said, is this: a mayor as the chief executive officer of the city, and a common council as the legislative power of the city, should be elected directly by the people. They should be responsible to the people; and then they should be clothed with power to make a good government. There cannot be a good government without pdwer. That power must be vested somewhere, and it must be associated and connected with responsibility. Now, I want the man elected mayor of the city of Detroit to be responsible to me and to my fellow citizens. I want the men whom we send to the common council to be responsible to us. I do not want to be looking for the city commissioner here, the constable there, and some other officer somewhere else. I want to be able to say to that mayor and common council —" We have clothed you with power, and we demand of you the exercise of that power for the weal of the city; and if you do not so exercise it, we will hold you to the responsibility we hold other officers to, namely: we will remove you." I would much prefer to have a bad man in the chair of the mayor of the city of Detroit, clothed with power to appoint other officers, and held responsible for the exercise of that power-I would infinitely prefer him to a good man there, whose hands were tied, and who was not clothed with authority, or bound by responsibility. The chances would be ten to one, that in the first place the bad man would make a good officer, while in the last case the good man cannot fail to make a bad officer. I wish this Convention to face this matter squarely. Do you intend to deprive us of municipal self-government? Do you intend to permit boards to be created over us, and to have power vested in those boards by an authority sitting here at Lansing? We are willing'to give our pledges that we will govern the city of Detroit as well as any city in the State is governed, if you will only give us the power to do so. But if you take from us the power to do so, then we are no longer responsible for the good government of the city of Detroit. I am to-day no more responsible for the government of Detroit than is a man living in the farthest part of this peninsula; I have no in fluence in its control. For this purpose we presented this amendment here yesterday. We say at once that we presented it in behalf of the city of Detroit. -There is no other place in the State where the Legislature has assumed to intervene and take away self-govern ment, as it is done in Detroit. If gentlemen of this Convention choose to make our amendment appli cable only to the city of Detroit, we have no objection. Make it applicable to us, if you do not want it to apply to the rest of the State. But we offer it in this form, bhs~use there is no pre N DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 333 July 21, 1867. 'k. - - —,.. I. ~. " I. sd... - tence that you propose to withdraw the power of self-government from any other place than Detroit. I suppose some of the gentlemen here have read the criticisms that have appeared in the New York Evening Post upon the government of the city of New York; that is a republican newspaper. Therefore, if any gentlemen in this Convention have thought we were speaking in behalf of the political views which we, individually, entertain, I wish to say to them that a republican newspaper in the city of New York, perhaps the most radical newspaper there, has given more attention to this matter than any other paper that I know of. It refers to the withdrawal from the mayor and council of the city of New York of their entire power, and the vesting of it' in boards, as the great evil under which they labor in New York. This matter of withdrawing these powers from the proper municipal authorities-in the city of New York, has been going on for a long number of years. Will any gentleman tell me, that the government of the city of New York is now any better than it was before?, Sir, the outcry there in behalf of a better government, is growing louder and louder. Why is it? Simply because the scheme adopted there is breaking down, as it will everywhere. You must take one direction or the other; either withdraw from us entirely our municipal selfgovernment, or else give it to us in such a form that it cannot be withdrawn, and hold us responsible for it. Now, if there is any disturbance min the city of Detroit, if there is any bad government there, any failure in the execution of the laws, however lamentable the spectacle may be to the whole State, however grievous it may be as a public.example, let gentlemen of this Convention remember that we who live there must experience the larger part of the evil; that what is but a sentimental affliction elsewhere, is to us a positive grievance and burden. We are willing-to assume the responsibility; give us the power to organize our city government in proper shape, clothe our executive officers with power-to execute the laws, our common council.with power to create laws for our govern ment, and we will be responsible for the good government of the city of Detroit. But if, on the other hand, yQu are not going so to clothe us with power, then I entreat you relieve us at once from the mockery of a city gov ernment, and take to yourselves the control of this matter, and we will live under it as best we may. Do not give us the mere form, the mere show of city government, while yourwithdraw from us all the power that properly belongs to a city government. You have taken from us the control of our water works, of our sewers, of our police. Gentlemen do not understand here, I dare say, how great an interest the control of the sewers is to us. If you look under the city, and see running parallel with our streets, and crossing in every direction, a system of subterranean streets, those who know about the matter can understand the condition we are in, when this is taken from us entirely, and there is no power min our government to regulate the. laying out of streets, and the management of the sewers. Then you take from us the entire control of the police of the:city, so that an ordinary civil officer is -not permitted to serve certain processes in the: city-; I mean a city process of any kind. The whole control of this is taken from us, and invested in. a board not responsible to any living soul in that city. Then the fire department of the city is taken from us, and.placed under the control of a board. I undertake to say that the fire department in no city was ever better admin-stered than the fire department of the pity of Detroit before this change. Under the control of the mayor and comrmon council, the fire departments of that city had been transferred entirely -from a hand department to a most efficient and valuable steam department; a department so entirely efficient, that an ordinary fire in that city attracted no more of individual attention -than an ordinary and every day occurrence upon its streets. There was entire confidence that the'fire department would be properly administered; and whenever a fire occurred the people generally did not leave their ordinary avocations to see about it. Yet when -this was the case, when there was entire satisfaction in regard tothat matter, by a gratuitous and vol~ untary act of the Legislature of Michigan, a board was-constituted, of very respectable men it is true, to:take entire charge of this matter. Mnd thus from step to -step the work has gone on, until here at Lansing you exercise the power to govern the cityof Detroit through boards, that are responsible to no living one in the world. I say that a board appointed in Lansing by the Legislature, on the nomination of the Governor, has no responsibility whatever. Hitherto the Legislature has been in session biennially; hereafter it may be -in -session annually. Butdfor all that, while:the Legislature sits here, this operation is carried on elsewhere. When a complaint is made, the-answer is easily given, that it is partisan, and interested, or. something else, and the child of your crea tion and adoption, will pmain the child of your protection. 1 Now I ask you to be consistent. If youtake from us municipal self-government, then take it from the whole State and centralize your government at once at Lansing, and let it go forth to the world that the cause of good government requires the centralization of all power here at Lansing. But no; gentlemen will not tolerate that for a moment. We pray you, so long as we are competent, able, and willinig, to manage the government of the city of Detroit for ourselves, concede it to our hands. This is emphatically a day of guarantees; no gentlemen are more zealous and more wakeful than the most of these who hear me, in the matter of demanding guarantees in this broad republic. Give us some guarantees-such as you claim for yourselves; give-them to us in Detroit; we think we are entitled to them; we think we can claim them as a right, but —we will even accept them-as a boon. Mr. PARSONS. I do not rise for the purpose of answering the honorable gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROr,) or for the purp'ose of making any extended remarks; my own health will not permit of it. But having occupied a seat in the Legislature, and having heard these remarks of the honorable gentleman from Wayne reiterated in substance in the Legislature last winter, I have listened to them and yielded to them all the force they ought to have. But I have listened to arguments on the opposite side of the qLxestion from gentlemen claiming to represent a portion of the city..of Detroit. While I have heard the other gentlemen, to whom I have referred, claiming in substance precisely what is claimed by the honorable gentleman from Wayne, I have heard such men as Dr. Spence of Detroit, Edward C. Walker of Detroit, William Warner of Detroit, who, by the- by, is one of the ablest legislators in the State, take the position that the city of Detroit was not capable and competent to control these matters for the best interests of the city of Detroit, but that it was a: duty which the Legislature owed to that city, to take these matters under its care, and under its protection. I have heard these men argue long and'loud, upon the floor of. the House of Representatives, for the purpose of inducing members of the Legislature to go with them in tak'g these questions away from the -city of Detroit, and placing them under the power and control of boards that were independent of the rabble of Detroit as they claimed. It was claimed :by such men as William Warner, and E. C, Walker, of Detroit, who have cc I. CONSTITUTIONAL CO.NVENTION. 334 ,Wednesday DEBRATES AND PROCEEDINGS. cupied seats in the Legislature herefor years past, that it was for the best interests of that city, that the Legislature should have that power and control, which the honorable gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHEOP,) and the Hon. Thomas D. Hawley, last winter opposed the exercise of by the Legislature. I believe that those gentleman, if they were here to-day, would talk precisely as they did last winter. I believe that the voice. of Mr. William Warner would be raised here in opposition to the argument of the honorable gentleman who has just taken his seat. I feel as though it were the duty of this Convention to listen to the arguments which have heretofore been made in the'Legislature, in support of the positions taken by those men, who have so ably represented the city of Detroit. It was claimed that in a financial point of view, it was for the interest of the city that this should be done. Not only did the class of men of whom I have spoken, petition the Legislature in this respect, but the Legislature was petitioned by men occupying a different position in politics from those whom I have mentioned. All classes of business men of Detroit, took the position that it was for the interest of the city of Detroit, that the Legislature should step forward and act in the premises. I saw at once the object which the honorable gentleman from Wayne (Mr. MCCLELLAND) had in view, when he introduced the amendment which was adopted in committee of the whole yesterday. I was surprised, I was astonished, that such a proposition as that ever passed the committee of the whole. It surprised me that the members of this committee- did not see at a glance where they were being led by the honorable gentleman. I do not blame him for endeavoring to get such a provision as that. incorporated into the Constitution. He may go home and have a good supper at the expense ofv his friends there in Detroit, or almost anything else he desires, for getting such a provision as that incor porated in the Constitution. There is nothing his friends would not do for him there,' to reward him for such eminent' services. But, I believe that such men as William Warner, and those of that class, would call upon this Convention not to take such a course. I believe that the men inDe troit who represent the views and sen timents of the majority of this Con vention, would call upon this Conven tion to pause before it adopted as its final action such a provision as that:of fered by the gentleman from WVayne, I] sincerely hope and trust, now that the eyes of this Convention are: opened, no such provision as that will be incorporated in the Constitution; but that the amendment proposed by the honorable gentleman from St. Clair (MAr. MILEs) will be adopted by a large majority. Mr. MoCLELLAND. My inpression is that the principle laid down by the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. PARsONs,) is wrong. I do not think any member of this Convention would be justified in asking this Convention to do what he thought was not right. If we are not perfectly persuaded in. our own minds that what we ask for is proper, I do not believe it would be honest in us to ask it of this Convention. But we are'satisfied that the course we desire this Convention to pursue is that which would best subserve the interests of the people of the city of Detroit. Therefore we ask it, not that it would redound to our individual credit there, not that we may be feasted when we return there, pot that we may even be complimented, and certainly not that it would increase. our popularity in the city of Detroit. I do not believe I have any desire of that kind, for I-think all those desires have passed from me long age. But I do desire to impress upon the minds of the'members of this Conven tion one of the cardinal principles of our government; that it must be sus tained by the intelligence and the good will of the people. You must sustain that principle in the small communities as well as in the great communities, that constitute this government. Abroad they say that the experiment of self government must be abandoned; that it has been tested in this country and found to be a failure. Take the prin ciple for which the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. PARSONS,) contends, and extend it a little further than the city of Detroit, and you will realize the very sentiments which are now enter tained in Europe in regard to us. What do they say? They point to the city of New York, because they know all and everything connected with it far better than they do our whole country. They point to the city of New York and say that it is evident that this sys tem of self-government has failed, after ; having been fully tested. What eviL dence have they of that? The evidence that has been given to them by the Legislature of the State of New York. The Legislature of the State of New York say in so many words that the people of the city of New,York cannot - govern themselves; that they are in capable of self-government. If the , people in the cities of this country are [ not capable of self-government, what must become of this nation when the . population of it i~ ten times as dense as it is at present? I appeal to the gentlemen of this Convention who have one single solitary democratic principle remaining in them-I appeal to them to go back again to the cardinal principles that prevailed when our institutions were first founded. Everything then was based upon self-government. That is all we ask; that is all we claim; that is all that we demand at youry hands. Now, one or two words in regard to the action of the Legislature. - I have had great respect for the legislative bodies of this State; I believe that great injustice has been done to many of them. I do not think that they have been corrupt, in the sense in which that expression has generally been understood. But we must remember that there are divers ways in which members of a legislative body can be approached. You do not. approach them merely through the pock et; you approach them sometimes through the stomach, sometimes through their ambition, sometimes through their virtues. There are athou sand ways in which to approach them, without bribery or corruption, as it is generally understood in common par lance. What did the Legislature do? They endeavored to impose upon us all that my colleague (]M[r. LOTHERP) has described. They failed in part. Why? Because you had a Governor of such determination, and of such integrity, that he could not be persuaded to sign the bill. That is the only reason why the bill failed. Why did these gentle men, for whom I have great respect why did they advocate these things? n all probability for the very reason that has been assigned by us; you have given us a government there that we do not like, that we do not approve. As has been well said here, every officer is elective, and it is impossible for the mayor or the council to control these officers. Now, if you do not di vide, if you do not distribute these re sponsibilities, if you confide them to a few, if you confine it to three or four officers, I will guarantee that the gov ernment of the city of Detroit will be exemplary in every respect. But so lon/g as there is no responsibility rest ing upon Any one, or half a dozen in the city of Detroit, you may rely upon it, it will be like every other city, or large population, which is under the control, to a certain extent, of those ' who are directly interested in main taing their own power. I do not understand the argument ; of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) that this is a reflection on the Legislature. Has not he himself advocated upon this floor restrictions upon the Legislature, even in regard , -July 24, 1867.. 335 336 COSIUTOA COY-I~ Wend to his favorite projects of railroads? Is not that a reflection upon the action of the Legislature, as much as this is such a reflection? For what purpose are we convened here? Is it not one of our duties to restrain the Legislature from doing wrong, not to give them too much power, but to entrust that power where it should belong, to a great extent, to the people of the State? Now, I apprehend that we ask for nothing that is wrong. I say to the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. PARSONS,) when he brings forward such names as Mr. Walker, Mr. Warner and others, there are very many of them, I believe that among the rest, if'you give us such a government as we ask for, they would acquiesce in it at once, and say that they would have nothing more to do with these boards. One of the best men in the city of Detroit, (I do not believe there is a better man in the State of Michigan,) John Owen, is opposed to this radically. Why? Because he sees it is oppression, because he feels it, and he knows its bad consequences. Another distinguished politician of that party, George Jerome, ask him what he thinks about this amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILES,) and he will say just exactly as we say to you; it never will answer politically or morally. I could mention hundreds of the opposite party who will say the same thing. In point of fact, take the city of Detroit and give us such a charter as we should have, and there will be a perfect union there among the people of all parties, sects anid denominations, with the exception, perhaps, of a very few restless men who are determined to make everything they possibly can out of bad government. But, sir, we intended by this movement no reflection upon the Legislature; I intended none, nor did any of us. All we ask is to place us on an equality with your townships, villages and cities elsewhere. If you will do that, you will go to the extent we ask. I ask you, Mr. President, (Mr. P. D. WANER in the chair,) I understand you live in a village in Oakland county; what would you say, if the LIegislature attempted to impose a government on your village? What w6uld any of the gentlemen say, if the attempt was made by the Legislature of the State to impose a government upon their townships and communities, to interfere with their municipal regulations in any respect whatever? Did you ever know any body of that kind that was as competent to make appointments for a distant people as that people themselves were, who were on the spot, and knew all about the circumstances, and about the men who were candidates for those offices? Even the Governor of the State makes mistakes very often. Why? Because improper representations are made to him. If he could go to the place, and ask the people themselves about it, one-half the appointments he makes would be different from what they now are. But he is not to blame for that, as he appoints according to the representations of a large majority of those who ask him about th3 appointments. I did not intend to participate in this debate; I did not desire to consume the time of this Convention. All I ask is that the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. MILEs) will be voted down. Mr. DANIELLS. I would ask the gentleman who administers their liquor law there in Detroit? Mr. McCLELLAND. The police commissioners administer that law, and I say to the gentleman that it is not well administered. It is not their fault, for it cannot be. Mr. MORTON. The Detroit police bill has been mentioned during this discussion. It is well known to the Chair that this matter came up in the Legislature of 1865. What are the facts in regard to it? It was admitted on all hands that wrongs existed in Detroit, as well as in all other towns subject to law, by which the law was occasionally violated. When the committee from Detroit appeared here, the plan was opposed as an interference unjust and unbecoming a self-governing people. That committee remained here a long time, and by appeals to parties and prejudices, by the whip and spur of party, men who did not like that Detroit police bill finally voted for it as a party measure. That is the truth about it. That committee which came here, instead of asking the Legislature to give more power to the authorities of Detroit, that they might have a better government. of,the city if necessary -for it has never been more poorly governed than any other town in the State, according to the press; the people are just as liable to influences there as any other people of the State-this committee, instead of asking for more power for the city authorities, got through this Detroit police bill, by.which the State unjustly interferes with the local administration there. I thought then, and I think no4W, that all reforms in municipal governments, whether of large or small towns, must come from the people themselves, in order to be good and salutary. When the people of, Detroit see the [n'ecessity for reforms they will have it just as readily as in the smaller towns of the State. It is unjust for the Legislature of Michigan, not knowing anything about their local government, to interfere and appoint men over them who cannot make such reforms as are required. If this succeeds in that city, it is establishing a bad precedent, and it will be followed everywhere that the majority of the Legislature may dictate. I have a confidence in the power of the people to govern themselves, where they are allowed to regulate their own affairs. But I have no confidence in a majority of bigoted men, urged on by selfish and partisan considerations to trample on the rights of our people against all the theory of our government. Now, I ask in all conscience, do the people of this State, either in Convention or in the Legislature, think that Detroit is so much worse than other towns that they must necessarily interfere there? I have been there almost every year of my life, almost every week, at all hours of the day and night; and I have never been any more molested there than I have been in any other township or city in the State of Michigan. When people cast aspersions on the people of Detroit, they might just as well cast aspersions on the entire State. You need not go to. large cities to find scoundrels and rogues, and thieves and robbers; they are scattered all over the State. The more we trample upon popular rights, the more we will find crimes of allkinds increase, not only in the city but in the country. If it is right for the Legislature of Michigan to govern a place they know but little about, whose wants they do not understand, and in fact that they do not care about, so that they can carry out what they assume to be a necessary party measure, then it is right to interfere in every town in the State, and establish a precedent which the majority in power will one day very much regret, unless they return to some confidence in self government, and become willing to allow men to live and enjoy liberty, instead of being under a despostism. Mr. FARMER. I rise not to discuss this question, but merely to call the attention of gentlemen of this Convention to a few facts. The appeal to our feelings to trust the people is all very well. If we examine the amendment proposed by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MTT,ES,) we will find that the mayors and aldermen of cities, and the presidents and trustees of villages are to be elected, and all other officers are to be appointed, as the Legislature may directs Now, we might be allowed to infer from the argument, that the s e e e t e r e f s f t Weduesda -Y) - 336 CONSTITUTIONAT, CONV'PWTION. 1. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. Legislature are to appoint these officers. I answer that they are only to direct the manner in which they shall be appointed. Mr. LOTHROP. I would ask the gentleman if he does not suppose that that permits the Legislature to do just what they have already done, to confer upon the boards appointed by themselves and the Governor the whole power of the city? Mr. FARMER. I admit it leaves the whole question with the Legislature, who are the direct representatives of the people, to define how these officers shall be appointed, whether by themselves, or by the mayor and common council, as the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. MCCLELLAND) provides for substantially, in the amendment which was adopted by the committee of the whole. Now, I prefer to leave it to the direct representatives of the people, to the Legislature of the State, to define in what manner this shall be done, rather than to say specifically that the mayor and council of a city shall make these appointments. 'Mr. LOTHROP. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. FARMER. Certainly. Mr. LOTHROP. Had I moved to vest in the Legislature of the State of Michigan the authority to appoint township officers in the township where the gentleman resides, would he have voted for it? Mr. FARMER. I do not consider that question very pertinent. Mr. LOTHROP. No, sir; rather impertinent. Mr..UTLEY. I would not have said a word, had I not been one of that majority who imposed upon the city of Detroit the metropolitan police bill. I wish to say a word in reference to that, and in vindication of the action of that majority, which did so impose that police bill upon that city. And it is as much in justification of the action of that Legislature, as for anything else, that I now rise upon my feet. The gen tleman from Monroe, (M. MORTON,) has alluded to the deputation of the citizens of Detroit, who waited upon that Leg islature and asked the passage of that bill. That deputation was composed of a class of men who have been con sidered-all their lives long respectable members of the community, unless I am very much misinformed. I had not the privilege of their personal acquaintance until they appeared here. Bat from our every day intercourse with them for some time, and from their conduct and bearing while here, I could form no other opinion of them than that they were moral and good citizens, who viewed this whole thing candidly, not in the light of partizans, Vol. 2 —-No. 43. but for the good of the city, and for the well being of the inhabitants of that city. There were sent to that Legislature petitions, not of tens or hundreds, but of thousands of the business men of Detroit, men of all classes, parties, professions and trades in that city.. And upon the showing that was made — here,at Legislature passed the metropolitan police bill. Now, one word with regard to the propositions before this Convention. In the proposition reported by the committee on counties, I can see nothing which would prevent the citizens of Detroit from coming up here and asking such a change in the charter of that city as will give to the mayor and council of the city the power to appoint all the several officers of that city, except the judicial officers, and thus take the government into their own hands, and run the government of that city exactly as indicated by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.). The trouble has been that the whole city government, at least it was so understood at that time, had been run by certain officers who were elected by the rabble of that city. If those officers were made appointive instead of elective, and only the mayor and council were elected, and the proper officers appointed by the city authorities, I apprehend they might in a little time or if they would give the Legislature guarantees that if the charter was amended in such regard, they would secure perfect good order there-I apprehend there would be no difficulty in getting all these laws they complain of-repealed. Every man in the State of Michigan has as much interest in the good government of the city of Detroit as the gentlemen on this floor. If I or you were to go there, and spend a day or a Week in the city of Detroit, we have a right to the protection of our lives and liberty, and we have some interest in the police regulations of that city. It is only when the city authorities fail to govern it properly that the Legislature of this State, or the people of the State, will take it into their hands to correct the evil. I apprehend that if they will come here with an application to amend their charter in this regard, the Legis lature will readily grant it, and release them from these different boards plaed over the city for their control. I see nothing in the article reported by the committee to prevent it. On the other hand by the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. -McCLELLAND,) we would take from the Legislature for ever the control of this matter. No matter whether the city government is properly conducted or not, under that amendment it would be impossible for the Legislature to remedy the evil. Perhaps I am mistaken in my apprehension, but such is my view of the case from the reading of the amendment. And to that I certainly object. Mr. LAWRENCE. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly, (at half-past five o'clock p. m.,) the Convention adjourned. FIFTIETH DAY. THURSDAY, July 25, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. M1r. HicEox. The roll was'called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. YEOMANS asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for Mr. KENNEY, on account of sickness. Mr. ALDRICH asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for Mr. ALEXANDER, on account of sickness Mr. DIVINE asked and obtained indefinine leave of absence for himself, after to-day. r. TURNER asked and obtained leave of absence for himself until Tuesday next. CORRECTION OF DEBATES. Air. ELLIOTT. I rise to correct an error in the report of some remarks I made on the 21st of June, in relation to supervisors. They will be found printed on page 455 of the first volume of the debates. In the last column on that page, near the bottom, is this sentence: "For instance, in viewing a dead body, a doctor will make a record not more than half an inch long," etc. The word "record" in that sentence should read, "incision." LAND GRANT FOR RAILROAD FROM DETROIT TO UPPER PENINSULA, ETC. Mr. INGALLS offered the following preamble and resolution, which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed in the journal: Resolution asking our Senators and Representatives in Congress to use their best efforts to procure an appropriation or grant to aid in the construction of a railroad from Detroit, in the State of Michigan, by way of the Straits of Mackinaw, and through the Upper Peninsula, to the head of Lake Superior, to intersect with or become a part of the Northern Pacific railroad. Whereas, The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is rich in nearly all the valuable minerals useful to man, and it is desirable to open an avenue for their quick and cheap transportation to a market; And whereas, The whole interior of the said Upper Peninsula is a wilderness without roads or railroads; 337 July 24, 1867. 338 ()OITUTIOAL OOVETIO. Thursday And whereas, A railroad running from Detroit, by way of the Straits of Mackinaw, and thence through the interior of the said Upper Peninsula, and to intersect the Northern Pacific railroad at or near the head of Lake Superior, would open all said country to settlement, and afford the means of developing an amount of mineral wealth unequalled in richness in any other portion of the United States, as well also as open to settlement the northern counties of the Lower Peninsula, and afford a direct and cheap avenue for the transportation of the products ot the vast iron and eopper mines and marble quarries of the Upper Peninsula to a market; And whereas, Owing to the geographical position of the Upper Peninsula, separated as it is from the Lower Peninsula by the waters of Green Bay, Lake Michigan and the Straits of Mackinaw, unless some railroad eommunication is opened by way of the Straits of Mackinaw-which is the only practical point for such connection-the wants of the separate localities will within a few years eventuate in a dismemberment of the State and the erection of a new State, a necessity which would, by the construction of a railroad through the State by way of the SLraits of Mackinaw, be greatly lessened; And whereas, The construction of a railroad along the route above named and the Northern Pacific railroad, would be a work of national importance; therefore Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be requested to use their utmost lawful endeavors, at the next and succeeding sessions of Congress, to procure a suitable grant, either in lands or bonds, or both, as the case may be, from the United States, to aid in the construction of a railroad from Detroit as aforesaid, by way of the Straits of Maclinaw to the head of Lake Superior; and that the Secretary of State be requested to forward copies of this resolution to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress bebfore the next session thereof. DEBATES OF NEW YORK CONVENTION. Mr. LOVELL. I offer the following resolution upon the subject to which I called the attention of the Convention yesterday: Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms be requested to divide the members of the Convention into sections of eleven each, according to contiguity of the seats occupied by them, and that he cause the journals, debates and other documents which have been and may hereafter be forwarded to this Convention by the Constitutional Convention of New York, to be filed, and one set of each kept at the disposal of each section. The resolution was adopted. CITIES AND VILLAGES. The Convention then proceeded to the consideration of unfinished business, being the article entitled " Cities and Villages." ELECTION OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, ETC. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole, for section two of this article. That section is as follows: ",Judicial officers of cities and villages shall be elected, and all other officers shall be elected or appointed at such time and in such manner as the Legislature may direct." The amendment of the committee of the whole is to strike out the section, and to insert in lieu thereof the following: ,dMayors and members of the common council in cities, and presidents and boards of trustees in village~, shall be elected by electors thereof, at large or in their proper wards or districts, as shall be provided by law; all other municipal officers or boards in whom is vested any portion of municipal authority, shall be elected as aforesaid, or appointed by the mayor and common council, in such manner as shall be provided by law." The gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. MIT.rS) moves as a substitute for the amendment of the committee of the whole the following: "The mayor and aldermen of cities, and the president and trustees of villages shall be elected, and all other officers shall be elected or appointed at such time, and in such manner as the Legislature may direct."', The question is upon agreeing to the substitute for the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. CONGER. WVhile this subject was under consideration yesterday, there were some propositions made by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLEL,LAND,) whointroduced the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, to which I for one cannot yield a silent assent. His remarks were also followed by the remarks of his colleague, (Mr. LOTHEROP,) which I think not only surprised the gentlemen of this Convention, but made them wonder what there could be in the simple proposition then before the Convention, that could call for such denunciations, for such pathetic appeals to the Convention to reject the proposition; or which could lead the gentleman who was making his remarks to intimate, aye, to declare, that there was involved in the proposition offered by my colleague, (Mr. MILES,) the chairman of the committee on cities and -Villages, some principle, or some theory, which would work destruction to the democratic or republican institutions of this country, destroy all the rights of his constituents in the city of Detroit, turn us aside from all the well-known paths of government, and introduce new propositions, changes and theories, and authorize an iron rule unknown in all the world before; so that the gentleman even prayed this Convention not to adopt such a new and startling principle of government, not to burden his constituents with such an alarming and dangerous theory, carried out into practice, not to force upon them boards to govern them, not to govern them differently from the manner in which all other cities are governed. At the time the gentleman from Wayne made his remarks, towards the close of the session yesterday, the heat was excessive, the thermometeo in this hall stood at 96 deg.; the gentlemen of this Convention were languishing with the heat. Yet we were all startled out of our propriety by assertions in regard to our action here, which made us forget the heat, and led us to look around to see if in fact we were adopting a new and unknown principle, and applying anew and dangerous system of government to the devoted city of Detroit. I confess the appeal made startled me from my propriety, and in my bewilderment I was unfit to decide whether or not we were launching out into a new system of government, and imposing upon our fellow-citizens of Detroit a strange and unheard of theory of government. But the rain has quietly descended during the night and cooled the air; and I trust the excitement which the gentleman produced in this Convention has been cooled down, and that we have met here to-day able to carefully consider whether there was any occision for the alarm which the gentleman endeavored to excite in the minds of this Convention. What is this preposition against which we are warned so earnestly, so zealously, and so pathetically, by the distinguished gentlemen from Wayne? What is there in it So different from other forms and modes of government that it has required such a startling announcement to be made here in this Convention? It is this mild simple proposition of my colleague, (Mr. MILES,) for section two of the article entitled " Cities and Villages:" " The mayor and aldermen of cities, and the president and board of trustees of villa-ges, shallbe elected; and all other officers shall be elected or appointed, at such time, and in such manner, as the Legislature may direct." That is the proposition against which the gentleman spoke so earnestly yesterday afternoon. Is it new? Is it novel? Is it strange? Is it an iron rule? Is it a thing unheard of in a republican government? Is it unknown among our former institutions? One would deem that it was a novelty, first brought to light by this Convention, severe, wild, extravagant in its effect upon the devoted city of Detroit. What is the proposition which has stood in our Constitution for seventeen years, unobjectionable and unobjected to? I may say here that in the Constitution of 1835 there is no provision whatever upon this subject; there is not the slightest restriction upon the Legislature to impose whatever rule, whatever law, whatever mode of government upon cities and villages, they may see fit. But what is the rule under which we have lived for the last seventeen years? "Judicial officers in cities and villages shall be elected or appointed, at such time and in such manner as the Legislature may direct." Indeed! and is it possible that a provision of the Constitution has been in existence and in force in the State 338 CONSTITUTIONAT,, CONVIFINTION Thursday I Jul M5 187 DEAE A- PRCEINS 3 of Michigan for seventeen years without utterly destroying the city of Detroit, that does not vary from the one under consideration in the least iota, except that, instead of providing for the election of judicial officers, it declares that the mayor and aldermen of the city shall be elected? Who, I say, would have believed, after hearing the remarks of the gentlemen from Wayne aye, in after days, when we shall take up our report of the debates here, and read the remarks, the arguments, the denunciations, and the pathetic appeals of the gentlemen from Wayne, and learn that they all arose simply from the mild proposition of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILES,) a proposition which had been a part of the Constitution of this State for seventeen years-who will believe that this all could have arisen from such a cause? Who will believe that the minds of gentlemen of this Convention were bewildered and led astray, until all around this house you heard gentlemen saying that they had better strike out this proposition, strike out the one it is proposed to substitute it for, and leave the article without any section that could authorize so great and henious a wrong against worthy municipalities within this State? I heard that last night from several members of this Convention. I have heard it talked about this morning among members of this Convention, that in order to promote peace and harmony, to avoid all the dire consequences which this substitute might bring upon the city of Detroit, it was best to yield to the pressure, and strike out this substitute as well as the original proposition. And why? Because our sympathies have been so excited that they have run away with our judgments. Is it because the proposition is wrong in any respect; because we do not desire just such a proposition as that to be inserted in regard to the organization of cities and villages in the State of Michigan; because there is anything radically, or even apparently, wrong in it? No gentleman dare say that there is anything wrong in it, or anything different from the Constitution heretofore. Then why this fear about this proposition? I will ask gentlemen of this Convention whether this proposition is not in exact accordance with the system of government in the State of Michigan adopted from the beginning, and continued hitherto in the State? Do we not elect the executive of our State? Do we not elect the executive officers of our counties? Do we not elect the executive officers of our townships? Is it not the uniform practice of the people of the State of Michigan to elect all the leading municipal officers of the State, county and township? Has it not always been, and do We not desire that it shall always be? If so, then why should cities be excepted from the general republican doctrine, that the people should rule, and should elect their executive and municipal officers? A city is a mere creature of the law; it has no power, no authority, no right, no privilege, no place in the world, except as the Legislature, carrying out the will of the people, shall give it a place and a standing. And yet, both the gentlemen from Wayne (Messrs. MCCLELLAND and LOTHROP) have urged upon this Convention that in this rule there is an attack upon cities destructive of their interests, out of the usual course which we have adopted in regard to townships and all other organizations and municipalities of the State. I deny the proposition; I say that this very proposition of my colleague (Mr. MILES) carries out effectually, in a constitutional provision, the republican rule, or democratic rule, of Michigan and of all republican States, without varying a hair's breadth to the right hand or to the left. So much, then, for the first clause of this proposition providing for the election of mayor and aldermen of cities, and president and trustees of villages. But, perhaps it is not to the first clause that the objection is made. Let us see what the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MOCLELLAND,) which has been adopted in committee of the whole, is in regard to the principle contained in the first clause of the substitute. Mr. McCLELLAND. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir. Mr. McCLELEAND. The gentleman contends, as I understand, that this is the rule which prevails in all the States nearly, because the republicans are in power, I believe, in nearly all the Northern States. Is that what the gentleman contends for? Mr. CONGER. I wish the gentleman to understand, that when I say "republican,'> I do not mean a mere political party. Mr. McCLELLAND. I understand that. that. Mr. CONGER. When I say "republican," I mean that this government of ours, is a republican government, and that all citizens living under it, will they ornill they, are republicans. Mr. McCLELLAND. That is not the point. Mr. CONGER. That is what I mean. Mr. McCLELLAND. The suggestion I was going to make is this; if I understand the gentleman, he contends that the elective principle is upheld and sustained in all the northern States, and in all the cities of the northern States. Mr. CONGER. I did not mean to say that. I will state as nearly as I can, what I did mean to say. I meant to say that it was the universal, longcontinued, and time-honored policy of the State of Michigan, that the executive officers of the State, county and township, shall be elected by the people, and be under their control; and that this proposition of my colleague extends that same principle to cities as well as to other municipal organizations; I mean to say that this is the true republican doctrine, and that it prevails in this State and other republicah States. Mr. McCLELLAND. That is exactly the point. Mr. CONGER. That there are exceptions in the Southern States, and that in some of the Northern States there are exceptions, prove the rule, as other exceptions prove a rule, but are in violation of the true republican system of government. Mr. McCLELLAND. I ask the gentleman just to refer for a moment to the "hub" of the Union, as it is called; is that the case in Boston? Mr. CONGER. I do not know about the " hub" of the Union, Boston. Mr. McCLELLAND. Massachusetts is a republican State? Mr. CONGER. The gentleman still insists that by "republican," I mean under the control of the Republican party. Mr. McCLELLAND. Not at all; I mean that it is a republican State. I suppose that the gentleman does not contend that the Southern States are republican States; they are not States at all. Mr. CONGER. I alluded to the southern States, because I supposed the gentleman's inquiry looked that way. Mr. McCLE]LLAND. Not at all. Mr. CONGER. I do not dispute the point with the gentleman; it is utterly immaterial whether there are exceptions to this rule or not. It i~ enough for me that my proposition as to the State of Michigan is good; and it is enough for me that that is the generally prevailing principle in the States of this republic. Mr. MaCLELLAND. I ask the gentleman whether, in most of the large cities of the northern States, the principle for which we contended yesterday does not to-day prevail; in Bos ton, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and July 25, 1867. DEBATES. AND PROCEEDINGS. 339 I CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. nearly all the cities, with the exception of New York? Mr. CONGER. If the gentleman means that in most of the cities the mayor and common council are elected by the people Mr. McCLELLAND. I do not con tend for anything of that kind; ] speak of officers other than the mayor and common council. Mr..CONGER. The gentleman takes pains to bring up a matter to which I have not yet arrived; to which I have made no allusion at all. Mr. McCLETLLAND. - The gentle. man will pardon me; his assertion was a general one, as I understood him that this principle prevails in all the northern States, and in all the cities of the northern States. Mr. CONGER. I stated most distinctly that the first part of the proposition of my colleague, (Mr. ~MMLEs,) to which I was speaking, and to which I confined my remarks-that mayors and members of common councils in cities, and the president and members of the board of trustees in villages, should be elected by the people-I said twice that that was the part of the amendment I was considering. Mr. McCLELLAND. Is not that a part of our amendment? Mr. CONGER. I am coming to that. The gentleman is taking me up on a point which I have not yet reached; I am coming to that, perhaps, by to-morrow, when I close my speech. I presume it was not with any inten tion of getting me off the track. Mr. MQCLELLAND. No, sir. Mr. CONGER. I said most distinctly, that my remarks were directed to the first part of the proposition now under consideration. If I shall ever get to the other part, I will make some remarks on that. I showed what was the proposition submitted by my col league, (Mr. MILES.) I said that the first part of his proposition was in ac cordance, and strict consonance, with the republican principles of our gov ernment in this and other States. I said I would examine and see what was the principle, in that respect, of the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) adopted in committee of the whole. I want to take up the two propositions, clause by clause, and see if there is any ground work for the terrible denunciations and pathetic appeals made here. If there is any ground-work for them, then I am going to wither under the denunci ations, and weep myself to death under the appeals. If not, then I am going to live along as I did before. What is the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, as adopted in committee of the whole? It was amended on mo tion of the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. ALEXANDER,) So as to include the words "president and trustees of vil lages." As amended it is as follows: "Mayors and members of the common council in ceities, and the president and boards of trustees in villages, shall be elected by the electors thereof, at large or in their [ proper wards or districts,'as shall be provided by law." Is there any difference in theory, in 1 principle, in mode of operation, between that and the corresponding clause of the proposition of my col league? Not a particle; they are not - exactly word for word, but they are s exactly the same in their meaning, and , in their principle. Then it was not to the first part of the substitute of my f colleague, that these vehement speeches of the gentlemen were made yesterday - afternoon; because both the gentle men from Wayne advocated the propo sition which I have just read, and it 1 does not vary from the proposition of my colleague. But I proceed to the other part of it. Let me say that I 3 take it for granted, that both of the , gentlemen desire the adoption of the [ first part of that proposition. I have f heard no dissenting voice from either of them; the one introduced the proposition and advocated it, and the other supported it and warned the Convention against adopting the sub stitute for it. Now, in both of these propositions , there is a step in advance of the old Constitution; there is an assertion in - the new Constitution of a principle which, it is true, has been acted upon in the Legislature to some extent. But, by placing this proposition'in the new Constitution, the Legislature - will be compelled, when granting charters to cities and villages, always to leave to those cities and villages the right to elect their mayor and aldermen, or their president and boards of trustees. That is made a constitutional provision; it is in advance of what has been here tofore. This Convention will adopt one or the other of these provisions; and inasmuch as we do that we will go beyond the old Constitution in guaranteeing to the city of Detroit what both of the gentlemen from Wayne desire, the election of their mayor and common council by the peo ple; putting it beyond the reach of the Legislature to make any change in that respect. Now, let us see if the last clause of this substitute of my colleague, (Mr. MILEs,) is deserving of the reproaches which were cast upon it-" and all others officers shall be elected or ap pointed, at such time and in such man ner as the Legislature may direct." That is all of it; that is the exact lan guage of the old Constitution which has hung over the devoted city of Detroit for seventeen long weary years. If the first clause is not objectionable, and if the second clause is the same that has existed in our Constitution heretofore, where is the basis, where the groundwork, where the skeleton in the house, against which the denunciations of my very learned friend from Grosse Point, (Mr. LOTHROP)-who does not by the way live in Detroit as he tells us, and is not subject to the direful evils that might flow from this provision on that devoted city-where are the evils which he has pointed out so pathetically? Why should the gentle-. man who introduced the proposition as .it stands, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) fear to live for seventeen or twenty years longer, under the provision of the Con stitution which has existed for the past seventeen years? There is a strange proposition which passed the commit tee of the whole in the amendment offerdd by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr.- McCLELLAND,) in these words and in that it differs from the propo sition of my colleague; in that respect it differs from the design of this Convention; in that respect it differs from the acknowledged and recognized policy of this State; in that respect it gives powers that are not usually given; and in that respect it gives a control which the Legislature can never take away. What is it? "All other municipal officers or boards, in whom is vested any portion of municipal au thority, shall be elected as aforesaid, or ap pointed by the mayor and common council, in such manner as shall be provided by law." That is what the gentleman wants. Strange as it appears to me, that is what my-learned friend from Grosse Point desires; that all these municipal officers, justices, recorders, police offi cers and boards of commissioners shall be elected or, as the Legislature may require, shall all be appointed by the mayor and common council. Now, I submit to both of the gentlemen from Wayne, if they have not been compelled to rise in their might against all party organizations, and to ignore that prin ciple in elections, by going out of the general rule in regard to the recorder, in order to save the city? Do they want the mayor and council to appoint the re corder? The proposition of my colleague provides that the Legislature may de termine the whole question. But do the gentlemen want still to continue in Detroit the old system by which every police officer, every justice of the peace, and. every one of that great crowd of officers in the city of Detroit, shall be -elected by the people of De troit in their wards? They have sol emnly told us upon this floor, one of them at least, if not both of them, that there are evils connected with that 310 Thurs.day, I DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. system in large cities, which must be restrained; that the system is dangerous. And we know full well, those of us who are at all - conversant with the city of Detroit, that so- much did they fear the influence of that lower, more impure class of people, that will gather in all cities, as well as in Detroit, these two gentlemen, in the election of the judicial officers of that city, both came out publicly, and with their great and well known influence, breaking the hands of party, joined with other good and loyal and true men of the city to redeem it, by voting independently for another candidate for the recorder's office to save their city. If there be anything which raises my friends high above their fel — lows in that city of Detroit and entitles them to the respect and admira-.tion of all good men throughout our whole State, and throughout the land, wherever the knowledge of that trans action reached, it is that they had the manhood, and virtue, and courage, to rise above all considerations, and in definance of the rule of their party, to join with all other good men against the corrupt, and against the bad, in filling the judicial beach with one worthy to sit upon it, with one upon whose shoulders the judicial ermine could rest, and the ermine not be stained. The proposition of my colleague recognizes the right of the Legislature to provide, as one measure fails and another is not successful, all neces sary changes, so that it shall not be incumbent upon men, at the sacrifice of their opinions and of their influ.ence, perhaps, with these fellow parti zans, to break the bands of their party organization, and from very necessity rise in the cause of virtue, and uphold the right. In principle the two propo sitions do not vary a hair's breadth. In both propositions the Legislature may determine the whole matter; I mean as to the second clause of each of the propositions now under consid eration. In both it says that these officers shall be elected or appointed. In the one it says if they are appointed they shall be appointed by the mayor and common council; in the other it says that they shall be appointed, as the Legislature shall direct, and they may direct the mayor and common council to appoint them. So in principle there is not the slightest difference in the world between them. Then are they both wrong? Does the gentleman attack the one because both are wrong? I do not mean the gentleman who introduced the propo sition (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) but, to dis tinguish them, I will say, I mean the gentleman from the rural district of -Grosse Point. Does he attack one because both are wrong? Then why does he not offer a substitute for both? Does he attack the proposition of his colleague from Wayne? I tell him that the two do not vary enough to -make it a matter of the most trivial importance in the world. If he attacks them both, then, after exciting our sympathies to such a pitch that it was almost unendurable,it becomes him to allay our agony by suggesting a remedy. Mr. McCLELLAND. Will the gentleman allow me to make an inquiry of him? Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir. Mr. McCLELLAND. I would ask the gentleman, who is a good lawyer, whether the section which is proposed as a substitute for- the one I had the honor to present in committee of the whole does not authorize the Legisla ture of the State to appoint the mayor and council and all the other officers of the city of Detroit-whether it re quires that they should submit the election of any of these officers to the people of the city of Detroit? Does it not give to the Legislature of the State the whole power and control of all the officers in the city of Detroit, and in all the other cities in the State? Mr. CONGER. If I understand that question, I will try to answer it. The first question is whether the prop osition of my colleague does not give to the Legislature the appointment of mayor and aldermen. Mr. McCLELLAND. Authority for their appointment; yes, sir. Mr. CONGER. Let us read that proposition. In my old age I may be getting dull and blind, so that I can not understand language: " The mayor and aldermen of cities, and the presi dent and trustees of villages shall be elected;" that is the way it reads. Mr. McCLELLAND. It does not read so in the journal. It reads: "The mayor and aldermen of cities, and the president and trustees of villages, and all other officers, shall be elected or appointed at such time and in such manner as the Legislature may direct." MWIr. LEACH. The amendment as printed in the journal of yesterday is printed incorrectly. M Hr. CONGER. I thought that the amendment was so plain that no gen tleman could have mistaken it for a moment. If the gentleman frommWayne will insert after the words "villages," as printed in the journal, the words " shall be elected," it will be all plain. Now, my friend must have known yes terday what the proposition was, I think. Mr. McCLELLAND. Not at all; because I did not hear it when it was read.. Mir. CONGER. I apprehend now, that with the amendment as corrected, my friend from Wayne will find no fault, for it is exactly like his own. Mfr. McCLELLAND. In the first part of it it is. Mr. CONGER. I apprehend that the other gentleman fromWayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) if I may be allowed modestly to make the inquiry, has no objection to the first clause of this proposition. He will answer me as the occasion requires. [Laughter.] As between the two, the amendment of thelcommittee of. the whole, and the proposition of my colleague as it now stands corrected, the gentleman who introduced the proposition into the committee of the whole is equally satisfied with the substitute, so farvas the first clause is concerned. We are therefore making progress; I am glad that we harmonize to that extent. It may not after all be necessary to strike out this entire sec tion, and have nothing in its place... Is there then a difference between the last clauses of the two propositions? I have said that practically there is not a particle of difference. The propo sition of my colleague says: " All other officers shall be elected or ap pointed at such time and in such man ner as the Legislature may direct." What is the other proposition? "All other municipal officers or boards, in whom is vested any portion of munic ipalauthority, shall be elected as afore said, or appointed by the mayor and common council, in such manner as shall be provided for by law." Now, what is the difference between "as the Legislature may direct," and "in such manner as shall be provided by law "? The gentleman pays me the compliment of saying that I am a lawyer; I there fore use the authority, at least with him, of saying, that in my opinion, as a lawyer, there is not practically one iota of difference between the two proposi tions, with this exception; that in the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, it merely intimates that all other officers may be appointed by the mayor and common council; if they are elected, of course they are elected by the people.. Now then, we have come down to the spot where the fire is; we have come down to the root of the matter. The gentleman desires that there shall be an implied obligation in the Consti tution upon the Legislature to author ize the mayor and common council of the city of Detroit to appoint all boards in the city, and to appoint all officers judicial, ministerial and execu tive, except the mayor and common council. Now, the people of this State do not desire the mayor and common council of the city of Detvoit to have 341 July 25 1867. . p IF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. that power. I tell the gentleman so, because I believe that a large majority of the people 6f Michigan never intend to give that power to the mayor and common council of the city of Detroit, and they will leave out of this Consti tution such words as recognize the right, or imply any obligation upon the Legislature to grant that power to them. They may grant that power to them; the gentleman will not misunder stand me; the Legislature may grant Ihe power to them, if they see fit, under the provision offered by the chairman of the committee on cities and villages, (Mr. MLEs.) It is an open question; the Legislature may grant that power under that pro vision. But I say to the gentleman that the people of the State of Michigan will not, under present cir cumstances, ever permit their Legislature to grant that absolute power to the mayor and common council of the city of Detroit. The city of Detroit has had its charter; it is an old city; it is the metropolis of Michigan; it is the pride of our State, and the glory of our people. We love it; we love its institutions of learning, and the zeal and industry of its people. We love it as an emblem of our commercial growth, and the prosperity of the State of Michigan. But we do not love the times when our morning papers were blurred with the accounts of garroting in the city of our love. We do not like to read in our papers the continual and repeated notices of crimes and deeds of darkness throughout the city of our admiration, which existed there but a few short years ago. They called for the open, bold denunciations 6f the press of that city, and of the wise and good men of that city, until those denunciations rang through the land. It is not pleasant to dwell upon those old scenes, which, I trust, are forever passed away. But the gentlemen have provoked it, when they tell us that the city of Detroit has always been asorderly, quiet and pure as other cities. Such, unfortunately, has not always been the fact. Those deeds of darkness, and of strife, and of blood, called aloud upon the representatives of the people to require of the city to effectually stop the further commission of such crimes. It even went so far as to call upon the Legislature to take the matter in hand, and to provide a remedy; and they did it. I tell the gentlemen from Detroit, that there are laid away-unless they have been brought into this hall as I desired they might be-petitions innumerable from ~the city of Detroit, that' there might be such a police established there, as the Legislature did establish. They were signed without respect to party, or to creed; they came from the good-I will not say that all the good signed them; but from the good and the virtuous, and law abiding citizens of Detroit, there came up such a flood of petitions and memo rials on that subject, setting forth the necessities for the-welfare of the city, and asking that the Legislature should take the matter in hand, that the Leg islature would have been recreant to its trust, and the views and interests of the people, had it not passed that identical law. Those petitions, and those memorials, with the honored and respected names of the worthy cit izens of Detroit upon them, are here present. Representations were made, which are here within our reach, set ting forth in black and white upon their pages the necessity for that action of the Legislature. It will take more than one voice, aye, more than two voices, to deny the cloud of witnesses that came before the Legislature and demanded for the peace of the city, the organization of the metropolitan police, and the board controlling it. The gentlemen will not deny it. I think the gentlemen's names are there. Mr. McCLELILAND. Not mine. Mr. CONGER. I will not say positively. I have no doubt it would have been, if the gentleman had been at home on the occasion. Mr. MoCLELLAND. I beg your pardon; I never sign anything of the kind. Mr. CONGER. Or it should have been. (Laughter.) The city of Detroit belongs to the State, as well as to its own citizens. The State of Michigan has given that city peculiar privileges, and peculiar rights, not enjoyed by the rest of the municipalities of the State. It has given that city a charter such as its citizens asked. It has amended it from time to time, at almost every session of the Legislature, as the citizens desired.* There has been no limit to the bounty and munificence of the Legislature, when applied for. So uniformly have the people of the State of Michigan yielded to the desire of the citizens of Detroit, that when they came up here with their petitions, with petitions bearing the names of hundreds, if not thousands of their best and wisest men, for a metropolitan police, the people of the State of Michigan yielded to their wishes, and still granted them that additional privilege, and they will do it again. If the citizens of Detroit desire it,'the people of the State of Michigan will restrict them still further. There is a devotion and affection of the people of this State for the city of Detroit, that will make them willing to restrict them still further. If they desire other boards, the people of the State of Michigan will grant them most readily and cordially other boards. There is therefore no cause for the alarm of the gentlemen from Wayne. The two proposition are in fact iden tical. There is no occasion for any tirade against this Convention; there is no occasion for the assertion that we are establishing new doctrines; that we are establishing new forms of govern ment. There is no occasion for the gentlemen from Wayne to ask that we shall either compel the city of Detroit to be governed entirely by boards, or else leave it to be governed as other parts of the State are. I tell the gen tlemen that this proposition leaves them to be governed exactly as other parts of the State are, in every respect. It leaves the Legislature so that they may provide for- ll that the gentleman wishes, and for all that we may desire to avoid. The argument of the gen tleman would have been good before the Legislature, if he wished to carry a particular point there. But with the two propositions before us, I submit to the gentleman that his argument had no force, no efficacy, and no point. It was not because I could see, even from his argument, any difference between the two propositions that I rose to speak upon the subject on this occasion. It was because the very vehemence of the denunciations, the very pathos of the appeal, the very strong and vivid coloring which my friend from Wayne gave to his proposition, made me think, and made us all think, until we had time to examine, and deliberate,and recollect,that there was something strange and awful in this section; that under the quiet harmlessness in appearance of this section there was a slumbering volcano, which was to belch forth and destroy the devoted city of Detroit. Upon examination we find that the proposition is asharmless as a dove. Seventeen long years of experiuce under it have proved that it will not ruin the city of Detroit, that it may safely remain, and that the city will still prosper. Now, Mr. President, although there may be some assumptions of vanity in the assertion, it is barely possible that this provision, which applies to all cities and villages of our State, may apply somewhere else than in the county of Wayne. It may be best to have a general provision in this Constitution, which if adopted may last long years in the future, that shall apply to other growing cities, and to other growing villages in the State of Michigan. I thank God there is room outside of Detroit for a little development. There are some few cities now 312 Thursday., July 25, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 343 organized, to which this proposition may apply. They may not be equal to the city of Detroit to-day, but Detroit thirty years ago was less in population and in wealth, than are some other cities that exist in this State now. Thirty years, or fifty years hence, who shall say that there will not be scattered over our State, accumulating the wealth and treasure of the State in their localities, cities that may rival the Detroit of today, and villages that, shall rival all other cities of to-day except Detroit? We are making a law not for an hour, not for to-day, if so be we make it wisely, and the people shall approve our work; but a law, if it meets the conditions of the State, which may last unchanged, until we have all traveled to that bourne whence no traveler returns. Yes, gentlemen, a century may still leave our work untouched in this respect, if we are successful in making it as it should be made, and the people adopt it. And who shall say that this very principle may not apply to the hundreds of cities that shall spring up on our soil, and rival the Detroit of to-day? I had no thought of speaking upon this question at all. The proposition of my colleague seemed so plain and so clear, seemed so much better than the other; it seemed so clear that we should not in the Constitution affirm unalterably that the mayor and common council of every city should have the appointment of all the underlings, that I did not believe there would be a question but what it was best to leave it to the Legislature, from time to time, as the interests of the communities, the wants of the people, and the exigencies of succeeding years may demand, to make the changes that were necessary. And yet so strong and powerful were the influences brought to bear here, that many members of this Convention thought it best to bury. both propositions, because there might be rivalry as to which should be adopted. Rivalry, indeed! For myself, I desire that a provision acknowledging the right of the people to elect the executive and legislative officers of their cities and villages shall stand forever in the Constitution, so long as the republic exists. It is a principle of our State, long-established, well-founded and beloved by the people. I want it to stand so. But the rest of the details of that city government I propose to leave to the Legislature, as they may from time to time direct, as the wants of the city and the wants of the people may require. Others may vote upon this proposition as they choose. But it has, from the discussion here, assumed an importance as a principle of government, and a theory of our system, which raises it above the mere common-place provisions which may or may not be left out of the Constitution. As I said, I had no thought of speaking upon this subject; I had made no preparation either to meet or to parry the arguments which have been presented here. It-was only this morning, when I heard some gentlemen of this Convention say that we had better strike out a good and valuable clause, strike out both provisions, and have nothing of the kind in the Constitution, that I felt it to be a duty which I owed to myself, and to this Convention, to say to them how much I desire that the principle of this section, in regard to cities and villages, should be incorporated in our Constitution; that they should not be permitted to grow up anomalies in our system, excrescences upon the body politic, differing in principle and theory, and in their mode of election and appointment, from the rest of the municipalities of the State, and from the State itself. If I have succeeded in expressing the views I entertain so that they are understood by others, and the feelings which I have upon this subject, so that they may awaken a corresponding feeling in the breast of others, I shall at least have equaled my desire. Mr. NORRIS. In entering upon some brief remarks upon this subject, I do not propose to gQ into the details of thee particular question before this Convention. I shall leave the discussion of those details to the gentlemen from Wayne,(Messrs. McCLELLAND and LoTHRO6P,) who have advocated the proposition, and who are sufficiently able to defend it. from all assaults, either personal or general. But recognizing as I do, that possibly for the first time since this Convention has assembled, we have reached a discussion which rests upon the bed-rock of all republican government, I should not discharge my duty to my constituents, if I did not enter somewhat upon a discussion of the general principles involved. One of the classical essayists of modern English literature has adapted from Ariosto, the beautiful fable of the fairy who, by some mysterious law of nature, was compelled to assume at certain periods the form of a foul and venomous snake. To those who recog nized her even in her deformed and repulsive form, and who protected her in her transformation, she afterwards showed herself in a form more beauti ful and angelic than mortal, and fol lowed and protected them at all times. Such is the condition of our genius of Liberty. At times she takes the form of a foul, poisonous and venomous reptile. It may not be entirely proper for me to intimate that her guardian prime minister in this country, in times gone by, has too often touched that little bell which has consigned to a bastile American citizens without trial. But I pardon something to that spirit of liberty. I claim to be one of those who recognized her in her degraded shape, and who supported her and held up her hands in the long years of trial. I believe in the old Roman edict: "Ne quid detrementi republica capita;" so that the republic receive no injury. But all that is passed and gone. "Grim visaged war hath smootlied her wrinkled front; And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds, To fright the souls of fearful adversarles"-the ark of liberty now rests upon the top of Ararat, and the waters are beginning to abate. Having assembled as we are now, the representatives of over one million of freemen, we are here for the cdnsideration of principles which obtained before all this terrible chaos of war, before all this wicked and terrible conflict overshadowed this land. In this discussion we have reached a principle which needs solemn consideration, before it is finally established one way or the other. There is no time so fitting,no occasion so important, as the one now before us, to return in our deliberations upon the organic law of the State to the teachings of our forefathers, of those wise men who, in the language of the great expounder of the Constitution, stood shoulder to shoulder around the administration of WashiAgton, and felt his own great arm lean upon them for support. We should turn to the teachings of those back of our fathers, who froom the beginning and dawn of constitutional government in old England, recognized the principles we are now debating, as the great bed-rock of constitutional liberty. De Tocqueville and other writers have recognized it. And- even Kossuth, when he first landed at Southampton, in a speech delivered in that nervous English which-he had learned while in confinement by the study of Shakspeare, complimented them upon their institutions. What is the principle which we are debating, and which is at stake in this question? It is the principle of selfgovernment, the great leading, distinctive feature between republican and tyrannical government, all the world over. It is the principle that all the power which rests in this government, which is worth having for one moment, rests in the little municipal communi e e s 11 CONSTITUTIONAL CONV.ENTION. ities where you and I live, to be exer cised by us free from all unnecessary - -control, free to be used as it best may. I know no definition of our govern ment, more clear than one I once re ceived from the lips of an able Jesuit in the little town of Avignon, once the seat of papal power. He said: "In your government, yout can do what is not prohibited; but in our despotic governments, we can only do what is permitted." We are fast changing places with those nations; we are fast arriving at that stage when we, our selves, can only do what is permitted, and are not free to do that which is not prohibited. I say this little municipal principle, beginning in the township, is the germ of the freedom of the whole country. As you advance one step you reach the county; advance still another step and you reach the State government. And as you ad vance to a still wider circle, you reach the General Government. And mov ing from the centre outward, is all the power and dominion of the American government. Now reverse the picture; pass to the old continent, and where is the power there? The power there is lo cated in the circumference, so to speak, or rather it-is located in a centralized despotism, which sits like a spider in its web, transmitting its edicts along wires of its web all over the country, and nought is done except what is de termined in the central council. These are the two great distinguishing fea tures of government. Now for the application; we simply ask here, that the principle shall be applied to municipal governments wherever it may be consistent, and wherever it can be done; and we say that it can be done in this instance, and in almost every other instance. What is the principle involved in this section? The gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) simply asks, that if it be better that the officers of the city of Detroit shall be appointed rather than elected, then that appointment shall come as near to the people as it can. Has there been a single voice raised, or idea asserted, or fact stated, that will lead this Convention to be lieve that the city of Detroit would not appoint officers who would faithfully administer its laws? Would they not be better qualified to judge of the wants of the city; of its immediate necessities, and are they not nearer to the people upon whom the law is to act? I tell you, gentlemen, that if the provision offered by the chairman of the committee on cities and counties, (Mr. MIRES,) shall pass, I shall look upon it as entering upon a step in the other direction. I shall look upon it |as entering upon an era of centraliza tion, where the power shall be ab sorbed by the Legislature, and none - retained by the people. In the little colloquy which took , place between the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. FARMER,) and the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) there was elicited an idea, which was a logical answer to all that Was said upon this floor. I take it the gentleman from Berrien did not distinguish himself in that manner of Socratic investigation. I take it that his answer left him in the condition of the Irishman's turtle; "dead, and not sinsible uv it." (Laugh ter.) What was it? " Would you vote to restrict the liberty of your town ship?" "Ah! that is a different mat ter." Yes, it is a different matter; not different in principle, but only differ ent in the question of who it is who shall suffer under the operation of this law. If it is right to restrict the mu nimopal freedom of the city of Detroit, it is just as right to restrict the munic ipal freedom of every town in the State. Let your legislation be all done in Lansing, and then you might as well abolish all your county and town ship organizations, resolve yourselves into a great Sanhedrim in Lansing, and promulgate all the laws for the government of this commonwealth. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) has well said that the remarks of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mir. * LOTHROP,) produced an effect upon this Convention. They ought to do it. * Why was it necessary to think over it in the evening, and gather in little knots to discuss this question, not upon principle but upon expediency, whether the Legislature should be sus tained and the interests of a great and growing party be augmented and in creased? It was because the argu ments of the gentleman from Wayne were based on principle, on the only true interpretation of free government, all the world over. They cannot be met by argument; they can only be met as the gentleman from St. Clair ~ met them, by the tyrant's plea of neces sity. The people of this State, he says, and he declares it for them, do not intend that the citizens of Detroit-shall exercise the control over their own immediate interests, either by the ap pointment of their own common coun cils, or otherwise. The people of the State, he says, or rather the Legisla ture, are to judge of the necessities which shall lead them to-impose this tyrant's yoke upon them. I know, gentlemen, you have a large majority in this Convention; I know that ablast from the gentlemqn's horn will bring around him all the force necessary to carry this measure through. But I warn you, gentlemen, that there is a principle involved here. What difference will it make to you, suppose you could legislate the city of Detroit out of existence, and suppose you could so legislate as to make a republican majority in' Wayne county now and forever, if in so doing you strike down the principle which rests at the base of all liberty? Your victory will yield you but a barren sceptre. I tell you that principles are eternal; and although you strike them down to-day, and although the gentleman may rise in his place and give utterance to that maxim which he has given us once before, "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes,"-I tell the gentleman that there is another maxim-" Fas est ab hoste doceeri;" it is lawful to learn of an enemy. There is no good to be achieved by the crushing of a principle. You may crush this principle, but you can crush it only for the time. Truth crushed to earth will rise again; The eternal years of God are hers; But Error wounded, writhes in pain, And dies among her worshipers." Mr. WILLIAMS. I feel myself hardly able to answer the poetry and oratory of the gentleman who has just taken his seat, (Mr. NoRRIs;) and, if the Convention will excuse me, I will not endeavor to do it. His oration about liberty, the little bell, and the ark on Ararat, was very beautifully done; we will concede this at the start. And at once, leaving entirely apart any question extraneous to the subject, I will proceed to the question to be handled and met by this Conventionthe question of principle, which the gentleman fromWayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) and the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIs,) and the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) have enunciated as the question under consideration. There is-but one question; it is a simple and distinct question. That question is, where does the power rest in a government like ours? Does it, as enunciated by the gentleman who has just taken his seat, rest purely in municipalities created by legislative action? If so, then most clearly the creature is greater than the creator. If so, then we have been occupying our -time most foolishly and most strangely, since we have been here in this Convention, in attempting to restrict the action of these municipalities in regard to voting aid to railroads, if you please. If the doctrine which the gentleman has enunciated is true, then every vote he has cast in this Convention up to the present time, every speech which he has made in this Convention up to the present time, has 314 Thursday DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. been completely contrary to that principle, and he has voted against his reason, and against his principles. If the propositions claimed by the gentlemen from Wayne, (Messrs. MCCLELLAND and LOTHIOP,) are true, then they stand precisely in the same relation as when they came here before this Convention and told you that it was all wrong to allow townships to vote taxes without restriction of legislative action or of constitutional provisions. I am not one of those who would take power from municipalities. But the established theory of our government is, not that all power rests in these municipalities, but that originally it rests in the legislative department. The theory that the gentleman pro.poses here is a new theory; that the legislative department having once created a municipality, shall thereafter have no more control over it. That is distinctly the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mir. MCCLELLAND.) I woulc' be very glad indeed to have that proposition carried out in all its force, and in all its effects throughout the State of Michigan, if it could be done in safety to the institutions of our State; but there, and precisely there, I apprehend, comes the rub. Let us apply this proposition in the' city of Detroit, for instance, as an illustration, as that city has been referred to here. The mayor and common council shall be elected by the citizens of Detroit; and that mayor, and that common council, shall have all power thereafter within their municipality, under the charter given them by the State. Suppose they pay no attention to the individual rights of citizens under their charter? What if, with a clause that there shall be no restriction of taxation, the mayor and common council swallow entirely the property of the individuals of that city? I would simply apply the argument of the gentlemen from Wayne on the proposition in reference to railroads. It strikes me that there is danger, direct danger in the propcsition they submit. While I will concede with equal frankness, that the principle is a correct one, that the nearer you can bring the power down to the people the more democratic it is, still I will not concede the proposition to be a correct one, that all powers shall be taken from the people in any instance, and put into the hands of an appointing power, like the mayor and common council of the city of Detroit. Yet the gentleman from Wayne stated that to be a true democratic proposition. I insist that it is not democratic at all. But I wish to follow up the proposi tion contained in the amendment of Vol. 2 —No. 44. the gentleman from Wayne. What is it? That the Legislature, tthe people of the State in their representative capacity, shall not in any manner interfere with the action of the mayor and common council of the city of Detroit under their charter. No matter how many respectable and influential citizens may petition the Legislature of the State; no matter how they may urge upon the Legislature, to give them protection from the oppression that is over them; even though the gentleman from Wayne himself sends down his petition, still the Legislature shall not comply with the requirements of these petitioners, and grant them the-relief sough~t. Now, I apprehend that it may possibly be true that in some instances, by the action of the Legislature, powers will be granted to boards which ought not to be granted. Bat the remedy is at their hand.. If too much power is granted, I apprehend that these laws are amendable and repealable, and that the people of the State do not desire to bppress the city of Detroit. The people of the State feel a direct interest in the city of Detroit, and they desire that the Legislature shall protect not only the citizens of Detroit, but -the citizens of the entire State. Now, if, by the action of the mayor and common council, they fail there in Detroit to procure the enforcement of the laws, would it be wise or safe to say that the Legislature shall be utterly unable to extend to them any remedy? And is not that exactly what the gentlemen are asking for? Allusion has been made to the action of the Legislature. I may be permitted to say a word in regard to that body, having had the honor to hold a seat in it. In reference to some boards referred to, I have no particular knowledge. But I do have particular knowledge in reference to one board sought to be created, and which was asked for by the citizens ok Detroit, and by the citizens of Detroit only. I wish to have it distinctly understood that no Legislature has sought to create any boards for the city of Detroit, except upon the petitions of the most influential and respectable citizens of that city, without- regard to party. The simple proposition of the gentleman is, that we shall turn a deaf ear to these petitions, and have a Constitutional provision prohibiting the Legislature from granting the relief asked. Now, in reference to the petitions sent here last winter; they came before both bodies of the legis lative assembly, asking them to create a board of education for the city of Detroit. That: board of education then consisted of twenty members; they asked the Legislature to legislate out of existence ten members elected by the people, and to create a new board consisting of ten menbers. The petition was signed by the most influential citizens of Detroit, led by tenof the board themselves asking for this action. The petition was signed by the gentleman himself who is so, bitterly opposed to such a proposition here, (Mr. LOTHEROP,) asking the Legislature to legislate out of existence ten members of the board of education of the city of Detroit, elected by the people, and to take the power from the people and give it to the appointing power of the city, the mayor and common council, which I apprehend is not very democratic ordinarily, especially in the city of Detroit. The whole objection to the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne is simply: this; it is entirely new and novel. Instead of our seeking to depart from any principle heretofore established, we are simply seeking to hold to a principle incorporated in our Constitution, and which is incorporated in the Constitution of every State in this Union. I apprehend that in the Constitution of no State will there be found a provision prohibiting legislative power as much as is sought for here. The proposition of the gentleman from Wayne is anti-republican in principle, because it is attempting to take away the interests of the great majority, and to centralize the power and the interests of the city in the mayor and common council of the city of Detroit, takingit from the many and giving it to the few. The proposition is new and novel; it seeks to overthrow an established principle of our government. B]3ut there is another objection to it. It may place the city of Detroit, or any other city in the State, in armed resistance to the State itself, and leave the State with no power to enforce its authority against-it, except by armed force. It will. give them, in and of it self, all the power the Southern Confederacy asked for, to be left alone to regulate their own domestic concerns in their own way, without regard to the great interests of the State. It is seeking to incorporate into this Consti tution a power in the city, created by the State itself, which will make it en tirely superior to the State creating it. Now, I am opposed to any such prin ciple. We have, as the gentleman has -so eloqueently said, just fought a war to settle a principle. I believe we have settled it upon a basis which we will not yield in this Convention, even to protect what is claimed to be a princi ple for that city alone, though denied to other parts of the State, the self government of the city of Detroit. .July 25 1867. 345 346 CO~~~~~~~~~~~TITUTIO~~~~~~~~~~AL CONVENTJO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. Thursday,~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have one word further to say in reference to the motion to strike eut, as the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) has referred to it. Wvhen this article was under consideration in committee of the whole, I did move to strike out section two, and if the Convention will examine that section as reported, they will see why I did it; because the only power there prohibited was the power to appoint judicial officers. The section reads: IJudicial officers of cities and villages shall be elected, and all other officers shall be elected or appointed at such time and in such manner, as the Legislature may direct." It occurred to me that it might be necessary in some of our cities and villages-because the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MoCLELLAND,) insisted here most persistently, that it is an essential thing in the State of Michigan that the Governor should appoint the judiciary-I did not know but some such proposition might apply to the city of Detroit. Therefore it occurred to me that it would be proper and wise to strike out section two, as there was nothing in it except the clause requiring judicialofficers to be elected. As the substitute offered by the gentleman from St.- Clair, (Mr. MIILES,) now stands, I shall be decidedly in favor of it, for it proposes that the mayor and common council of a city shall be elected. I am in favor of the principle there enunciated, because I do not believe that we should incorporate into this Constitution a clause that will make the creature greater than the creator. Mr. LOVELL. It may seem presumptuous that I should offer any word of counsel upon this question; yet I feel compelled to do so, if for no other purpose than that I may explain my own position, and the vote I shall feel constrained to give upon the pending question. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) has told us this morning, emphatically, that it is the desire, design and intent of the people of the State of Michigan to impose boards upon municipalities, and especially upon the city of Detroit. That may be true. Mr. CONGER. The gentleman will allow me to interrupt him, because his remarks go upon the record, and if uncontradicted may be supposed to be true. I wish to say that I did not make any such remarik, nor one that had any such meaning as that. I did say that the people of the State of' Michigan did not intend that the mayor and common council of the city of Detroit should appoint all the officers of that city, at least for the present. Mr. LOVELL. I am glad to be cor rected, if I have —mis-stated the posi tion of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) I did think that as I understood it, it was a most monstrous proposition to be enunciated here. I am very glad that lie withdraws it, and that-we are not to understand that it is the settled disposition of the people of Michigan to- govern all municipalities in their local affairs, and, if I may so speak, in their -domestic affairs. I would be exceedingly unwilling myself that the Legislature sitting in Lansing, and representing the people of the State, should assume to control the affairs of the humble city in which I re side, in matters in which the Legislature had no special interest. I concede that if the public safety of the State should require it, the Legislature might inter fere so far as that public safety should demand, and no further. As I understand the principle, all government exists not by the consent of the; governed alone, but in the very nature of things it exists; if man ex ists, government exists also; it exists for the benefit of the governed, and is to be exercised only for their benefit, for the proper enjoyment of their personal, social and commercial privileges. Hence, I claim that no government has a right to interfere with the personal privileges of individuals, any further than may be necessary to restrain the personal ambition and the personal designs and desires of any man from interfering with the proper enjoyment of their personal privileges by others. That theory of government which allows the governing power to exercise sway for its own enjoyment, I utterly deny. I believe that government can only be exercised, as I have before said, for the benefit of the governed. Now, sir, as to the origin of the power of cities; I suppose that in dif ferent countries it originates different Ly. Go to the New England States, and you will find there confederations of municipalities. The town was once absolute there; afterwards the county, and then the State. But I apprehend that neither of these larger aggrega tions of individuals has ever assumed these,nor ought like larger aggregations of individuals elsewhere, to assume the right to control smaller aggregations inmatters belonging peculiarly to them selves. I say that townships should not be interfered with in matters of local concern. The county should not be interfered with in things of local concern' to it. Neither should the State be interfered with in regard to its -matters of local concern by the other States of the Union. Such I be lieve to be the true mode by which liberty should be enjoyed. And now to the question under con sideration. If these principles shall be applied, I shall feel constrained I confess, to vote against the amendment of, the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILES,) if for no other reason than to protest against the doctrine that seems to be entertained by a large number who expect to vote forit; that it is right for the Legislature to govern all municipalities, just so much as they see proper, without any regard to the wishes of the municipalities. I say without regard to their wishes, for in these matters of municipal affairs of towns, cities and villages, I apprehend it is never proposed to submit the action to be taken to the voice of these municipalities. If a board of water commissioners, or a board of sewer commissioners, is to be imposed upon the city of Flint, it will never be submitted to the popular vote of that city; at least I apprehend not.'For if the popular will of that city was to control in the matter, when they desire such a board they can act of their own accord,- anda- not ask the Legislature tob impose it upon them. I do not know but times might arise, it is possible that times have arisen in this State, when the public - safety has required the State to interfere in matters of local concern. But I do insist that if these times arise they are exceptional; and I insist that the power of the Legislature, which has heretofore been imposed for such purposes, should be withdrawn at the earliest practicable moment. The ex ercise of that power for the public safety, should not be made a pretext for the exercise of other powers which are not required for the public safety. In other words, if a municipality de sires its own improvement, let it have the facilities for making that improve ment. Let it pay for its own improve ment; let it bear its own burdensin the matter, and let it have its own improve ments. If other portions of the State have no special interest, I insist that they shall not interfere therein. That is my position in the matter; and I be lieve it to be just and right. I believe that so far as practicable all men should be allowed to manage their own affairs, and especially where those affairs con cern thenmselves chiefly. It is said that it will be dangerous to give power in the hands of the mayors and common councils of cities, and the presidents and trustees of villages. ~Why dangerous? Whose affairs have they to administer upon.? Grant that, so far as their action may result in injury to others outside of their limits, they may be restrained; yet I ask why, in the affairs of municipalities, their legislatures chosen by themselves shall not govern in such affairs? Will you i i CONSTITUTIONAL. CONVENTION. Thursday, 346 i ;'ily 2F5, 1867::EBATES A:D PROCEEDI:G~.347 say that though the majority may vote one way, that that vote shall not weigh that way? Who assumes to weigh votes in a demooracy? Who shall go into our town councils -and village councils, and say: " It is true that the majority of you vote this way, but when we weigh those votes, we find that the real heft of intelligence, the real strength, is with the minority "? We have sometimes heard some loose expressions upon this floor about protecting the rights of minorities. The best protection a minority can ever have in any country is to stand by and fearlessly proclaim their rights. I undertake to say that no party can long continue in any community, which oppresses and needlessly deprives a minority of their rights. People will never consent to the leadership of any set of men who persistently and deliberately outrage the rights of the minority. There is always a portion of the people wedded to no party, and happy and fortunate it is for a democracy that this is so. There is always a portion of the people wedded to the interests of no party, and bound to follow the lead of none, who will have sympathies with the minority the moment they are oppressed, who will turn from the majority and throw their power into the hands of the other side, and make that balance which before rested securely on their votes, kick the beam. I say that the principle that the majority shall govern, should be held to be true and right in municipal affairs the same as elsewhere. If it be right that the majority shall govern in the State in regard to State affairs, and dictate its policy for the common good as a whole, then it is right and just, aye, it is necessary, that we should endorse it here, that in smaller aggregations of individuals, in counties, in townships, in cities, and in villages, the same rule should apply. Eternal principles change not at the behest of any. Party interests and party. passions may seek to warp them, but they will not turn. And when any one appeals to principles and says thus and so, you declare it to be and profess it to be, then use the doctrine which you profess. I, for one, will never turn my back upon principle, at the behest of any party, or of any class of men. I say this, not that there is occasion for it, for I have never yet learned that the party of which I have the privilege of being a humble member, has designed or ever will design to turn its back upon principle. I desire to challenge the attention of gentlemen of the Convention, to the fact that we are asked to' recognize this principle, which we have so long de manded should be recognized as the fundamental principle of our liberties, that the majority have Ithe right to control for the benefit of the whole. And I insist that persons outside of the parties interested, shall not come in and assume to say'that the minority shall control the majority. In the great family of nations we are a small minority; we who believe in free institutions and the right of the masses to govern, are a small minority. But would we ever consent that any league, even of all the nations of the -earth, shouIld step in to control us and regulate our affairs for us? -In this family of the States of the UJnion, would we, as inhabitants of Michigan, consent that the people of the United States should dictate to us in matters of local concern? Not at all; nor is there any danger that they will ever do it. And let us carry this same principle out to its full extent. But it is said we must vote for the proposition of the gentleman from St. Clair, the chairman ~of the committee on counties, (Mr. M1Es,) and against the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) in order that we may uphold and justify, and set the zeal of our approbation upon, the action of the late Legislature. God forbid that the Legislature of the State of Michigan should need any endorsement at our hands. Any legislative body, that is authorizd by any constituency to meet and act for it, ought never to go to any other deliberative body and ask its endorsement. We might endorse that body from now till the crack of doom; yet if they have done an infamous act, the infamy will cling to them like the shirt of Nessus, and they can never get rid of it. But I apprehend the Legislature of Michigan has not comniitted any great sin; if -it has I have never heard of it. I only speak of a principle. I supposevthe citizens of Detroit did appeal to the Legislature to enact special laws for them. But I insist that it is a most unsafe way to obtain legislation. I insist that the proper representatives of the people should.be allowed to speak for them. At least, I insist that if you propose in the Legislature to ignore the proper representatives of the people, whatever you do shall be submitted to the people for their approval. I would not object that the people of the State of Michigan in their collective capacity, whenever at any time they find that things are going wrong in a municipality, should provide a remedy. But I insist that in matters of: local concern, the remedy shall be approved by the patient who is to take the physic. I insist that if any community deliberately and determinedly desire to be misgoverned in matters pertaining solely to themselves, they shall have that privilege, that they shall enjoy debt, that they shall enjoy taxation, that in all matters pertaining to themselves, they shall be misgoverned to their hearts content, untilas the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER,) has intimated there comes a time when they can stand it no longer, and when forsaking their idols, they will come up and act as men for their own interest. I believe that the best way to protect self-government, is when government goes wrong, not to step in and apply the principle of guardianship, but to let the people suffer the evils of their own misdoings; I believe that; to be the-best way. I find that expprience, though she does teach a dear school, does teach a most excellent one. I believe that in these matters of maladministration, those who have to suffer the harm, if harm there be, and are not wise enough to see that it is harm, until it comes to abrade the skin, better have the skin abraded and better smart under the wrong self-inflicted, than to be put under guardianship from outside. It is said that the mayors and common councils of cities should not make these appointments of local officers. Why, gentlemen of the Convention, the Legislature has already been granting that power to cities. Only last winter the Legislature granted to the city of Flint a charter, by which the mayor and common council appoint the marshal, the police, and street commissioners; in fact, I believe every officer of the city, except the single officer of recorder, and the appointments to the offices they themselves hold. Mr. WILLIAMS. Who has said that the mayor and common council ought not to appoint these officers? Mr. LOVELL. Not the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS.) Mr. WILLIAMS. I have not heard anybody say so. Mr. LOVELIL. I did understand the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) to intimate that the gentieman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) sought a new remedy, one that was novel and dangerous; that he sought to have the inferior officers of the city. of Detroit appointed by the mayor and common counciL I suppose that, as the section under contemplation applies to all the cities and villages of the State, the principle goes with it. I understood the gentleman from St. Clair to say that the gentleman from Wayne sought a remedy that was new, novel and dangerous. I insist that it is not new, for in the case of the city DEBATES AND PROOF-FDINGS. -- ---- . 347 J'uly 25, 1867. CO'NSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. of Flint at least, the Legislature has th granted us the same power at our own w request. I insist that it is not novel, re and I trust it is not dangerous. At n least, for my part, I had rather have si my affairs administered, if they must e be administered by another, by an h attorney of my own choosing, instead b of having a guardian placed, over me p from without, with regard to whose c appointment I have no right of choice. a Right here lies the principle; if the tl mayor and common council of Detroit l are allowed to appoint boards which have solely the administration of affairs o: peculiar to themselves, and in which S they themselves have an interest, the u people of the city of Detroit ought to t] be allowed to do by attorney, that li which they have heretofore been accus- o tomed to do directly, until the inter- t ference of the Legislature. i Mr. CONGER. May I ask the gen- t tleman if he means to say that the c mayor and common council of the city of Detroit have heretofore appointed t the police officers and constables. be- s fore the police bill was passed by the t Legislature? Mr. LOVELL., I have not been in this State a great many years; but I have resided here long enough to 1 know that police as suchl, were not c known in Detroit some years ago; as for any real thoroughly organized police systemi there, like the present system, there was none. That the metro- t politan police of the city of Detroit is an institution organized or controlled in any of its features by the mayor and common council of Detroit, I un- t derstand is not the case. I understand the Legislature of this State have seen fit to interfere in regard to that matter, on the plea that the public I safety of the city required it. If the plea is just-and I am not here to dispute it-then they have acted wisely. I But because the public safety of the' city has required it in one instance, I t insist that the Legislature shall not in- X terfere in matters in which it is conceded that the public safety does not require their interference. I say that t if you propose to interfere with self- i government, you shall do it only so far 1 as the public safety requires it. On, what other pretense do you deprive 1 men of their liberty, men now incar- I cerated in our prisons and jails? Do, you mean to say that men who have committed no offense, except of differing with us in regard to their manage-, ment of their own affairs, shall be put under guardianship and restraint? I say that doctrine is monstrous. A But to return to this question of authority proposed to be vested in the mayors and common councils of cities. I insist that there has been much fog trown about this question-I had ell nigh said deliberately, but I am minded that I ought to make use of o such expression, and hence I will imply say that I suppose that it is an rror of understanding. But there as been an effort made to cause it to e understood, that if we put it in the ower of the mayors and common ouncils of cities to administer the fairs of those cities, we are depriving he people of their rights. Now, I uppose as I said before, that if the mayor and common council of the city of Detroit, or of any other city in this tate, exercising the power granted nder their charters, are elected by heir constituents, they will be just ike all other men, they will seek to bey the power which they are forced o respect; the power which put them n office, and which is to continue them in office, if they are to be rechosen. I insist that they are a much nore safe body to delegate authority o. I insist that it is a much more safe way for the people of Detroit, that hey should administer their affairs by means of servants of their own choice, nd let other people do the same, whether those servants be good or bad, than it is to impose guardians over them. That is my position, and [ believe it is correct. Hence, I shall vote as I propose to vote. Mr. PRINGLE. There has been, I think, an unwarrantable attempt to drag some political considerations into this debate, and an endeavor on the part of some gentlemen to manufactur.e some political capital out of what may -transpire here. It is utterly untrue, that the Republican party, which has had a majority in the Legislature for the past twelve years, has ever undertaken to effect any political purpose, by means of what has been done in reference to the city of Detroit. The charge is utterly unfounded in fact, and there is no reason to support any such idea as that. Take the very case which has been specified, that of the establishment of. the police in the city of Detroit. It was, beyond doubt, in the power of the Legislature, if they saw fit, to name right here four or six of the most prominent Republicans in the city of Detroit, as police commissioners. They named, I believe, two or three Democrats, and two or three Republicans, and made a board which was not composed of party elements, or in which party elements were so balanced that neither party could claim any advantage. And from the day of the first establishment of that board, until the present time, appointments have been so made as to keep up this balance in the board. That is the fact to-day, and it is itself an answer to the charges made by the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) and the gentleman from WVashtenaw, (Mr. NOR RIs,) and more than insinuated by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTIaROP.) iMr. MORTON. I will state that I know of my own personal knowledge that the police bill was urged by the committee that came here, because the majority of the people, of Detroit would not approve of it, and they wanted it forced upon them. There is a member of this Convention, now be longing to the republican party, who could not be driven into the support of that measure. Mr. PRINGLE. I have heard what the gentleman from Monroe (Mr. MOR TON) has said. As to his personal knowledge of what some man from Detroit has said, I know not and I care not, because She facts I have stated es tablish the proposition I have asserted, that no political object or.purpose was sought by the establishment of the metropolitan police of Detroit, but, on the contrary, the object-sought and at tained was the establishment of peace and good order in that city. I wish to refer a little to the history of the legislation in regard to the city of Detroit. Some fourteen years ago they had made some movement for the establishment of water-works to supply the city with pure and wholesome water. It was complained that those works were not well managed, that the money was improvidently squandered. The people of Detroit petitioned the Legis lature to establish a board of water works. They came to the Legislature of the State, at the time when the gen tleman who offered the proposition now before us was Governor of the State, ([r. -MCCLELLAND;) they came here when the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) was a member of the Legislature; when the gentleman from I Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) who is 'now in the enjoyment of judicial honr ors, was a member of the Legislature; f when the senior gentleman from WashL tenaw, ( Mr. HIIXSON,,) was also a member , of the Legislature; when one gentleman who has not been heard here at all, I be lieve, from the county of Ottawa, (Mr. JENNISON,) was a member of the Legisla-ture. There were five members of t that Legislature, trusted members Qf the democratic party, who are now honored with seats in this Convention. , Then, as now, they were in affiliation with the democratic party. They are now here again, trusted by their con stituents, and some of them complain ing of this very class of legislation. In a law, which was passed at the time when the same party to which those t gentlemen then belonged, and now be) long, was mn the ascendency in this 9 c 1 Thursday, - ,318 July 25, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 349 State, I find by the first section that Shubael Conant, Henry Ledyard, Edmund A. Brush, William R. Noyes and James A. Vandyke, were appointed members of the board of water commissioners of Detroit. The law then goes on to provide that they shall have power, from'time to time, to loan, upon the best terms they can make, a sum of money not exceeding $250,000, upon the property of the city of Detroit, and after procuring the necessary funds, to purchase such land and materials, and to construct such reservoirs, buildings, machinery, fixtures, etc., as may be necessary to secure a full supply of water for the city. They were authorized to raise, from time to time, a water rate, to be paid by the owner or occupant of each house or other building having or using the water so supplied, upon an equitable basis; such water rate to be a continuing lien, until paid, upon the house or building, and the lot upon which the house or building was situated. They were authorized, in their discre tion, to extend and distribute pipes and mains, to construct reservoirs, cisterns and jets within the limits of the city, and to regulate and control such por tion of the water works that were without the limits of the city, the same as within the limits of te city. All the property used for water works then in existence in Detroit was conveyed to and vested in the new board of water commissioners, who were to have full power to control the same. They were invested with power to make and enforce such by-laws, regu lations and ordinances as might be necessary to carry into effect the act under which they were created, which by-laws, regulations and ordinances, when entered in a book to be kept for the purpose, and signed by the presi dent and secretary of the board, were to constitute evidence in any court of justice. If I were to go to the office of the Secretary of State, I fancy that the sign manual which I would find follow ing these words would very much re semble that made by the gentleman from Wayne who moved this proposi'tion, (Mr. MHcCLELLAND,) when the oath was administered to him in this Convention. I believe, in the history of this legislation, there were afterwards appointed some sewer commissioners and some paving commissioners. And during the last session of the Legisla ture there came here from that city some committees, and some other large bodies, asking that, inasmuch as the board of water-works tore up the streets for their purposes, and inas much as the sewer commissioners tore up the streets for their purposes, and inasmuch as the paving commissioners tore up the streets for their purposes, 'and they did not work at the same time, and were putting down pipes, and were arranging for different levels, those three boards should be consolidated, and a new board of public works established in that city. The matter wasbrought before the House of Representatives, and it was considered there. Abill was passed which followed the precedent of 1853, with this difference: in 1853, I believe the majority of the board was given to the party then in power; in 1867, it was proposed in the House of Representatives to give the members of that board equally to the two parties. Mr. LOTHROP. WVhat party was in power in 1853? Mr. PRINGLE. The party to which the gentleman belonged, and now belongs. ^ Mr. LOTHROP. To whatparty did Shubael Conant, EdmundcA. Brush and James A. Vandyke belong? Mr. PRINGLE. I was aware that Mr. Conant and Mr. Vandyke then be longed to the Whig party. Mr. LOTHROP. So did Edmund A. Brush. Mr. PRINGLE. They were all citi zens of Detroit. Mr. LIOTHROP. Was William R. Noyes a member of that board. Mr. PRINGLE. Yes, sir. Mr. LOTHRiOP. To what party did he belong? _ Mr. PIRINGLE. He belongs to the Republican party now. Mr. LOTHROP. Then there are four out of five, wha were not Democrats. Mr. PRINGLE. If the Democrats in 1853 paid the compliment of selecting for the men to manage the $250,000 of the money of the people of Detroit, in constructing their water-works, four gentlemen out of five who belonged to the opposite party, I am not here to rescind any compliment then bestowed upon my Whig associates of those days, or to say that any such trust was ill-bestowed. Mr. LOTHROP. That is not the horn which the gentleman was blowing, when I interrupted him. Mr. PRINGLE. I was arguing another point. I said no point could be made upon that; it would have been fair then, and it would have been deemed fair in 1867, to have divided that board equally between the two political parties. Other gentlemen were named, three or four of whom belonged to one political "party, and three or four to another political party, to constitute this board, and the bill passed the House. I was in the Senate, and yielded to the argument there made, and voted against the bill, because I thought the common council of Detroit might properly make these selections. I was one of the majority in the Senate that voted down that bill. I did not vote for it until it was so amended that the appointment of those commissioners was provided to be made by the common council of the cityof Detroit; and the bill was passed in that shape. It was supposed at the time it was passed, to be satisfactory to everybody; and it was the bill about which our remarkable Governor sent t is remarkable message to the council of the city of Detroit. Now, instead of being proved that a party object has been sought in this legislation, it is proved that no party object has been sought by the Republican party; and if the enumeration of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. Lo THROP,) is correct, it is proved that no party object was sought by the Demo cratic party, when they named their political opponents to constitute one of these boards. Therefore, whichever party shall be in the ascendent, no wrong will be done to anybody in that city. I have great faith in the power of the people to govern themselves well. I am willing to trust the people with my rights and liberties; I do trust them, and I- shall continue to trust them. Yet I never heard that it was a part of our faith in self-government, to believe that the people of every lit tle township, and of every ward, and of every village or city, were necessa rily best adapted to choose in regard to the particular way in which they should be governed. Except only the locality inhabited by my friend from Monroe, (Mr. MoRToN,) I have never heard of any independent city within the borders of Michigan. I have heard of the independent city of Mon roe; but I believe the city of Detroit has never aspired to that. My own city has not aspired to independence. Different townships do not aspire to that; they only look to be well gov erned, in concert and in unison with all the State. It does not follow that certain classes of people, incompetent, we will say, to govern themselves as a community, may not congregate in a particular town or in a particular ward; that does not follow from the principle of self-government, and I never heard anybody seriously advance thie idea. It does not belong to our theory of government, and it is no part of it, that necessarily they should be trusted with everything connected with their own government. Our belief only goes to the extent that great commu nities, like cities, are competent to take care of their lights and liberties, 11 .0 350 OO~STITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Thursday, and see that substantial justice is done. This metropolitan police bill was passed soon after the city of Detroit had been disgraced by a riot, in which negro men, women and children were hunted down like wild beasts, in that city which claims here to-day that it .an take care of itself, and preserve good order. Such things have not occiurred since the establishment of the police system, and. that' would not have occurred had the Legislature established that system two years sooner. Such riots, which have dis graced various cities in our country, have occurred generaly through the intervention by the authorities in those matters -which concern the public peace, the public reputation, and honor of the State, as well as of the particular city. I was entirely in earnest in what I said yesterday, that there were other localities in the State which might very likely need some such measures of legislation as- have been accorded to the people of the city of Detroit at their own request. Take the city immediately- represented by my friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER;) when there are four or five of these railrads converging there, if the people there are not willing to raise the money to sustain a police force to make Imy life safe when I pass through that city, I shall have a right, as a citizen of Michigan, to demand that a metropolitan police system shall be established there.And in my locality, where we have already three railroads, and expect two or three more, if my city shall fail to establish a police which will make it safe for persons to go from place to place in that city, it will be the bounden duty of everybody in the State to interfere, and say that some system shall be established there by which we shall be compelled to do our duty to the rest of the State. Only call to mind how it was twelve or fifteen years ago in the city of Detroit. They had there some\twelve or fifteen men, dressed up in some sort of way, that they called policemen. It was a city of forty or fifty thousand inhabitants, on the route upon which most of our people went to the East. It was the great commercial metropolis of the State, the place where our people most congregated, and where we most needed protection; where several thousand men and women, whose color happened to.be darker than our own, were notoriously unsafe, because there was not an efficient police there. This was the judgment of the people of the State who believed in self-government, ewho found no reason not to continue t hold that belief, because of the fact that Detroit failed to be well governed in this respect, that it did not protect the lives of all those people. Detroit owed something to the people of the State who came there to do their busi ness. My town, the town of the gentleman from St. Clair, every town and village in the State to which shall be accorded a sep arate system of municipal government, owes something to the people of the State, owes all that is necessary in order to make good government. I was entirely in earnest in saying that I think this might very likely be applied to other parts of the State. I remem ber in my own city -it is not particu larly in our honor to say so-when a certain rendezvous was there, and it was deemed necessary that some ten or twelve policemen should be detailed, to be on duty at night, with reference to the danger to life and property in that city during that time, there were many of our citizens-I do not think there were a majority of them-who rebelled at the idea of having to pay thirty or forty dollars a day, or whatever the sum might be, in order to provide a special police. There are other cities that would rebel, and which do rebel against this call which good govern ment makes upon them; they rebel against it; I mean, of course, not active rebellion, but the idea which enters the minds of people that they should not be called upon to pay this expense which they owe to good government, and the order and peace of society, as the metropolitan police system of Detroit is maintained, and very properly, too, at the expense of the city of Detroit. So it should be now in all our cities and villages, whenever the occasion shallcome for the impositionlof that or a similar law. And it will be done on the application of the good citizens of those towns; if they happen to be in the majority, perhaps they will take care of it well enough themselves. If they do not happen to be in a majority, and do not happen to have the daring. and pluck-to make themselves felt m the majority, then the Legislature should take care of them. Those gentlemen seem to think that the Republicans are seeking to effect a political object here Sir, there is not aRepublican within the borders of the State of Michigan, who does-not think that, so far as parties and party power are concerned, they are strong enough already. Therefore, so far as protecting men, and carrying out the right ideas of government, we ought to give that right to the Lfegislature. But, for the mere purpose of party organization, there is not a Republican in the State, who does not know that we are strong enough already. With twenty-five thousand, or thirty thousand majority, we need not another vote, in order to give us a good practical working majority; and we need not increase it, except we can convince men that we are right and they are wrong. Mr. LOTHROP. We who have moved, and who have supported the propositiOn that was adopted in committee of. the whole, have'been made the subject of a concentrated, and I suppose an organized fire this morning. Whether that fire shall sweep us from-the ranks or not, is of very little concern to us; we receive it with entire calmness and tranquility. We have brought before the Convention a proposition which we think is entitled to their grave consideration; which we think is founded upon sound principle, and which we think is no more than just. By that proposition we choose to stand, discharging our duty, discharging all the responsibilities that rest upon us, and leaving every other gentleman to do — the same. Nor can we be driven from 7-that — position by misrepresentations, by jests, by ridicule, or by anything except sound reliable argument. If gentlemen can remove us from our position in that respect, in the judgment of the Convention, then they will vindicate the action of the Convention, if it is in their fa:vor. If they cannot, they may provide an excuse, but they will not furnish a justification. Are we assailing the proposition of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MrTT,s?) Is that our position at all? Are we arguing against that proposition merely? No, sir; we are arguing against the displacement of another proposition, which proposition is a guarantee; that is the ground on which we stand.:We do not deny that it was entirely adequate, seventeen years ago, to simply declare, as the Constitution then did declare, that all other than judicial officers in cities or villages should be elected or appointed, as the Legislature might prescribe; that was ample. Seventeen years ago there had been no attempt of the Legislature, nay, it did not enter into the minds of any person at that time, even one of the utmost audacity, to dream that the Legislature would enter into the municipal organization of any city, or village, or town, in this State, and lay its strong hand upon the administration of affairs there. Had that remained the condition of affairs to-day, that proposition would have been repeated. in the. Constitution. Unfortunately that is not the position of affairs to-day. The history of this State shows-whether from party or other considerations, I did not intend to say a word, and if I do it shall have .CONSTITUTION.AT,CONV'P,N-TION. 350 Thursday, I July 25, 1867. DEBAT,E AD POCEEDIX'. 351 been wrung from me the history'of this State shows that, from whatever considerations, the Legislat-ure -has entered upon-the domain of municipal administration and taken it into its strong hand. But for that fact, there would have been no word said upon this subject in the Convention to-day. We all agree that the chief executive officer of a city or village should be elected; so far there is no controversy. We all agree that the legislative body, of a city or village should be elected. So far there is no controversy. we all agree that they stand there the immediato representatives of the people; and,if there shall be any differende among us, it will be as to the responsibility and power with which they should be clothed. - Beyond that lies another domain, the domain of municipal power. There is no doubt about that; it is municipal power we are speaking of, which is exercised by boards; it is not general State power, it is not any power but the power of a municipality. Shall that municipal power still remain- in the hands either of the people them selves, or of their agents, the mayor and common council, or shall it remain in the legislative body at Lansing?, It is a practical question, not'a theoretical question, which is forced upon us by the recent action of -the Legislature. There is where we differ precisely. When you organize a municipality, it is organized for the purpose of mu nicipal administration. Let me say here, without entering into the theory on that subject more than this: a mu nicipality simply represents that por tion of the sovereignty of the people which is organized in that form. Ac-, cording to our institutions, the source of all power is the people.. For the exercise of that power we organize it; a portion of it we organize in the State; another portion of it we organize in the county, and another portion of it we organize in the city or the town. The question now before the Convention is where that portion of power thus or ganized in a city or town shall be ex ercised.- Shall it be exercised in a city, or town, or bythe Legislature,? Now, every man here knows, no man will de ny it, that the very idea of organizing a city or town is that that portion of power thus organized from the people shall there be exercised. That was the very idea of organizing it in that man ner; and had it so remained, we should be entirely content. But the history of the legislation of this State shows that, as to one mnunic ipality of the State, the city of Detroit, the attempt has been made, success fully made, repeatedly made, for the Legislature to extend its strong hand, :and seize a portion of that power, and administer it itself, or through its immediate agents. Now, the question before the Convention is; shall that be authorized, or shall it be forbidden? We -claim that it shall be forbidden. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) claims that it shall be left open, to be repeated again as it has been done before. - That is the difference between us. To grant our guarantee, is to forbid that intervention; to take from us that guarantee, to adopt the provision of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MrLs,) is toindorse these attempts to exercise municipal jurisdiction; by the Legislature, whenever it shall be demanded by some knot or coterie of ambitious men -in- that municipality. There is the distinction upon which gentlemen of: this Convention must act. I go still further, and say to thegen tlemen of this Convention that I accept the proposition as laid down yesterday by the gentleman from Shiawasse, (Mr. PARSONso.) He says it was admitted on the-floor of the Legislature of which he was a member, by the gentlemen who then represented the city of De troit, that the people of Detroit were not competent to govern themselves, and must be governed by the action of the Legislature. I myself believe that it was so avowed, though I -certainly believe that the gentlemen who are named as the sponsors for that doc trin'e would now be unwilling deliber ately to acknowledge i. One of them especially was anexceedingly able man, a gentleman of very great ability. - I really think he would hesitate to say, even if he used that argument then, as a method of floating the bill through the Legislature; I think he would be unwilling to endorse the proposition in all its naked deformity, that we cannot govern ourselves. For, if it be true, then the duty of the State is to take that power from us. I repeat that the only groundupon which the doctrine can be vindicated at all, is that we are not competent to administer our own mu nicipal government. I want gentlemen to':understand-those who are ob servers of -these scenes and the hearers of this argument, will place it there precisely-that you have declared in this Constitution that we of the city of Detroit, whether that city occupies a proud or other position, we who have thus built it up, who have organized its institutions, who have founded there institutions more perfect than any Others existing in the State of Michi gan, who have founded there schools open to every person in that city, the best that can be for the education of youth," we who have organized that city. in all its branches, and have built up its prosperity, have at- last fallen into that degraded condition that -we' cannot govern ourselves. There is no other position that can be taken, there is no other rule that can be applied. If that be the true state of the case, -then-I beseech you, gentlemen do not pause here by any half-way measure in the Constitution, but proceed -to say that it shall be the duty of the -Legislature of the State of Michigan to sav-e the city of Detroit from itself, and to govern it by proper and judicious laws, instituted by the Legislature. - Now what dowe ask? We do not ask that the mayor and council shall necessarily appoint these officers;- we leave that question to the Legislature. We simply ask that the Legislature shall not,do it. We ask that the iLegislature shall leave the exercise of this power, either to the people themselves, or to the responsible agents of the peo ple, their mayor and common council. Is that an unjust request, an'improper request, an injudicious request? -But to go a little further, let us look at the history of these things. I said yesterday to this Convention, that it was entirely proper "i the organization of a city, that departments should be organized. You may call them depart ments, commissions, boards, whatever you please-; that is not the question. The question is, how shall the heads of these departments be appointed? Shall they be appointed by the munic ipal authorities, or shall they be sent there by another body? That is the question. Shall we, by the mayor and common council, or by'the votes. of our electors, appoint the heads of these, departments, or will you appoint them here at Lansing? The same rule of propriety that Would authorize you to appoint them here at Lansing would authorize you to appoint th'em from other municipalities, and to import them into the city-of Detroit. But it is said that we have asked for these boards; that the board of water works-was asked for by the people of Detroit, and by the Democrats of De troit. It is eminently proper that there should be a department of water works; nobody makes complaint of that. The people of — the- city, in 1853, did- ask, without any controversy or division of opinion, so- far as I now recollect, that there should-be a- department of water works. So far was it from the consid eration of any one that it should be a matter of party, that we took, without thought I have no do'nbt; men of wise judgment in the city of Detroit, and placed- them at the head of that de partment. As we all concurred in w~ao were proper men for that purpose, there wasno difference about it. But we provided that thereafter they should I DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. . J. ul-y 25, i867. 351 352 OOTITUTIOAL COVETIO. Thursday, ing. Though I have the additional be appointed, as they are to-day, by the mayor and common council. What then? The next in order, I think, was the commission of sewers, although I am not quite certain about that. They were appointed in the same way, without any reference to politics at all, when the commission was first organized.' And they are appointed now by the mayor and common council; precisely what we here ask. In 1865 there came another birth; there came the organization of the metropolitan police, as it is called; rather an ambitious sounding name. Had it been born in our midst it would have been more modestly named; but the title is one for which we are not responsible. That organization stands to-day just as independent of us as if it was appointed; by the Queen of Great Britain; we have no more power or control over it whatever than if it were so appointed. The gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRIaGLE,) says that board is divided, two democrats and two republicans. Now, each gentleman named on that board is a very well known citizen; each one is my personal friend; each one is a most respectable man, for whom I have very great respect. But when I put that organization into the scale of politics, I find there some of the most lively, active, breathing republicans. I find some gentlemen whom I believe to be nominally members of the-Democratic party; I am hardly sure on that point. But I know that when I weigh that organization in the scale of politics, the lively republican members put the other..men entirely out of sight. I want to ask another question. Gentlemen talk about conmmittees coming here and asking the appointment of a metropolitan police. Committees of whom? Committees of any organized municipal authority in Detroit? No, sir; committees born of themselves, and headed by the man who heads that commission. There were no other committees. And now, without maldng any charge, I put this query: Is there any man on the floor of this Convention who knows what this self-constituted committee promised? Some men are won by partizanship; as well as by sound argument. They promised that if the metropolitan police was organized in the manner they proposed, the politics of the city of Detroit should be purified for that is the form of expression-purified within two years. I know whereof I speak. Now, still further. We are told that the police organization was imposed upon us by the Legislature of the State of Michigan because life and liberty in the city of Detroit had become so insecure, at the hands of the-authorities, that it needed the strong intervention of the arm of the State. That has been said by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONFER,) and it has been repeated here by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRMNGLE.) Now, against those assertions I will make an asser'tion. I affirm that the peace, good order, and security of the city of Detroit were as distinguished up to the day of the appointment of the metropolitan police as they have been any day since. I have no occasion to make any gratuitous assertion on this point; I know whereof I speak. For the last twenty-five years my home has been in the city of Detroit. It is only a sojourning place, where I have invited my friend from St. Clair; my home is in the city of Detroit. That is where I nowlive, and where I have lived for the last twenty-five years. I am not boastful of that city; I leave her to stand onher own merits. If those merits as well as her local beauty cannot win for her any grace and approval, I leave her to pass without,it. But I say there is no city in the ]and so distinguished for her self-poise, sobriety and peace. One of the most remarkable instances of the self-sustained conduct of the American citizen is, that the city of Detroit had attained a population of forty thousand, and had not even the shadow of a policeman in it. I do not know what the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) refers to when he speaks of "some men dressed up in some way," before the dawn of the metropolitan police. I saw no man in uniform there before that time. We have now some elegantly dressed men there. The old-fashioned constable compared with onQ of these policemen would be as Hyperion to a satyr. -Our old-fashioned plain constable has no place there whatever. Daily there march in our streets some elegantly formed and well dressed gentlemen, and we pay them each about'sixty dollars a month for their good looks and dress. But I affirm they do not create peace and good order among us. What is the fact? We lived all through the times of the war, the excitement of the war, and we had not a police officer in Detroit, except ten constables, the same as you have in your smaller towns; and we had no disturbance, except one, of which I will soon speak. Besides that, we are told about garroting; that the peace and quiet of the city was continually disturbed by scenes of garroting. I affirm that the contrary was the fact; there were no disturbances of the peace, that were in any manner conspicuous, in the city of Detroit before that time. There may have been such ~n instance as garrot knowledge which an active practitioner in our courts will possess, I have no knowledge of an instance of garroting in that city from her foundation. The most striking murder that has taken place in that city, took place since the organization of the police; not that they produced it, but it so happened. Up to the time of the organization of that police we had been distinguished for the peace and good order of that city, n]aintained by the good judgment of its population. great riot which caused the establishment of the metropolitan police, by which men with skin differently colored from our own were rendered unsafe there. I have no doubt the gentleman believed so. Even the fibres of his brain have been colored in that way, and as the coward sees in every bush an ofcer, so he sees an African in every movement. I tell the gentleman that e disturbance of which he speaks 'lad no more to do with the lineage of bhe African, than with the lineage of Lile Mongolian or the Caucasian. What was that riot, for which he says the right of self-government in this regard was taken away? It arose from a cause which will move the most stolid people, and does often move them to frenzy. A negro was charged with the perpetration of the last infamy upon a girl of the most tender years. When e populace was pressing upon him, for the purpose of wreaking justice upon him, unwisely and unwarrantably, without provocation, a soldier turned around and discharged his innsket, and an innocent man was shot down. Was it wpnderful that a few persons, stung by passion, roused, not by the color of the individual, but by the infamy they believed to have been perpetrated, broke into a riot, and in the evening burned some few houses? Who repressed that riot, and put it down at last? I saw it from beginfling to end. It broke out just after the siaes of night had fallen, and at ten o'clock that city was as quiet as the town of Lansing is to-day. The riot was suppressed by the people of the city of Detroit. It is true, assistance was telegraphed for, but no assistance arrived until the next morning. There was not a single organized company of soldiers there, save our volunteer companies. But the riot was not suppressed by the volunteer companies; it was suppressed by the citizens of Detroit, just so soon as they could throw themselves into forms of organ It has been said that there was a Are we greater sinners than they all -than they "on whom the town of Siloam fell?" Has the metropolitan CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 352 -Thursday, Jul _5 _87 DEAE AI'POEJD., 5 police of the city of New York, organized almost to the dimensions of an army, saved that city from riot, from a disgraceful riot, beside which ours "'pales its ineffectual fires?" Is the city of Philadelphia exempt with its large police organization? Will not my friend remember that defenseless men and women, some colored like ourselves, have had their roof-trees burned over them, and their churches demolished? Aye, in the very cradle of our political liberties, my own youth saw, in the light of the flames of a convent, peaceful women fleeing from an infuriated mob. Should the administration, the organization, the power of the people of Boston be taken away from them for that reason? WMould Charles Sumner and Wendell Phillips think that they should be despoiled of their self-government for that? Sir, there is no power that can repress, at all times, the violent passions of the people. What has occurred in other countries within but a few days since? Great Britain, with its great army, has witnessed, in its great city of Manchester, since this Convention has met, the streets, from end to end of that city, in the possession of an infuriated mob. WVhy do gentlemen assail the city of Detroit for a consideration like this, when there has been no organized riot there, when at the utmost there has been but a mere ebullition, and one, however much to be deplored, which leaned to virtue's side, and rested upon the very best and noblest elements of the human character? Is that to be thrown into our teeth, and our rights taken from us in that regard? But it is said still further, that these acts of the Legislature have been passed upon the petitions of citizens of De troit; citizens of'Detroit have peti tioned undoubtedly. It is said that the "gentleman from Detroit himself," has petitioned the Legislature for this purpose. If that were true, there are very many gentlemen in this hall, who looking into their past history, would not deny me the'privilege of changing my position. But that does not hap pen to be true. I say to gentlemen that, in regard to the police bill, no man can find my name to that petition, unless it has been put there fraudu lently; for I opposed it. Let me say to gentlemen, that I was in favor of the organization of the police in the city of Detroit, not because of any dis order there at all, but because in con sidering this matter, I thought it un safe to go on with a large population, slich as we had, without some means of controlling it. But I was opposed to that police bill from beginning to end, and I made my opposition known Vol. 2-No. 45. wherever I thought it could have any influence. My name is to another petition, but not in the sense which gentlemen of this Convention would understand it. I do not impute any intention to convey an unjust impression here. My name was to a petition for a bill which did not pass, a bill for the organization of a department of education. A department of education has been organized for a long time in the city of Detroit. It consists of two school inspectors from each ward; they are elected by the people, and the board. has now assumed the dimensions of a department consisting of twenty members. I believe that board at this time should be changed in its mode of organization; I do not believe that it should be abolished, but that it should be continued. I said yesterday, that these boards and departments were very proper. But I believe instead of electing twenty members of that board from the various wards of the city, it should now be diminished, and it should be nominated by the common council. And on the petition I wrote this special endorsement: "I approve of the change in the method of organization; I think the board should be constituted of an odd number, and of not less than nine." It was proposed to make a similar.board, but I did not approve of that. What is the board of education? I desire the Con vention to indulge me one moment on that subject. It is an exceedingly im portant department in the city of De troit. Now, unfortunately, with its large numbers, it has become too much assimilated to this Convention, it has become a great debating body. Let me do justice to that board; I bow in most respectful homage to the board of education of Detroit. It has done a work that few men, or organizations, can do for any community. It has reared up a system of instruction of the very highest order. It is one of the most important departments now in the State of Michigan. Aye, your proud University, sitting so high as she does upon the pinnacle of observation, hardly deserves more con sideration than the board of education of the city of Detroit. It has in its charge about ten thousand actual pupils. Its disbursements are now somewhere in the neighborhood of sixty-five thousand dollars, I think, larger than that of the University of Michigan. It is a disbursement almost as large as the State of Michigan at the time my excellent colleague (Mr. MCCLELLAND) occupied the executive chair. Having charge of those great institutions, and of that great amount of property, I deemed the time had come when the board should be diminished, when it should be made to consist of not more than nine members; and that it should be appointed by the representatives of the people of Detroit, the mayor and common council. While I endorsed that position, during the same winter there came to me another petition, (that petition was brought to me by the very man who now sits in the chair at the head of that commission,) asking that there should be taken from the city of Detroit the control of the fire department. I refused to sign the petition because there was no earthly necessity for that commission at all; and I believed that if it should be appointed, the authorities of the city should have that appointment. I have acted, I do not say wisely, but advisedly,upon this subject. Thereore, so far as the argumentum ad hominem, (if I may be allowed to use that expression, without being deemed to have hurled it at anybody,) applies to any one, it does not apply to me. I have been no part or parcel of this thing at all. And further; gentlemen say this was done at the instance and on behalf of the people of the city of Detroit. Why do not these gentlemen, if they believe that, submit the question to the people of Detroit, and let them determine whether the board of police commissioners should exist as adopted and appointed by the Legislature? I de sire to talk respectfully, but plainly. There are gentlemen here who voted for that bill, so they tell me. I must be allowed to say to those gentlemen that when they passed that bill they knew the people of Detroit would put their heel upon it if they had the op portunity. I have no objection at all if you pass those bills, and then- refer them to the people of Detroit for their approval; that would fall entirely with in the principle we advocate. I have indulged in this train of re mark much longer than I had intended to do. BEut I want to vindicate our right to govern ourselves. I said, with entire plainness yesterday, that I believ ed there was a necessity for some change in the organization of our city government. There has been a time there, when any government was al most unnecessary, as it is in the State of Michigan; when we could almost get alo g without any government. But while this is almost universally true in regard to the country portions of the State, while you can do this among a simple sparse population in the rural districts, the moment the population becomes dense, and gathers in great centres, government becomes an absolute necessity; and thren, how I i July 25, 1867.. DF,RATES AND- PROCF'P4T)INGS. 353 'CONSSTITUTIONAT, CONVE-TION. ever that government may be originated, it must be clothed with power, and made responsible for the exercise of that power. I believe the time has come when we must vary our form of government in the city of Detroit. We must have a responsible government -'there. We will not surrender our right of selfgovernment; we will not surrender popular government, unless it is forced from us. But I believe we must create' a popular government of a different form;, in which the legislature and the executive will be elected by the people, and then required to furnish a good government for the city. That I believe can be done; but it cannot be dond in any other way. And I now say to gentlemen, if you take from us this and that portion of our municipal power, you will go on from year to year,. until at last we will have no government at all there;''that is, no responsible government. It is for this Convention to determine what shall be done. I said yesterday, that we had a right to demand this of you. But if you will give it to us as a boon, we will accept it in that form. We ask a guarantee that whoever exercises our municipal government, shall derive his authority from our own midst. It may be asked, what if your mayor and common council trample down the rights of our citizens; what guarantee shall we have against that? I answer, you can take away our charter any moment you please; you can reduce us .to the form and condition of a town ship; you can create a new form of government; that-is left entirely to the control and will of the -Legislature.' Control us as you please; only what ever the power may be that you confer upon a municipality, let that power be exercised by the people of the munici pality, directly or indirectly. But, say gentlemen, are you going to elect your recorder; do you demand that you shall be allowed to elect your recorder? Who is the recorder, and what is he? Have we askfed any guar antee that a recorder shall be continued there, or that his present jurisdiction shall be maintained? He is entirely subject to your control. In the main, the recorder is,ot a municipal officer. All the municipal authority he exercises may be taken away. He is the crimi nal judge of that city; but you can take away the municipal incidents at tached to him. I do not think the police justices should be elected. I think it would be proper that all police justices should be appointed by the mayor and common council. But I do not ask any gua r antee on that subject-at all; we do n o ask any guarantee on that subject at all. A police justice in the city of Detroit exercises the same jurisdiction, andw none other, than that exercised by a justice:of- the peace in your townsh'ips. HIis jurisdiction is not so large, because he cannot examine except as to crimes committed'in the city.' But your justice of the peace can examine as to crimes committed anywhere in the county. Our police justice is not a municipal officer; you can appoint him just as you please; we want no 'guarantee' in that behalf. But ourwater-works, our sewers, our streets, our o0rdinances, are matters of our own concern. These things, by your general laws, you give over to every one of the other municipalities in the State. We humbly ask-will you allow us to say that we demand?that you shall not put upon us the stigma, of all the municipalities of the State, of the charge that we are incaptable of self-government, and that we must be ruled by the Legislature at Lansing. I believe there is no man whio dares to stand up on this floor, and insist that that is a sound and wise proposition. There is no. other community in the State' against whom this authority is exercised, or has been exercised. We believe it has been injuriously, unwisely, unprovokedly exercised against us. We believe it has beenpexercised in the interest of certain ambitious men Rho, not' being able to' secure position there save by your intervention, have invoked that intervention, and thereby secured offices. We believe every man upon this floor will concede that that is an outrage -upon the selfrespect' and rights of such local community. We ~ask youto-day that this shall not be' repeated in the city of Detroit; that as 'you will not bear it in your own midst you will' not do the wrong of inflicting it upon others. With these considera tions, and'in that view, we are perfectly willing to leave this matter to the Convention. 'Mr. F. C. WATKINS. I move that ;the Convention now take a recess until three o'clock this afternoon. Thte motion was agreed to; and accordingly, (at twenty minutes past twelve o'clock p. m.,) the Convention 'took a recess until three o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Conxentionre-assembled atthree o'clock p,. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. EThe roll was called, and a quorum -answered to their names, .PRESENTATION TO PRESIDENT OF THE CON -r -N VENTION. ce Mr. VAN VALKENBUIRGH camne forward with a copy of the Bible in his hand, and, addressing the President, said: In behalf of the messengers of this Convention, I have the pleasure of presenting you, Mr. President, with this Book, "the Book of Books," as a testimonial of their high regard for you personally, and their appreciation of the faithful, diligent and impartial manner in which you discharge the onerous duties devolving upon you as President of this Convention. Gathered, as we are here, from the various districts in this State, to revise the organic law, they thought this Book-the foundation of all lawan appropriate token of their regard for one who so well presides over and so wisely guides the deliberations of this Convention. Accept this Book, sir, as a testimonial of their high regard, accompanied with our fervent prayers that it may prove to you, and to the loved ones who gather around your hearthstone-that: its blessed precepts mnay prove to us all-a light to guide us through the conflicts of- this life, to the better land where God's perfect law will be vindicated in the happiness of all who love and obey Him. The PRESIDENT responded as follows: For the expression of friendship and regard at the hands of my young friends, I return my unfeigned and sincere thanks. I trust that my own life may ever be guided by the sacred'precepts of this volume; and may I not hope also that its divineinjunctions may ever be the polar star, guiding the lives of these, my young friends? I am proud of this gift, and I am proud of our messenger boys. I think I but express the sentiment of this Convention, when I say that for faithful application to duty, for courtesy, promptness and'exemplary conduct, these boys have not been surpassed by any corps of messengers that have ever performed similar duties within the walls of this State House. I thank you, boys, not only for this gift, butfor the excellent manner with which you hlave discharged the duties devolved upon you. I shall cherish this Book. I shall everremember the donors. With deep solicitude for their welfare, I shall watch their future in life. As years roll on, and the members of this Convention, one by bne, pass away, and are gathered in the harvest of death-lwhen the passions of the hour. shall subside, and' this nation, one homogenious people from the lakes to the gulf, from ocean to ocean, great, prosperous and free, shall stand as it has stood, the admiration and envy of the world-let us hope,. that these, our boys, in-that day, may be among the loved, the honored, and the noble men of this land. 354 .-Thursday, I July 25, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. ,.- *.... -.... Dt-. t' -' ~ X.. * —' [ -. ~" / -..,.. 355 Again thanking you, boys, with heartfelt gratitude for this expression of your esteem, assuring you of my best wishes for your welfare and prosperity, I accept the gift you have so kindly bestowed upon me. CITIES AND COUNTIES.' The Convention then resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Cities and Counties." - MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. The PRESIDENT. At the time the Convention took a recess, it was engaged in the consideration of the amendment reported from the cornmmittee of the whole, to section two of this article, which section is as follows: "Judicial officers of cities and villages shall be elected, and all other officers shall be elected or appointed at such time and in such manner, as the Legislature may direct." The amendment of the committee of the whole is to strike out this section and insert in lieu thereof the following: Mayors and members of the common council in cities, and presidents and boards of trustees in villages, shall be elected by electors thereof, at large or in their proper wards or districts, as shall be provided by law; all other municipal officers or boards in whom is vested any portion ot municipal authority, shall be elected as aforesaid, or appointed by the mayor and common council, in such manner as shall be provided by law." The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILES,) moved the following substitute for the amendment reported from the committee of the whole: "The mayor and aldermen of cities, and the president and trustees ot villages shall be elected, and all other officers shall be elected or appointed at such time and in such manner as the Legislature may direct." The pending question is upon the substitute for the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. MILES. I do not propose to make any speech on this occasion. I did not suppose when this article was reported by the committee on counties, that we had laid before this Convention a matter which was to excite so much feeling, and elicit so much debate. In speaking of this subject the Other day, I referred to the gentleman from- Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) as the father of this very section in the present Constitution. I understood him to say at the time, that he had nothing to do with it. I find on looking ever the debates of the Convention of 1850, on page 904, that the committee on corporations, reported section fourteen of the article on corporations, as follows: -' "Officers of cities and villages shall be elected at such times and in such manner as the Legislature may direct." Amendments were offered to that section by one or two members which were not agreed to. Finally, on motion of Mr. MOCLELLAND, section fourteen was amended by" inserting the word -"judicial," at the commencement of the, section, and. the words, "all other officers shall be elected or appointed," ,after the word "elected;"' leaving the "section to stand as. fially passed -:by the Convention of 1850, as follows: " Judicial officers of cities and villages shall be elected, and all other officers, shall bee elected or appointed, at such time and in such manner as the Legislature mayi direct." When the committee on cities and villages of this Convention made their report, they reported the section ex actly as we found it in the Constitution "of 1850. In some of the discussions which have taken place here,'I have undestood the gentlemen from. Wayne (Messrs. MCCLELLaND anld LOTHEROP) to say that their opposition to this section was, that it referred solely to the election of judicial officers, and that -they wished to have a provision by which the section could be so changed that other officers might be elected. I therefore drew up the substitute which is now pending before this Convention, making the mayor and aldermen elec,tive, and leaving all other officers to be elected or appointed, as the. Legislature might direct. I do not think that either myself or any other member of the committee on counties is responsible for the political character which the discussions on. this question has assumed. In the first place,.we reported this section just as it stands in the present Constitution. I do not believe a single member of the 'committee of which I have the honor to be chairman, thought for a single moment that the section reported by. us was calculated to be dangerous to any of the liberties or interests..of any city or village in our State.: I believe 'the substitute I have offered will meet with the cordial approbation of the great mass of the people of.Detroit,' and of other portions of our State. I cannot see any reason why-there should be any objection to it. VWe have lived under it for seventeen years, and I never heard any objection to this seeLtion, and never had any idea of changing it, until objections were made here to electing the judicial officers of cities. I, therefore, changed it'with the appro'bation of a portion of the committee; I did not see all of them. As I understand:it, this is not a matter where the; Legislature have the control of the entire' destiny of the people of the city of Detroit. Under this section, as I proppse to amend it, the Legislature will have the poWer to authorize the mayors and aldermenofo cities to appoint other:-oficers.' Gentlemen will find, by referring to the article on counties and townships, a provision naming a certain number of officers who shall be;elected, and pro viding that other officers maybe elected or appointed. I do not see that this substitute of mine varies from other portions of the Constitution in prin ciple; it goes right along with it, and is just exactly what I believe the people want. I hope the substitute' I have offered will be -adopted. It is short, but it expresses exactly the meaning of the committee, as I understood it; and I believe it meets with -the approbation of the majority of this Convention. Mr. McCLELLAND. I donot pre cisely understand the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILES.) I did not say, and the reporter Will bear me out in that, that I had nothing to do with this section in the Convention of 1850. Mr. MILES.- I said I understood the gentleman to say so. : Mr. - MoCLELLAND. The gentleman seems to be disposed to misunderstand me. If not,, why does he produce the journals of 1850, to show that I have asserted what was not strictly true? I do not permit things of that kind. 'Mr. MILES. Will the gentleman listen to me a moment? I said I un'derstood the gentleman to say so; I did not say the gentleman said so. That was my understanding of it, and that was the reason I looked into the matter. Mr McCLELLAND. It is a strange inference to draw from the language I made use of. The other day the gentleman said positively, as I understood him that I' was opposed to any change in the Constitution of 1850. I replied to the gentleman, and pointed out to him sundry occasions where I had expressed myself here as opposed to various parts of the Constitution of 1850; and I told him then, as I have told others before, that I preferred the Constitution of 1835. Then why introduce here the journals of 1850, for the purpose of showing that I had stated that whi~ch was not true? I have no disposition to protract this discussion; I think it has gone far enough. I pre:suime every member here is ready to vote. But for;the purpose of having placed upon the record the'action of :the Convention on this subject, I call for the yeas and nays. ' Mr. MUSSEY. I rise for information. As I understand the question now before the Convention, it is upon the adoption of the substitute offered by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILES,) for section two of the article entitled "cities and villages."' Mr. MILES. MIy proposition is a substitute for the amendment offered by'the gentleman from Wayne,' (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) which was adopted by the committe of the whole. The PRESIDENT. In committee CONSTITUTIONATl, CONVENTION. of the whole the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) offered a substitute for section two of this article, which was adopted and reported by the committee of the whole to the Convention. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mrl. MILES,) now offers a substitute for that amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. MUSSEY. Then the question now before the Convention is upon the substitute for the amendment of the committee of the whole? The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. Mr. MUSSEY. I hope I may be pardoned for making the inquiry. I listened to some portions of the debate on yesterday, and during this forenoon, quite attentively. I find it very difficult to connect the remarks made, especially in'opposition to this amendment, with this section as I find it printed in the journal. I notice that all who oppose the adoption of this amendment, talk about the city of Detroit. I do not find " Detroit," in the amendment at all; it applies to all cities and villages generally. From the debates, one would naturally con clude that the question before the Convention was upon something which related particularly to Detroit; that Detroit had been singled out and placed in some particular provision by itself. Now. I am a little surprised at the opposition to this amendment. I am in favor of it, from the fact that it accords exactly with my views in re gard to these matters, as I have ex pressed them over and over again. This article provides for the organi zation Of cities and villages, and then it provides for the' election of just officers enough to establish a munici pality. It then leaves in the hands of the Legislature all the other provisions which are necessary to be made, in order to carry out a good and well regulated city or village government. If Detroit is so situated that it cannot rest its interests, in common with the interests of the rest of the people of the State, then they should have a Constitutional Convention of their own, and adopt a Constitution exactly adapted to that locality. It seems to me that no one can find any fault with the amendment; it is plain, explicit, and applies generally to all the State. Detroit has not been singled out, as one would suppose from the arguments which have been made here. No effort is made here to force upon Detroit an arbitrary government, which we are unwilling should berim posed upon the rest of the State. De troit is classed with the other cities of the State, and must take its chances with the rest. It has no more reason to complain than other localities have. I apprehend the Legislature wi never interfere with the city of Detroi unless they are asked to do so by th ' citizens of Detroit. I have never know an instance of a disposition on th part of the Legislature to interfere wit - the affairs of the city of Detroit, unles - they were urged to do so, and man times very strongly, and even again L the wish of the Legislature. It hs been very difficult many times for th people of Detroit to obtain all th changes in their city government tha they asked; the very changes that ar complained of in this debate. I thin there has been a mistrust in regad t this matter, a sort of jealousy, a so] of suspicion that is unfounded, and no justifiable from the past dealings ( the Legislature with the city of De troit. The citizens of Detroit hav themselves asked for new charters, an for amendments to their charter. know that in one instance they cam here, and were unwilling to comm their interests to the men who repre sented them on this floor; their repre sentatives upon this floor oppose strenuously that which the citizens c Detroit asked, and I think every one c them voted against it. The city author ities, and men who occupied position of prominence and influence, were her to look after their interests, rather tha confide them to those who represented them here in the Legislature. Right here I wish to refer to a littl matter of history, to show that th Legislature did not wish to deal un fairly with the people of Detroit. The Legislature -provided for a recorde: and a recorders court in that city The men who were here looking after the interests of the city represente that there was not a word or a line i the whole of that instrument tha affected anybody outside the limits o the city of Detroit. Yet, when WE come to look at that provision on oui statute book, we find that the State has to pay for one of the city officers, the recorder, fifteen hundred dollars a year. We were told here to-day that he was a State. officer. I had never supposed that he was a State officer until to-day. I am very glad to be in formed in regard to that matter, and to be set right. I had supposed that he had no jurisdiction at all in matters outside of Detroit, whether criminal 6r civil. I had supposed that his juris diction was confined particularly to the city of Detroit. I had not supposed that he was a State officer at all, and I have always felt as though the city had no just claim upon the State topay a salary to one of their city officers. But if the statement is correct that he is a State judicial officer, then I shall feel a little better about paying my .............. ill portion of that fifteen hundred dollars. it, But I am not fully convinced yet; it e seems to me still that he is a local city officer; that he has nothing to do with e State affairs; that he does not render h an equivalent for the money of the ss State. I do not see how I shall ever y get an equivalent for the portion of st that money which I am obliged to pay, s unless I should happen to be arraigned e,before him and get some favor-done e me, and I do not desire to do that. at I refer to these things to illustrate re this idea, that the people of the city of k Detroit have hai just what they have o asked, and in the way they have asked t it, and, I think sometimes, a little more t than they are entitled to. Then why this f jealousy and suspicion in regard to the Legislature and the people of the e State, as though the people of the d State were about to interfere with their I rights, as though the people of the e State were hostile to the city of De it troit? As has been remarked-here re - peatedly, I think the people of the - State all feel a pride in that city. They d think it a little lacking in enterprise per f haps, and a little old-fogyish, not quite f up to the times. Yet I say, if they are -not willing to come under the same s provisions as the rest of us have to live e under, they had better secede and go n to Canada. It is but a short distance, d and I have known in the past that they were very much inclined that way. I e should say, let them go, before I should e insert any special provision in the Con stitution to favor the city of Detroit; if e she cannot live with us, and fare as we r fare, and be content, let her go. I . shall vote for this amendment and hold r the city of Detroit to it. It is not a d hopeless city; the people there are not n altogether hopeless; they can be made good loyal citizens yet, and be all right, fand be an advantage and a credit to e the State. We will be more proud of r them than we are now. I propose s that they shall abide by the same laws e that we do, livepnder the same Con stitution that we do, and if they will t improve a little, I hope that we will r get along peaceably. r Mr. D. GOODWIN; It seems to me from the remarks of the gentleman 1 from Macomb (Mr. MUSSE.) that he t strangely misapprehends the force and effect of the amendment proposed here, in connection with the proposi ~ tion of my colleague, (Mr. McCLEL LAND.) He assumes, in the first place, that Detroit is not particularly affected [by that amendment; and yet all his L remarks in connection with that amend ment were directed in reference to De troit. Let us turn our attention for a moment to the two propositions, and the object sought to be effected by the one in connection with republican 356 Tli-Lirsday, July 25, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDIIGS. 357 government. It seems to me there can be no two opinions in reference to the t effect of these two propositions. What is the amendment which is proposed t by my colleague? It is this: "Mayors and members of the common council in cities, and the presidents and boards of trustees in villages, shall be elected by electors thereof, at large or in their. proper wards or districts, as shall be provid ed by law; all other municipal officers or boards in whom is vested any portion of mu nicipal authority, shall be elected as afore said, or appointed by the mayor and common council, in such manner as shall be provided by law." This amendment contemplates the election of the mayors and common councils of cities. The principal city to which allusion has been made, is the city of Detroit. But it applies also to other cities. Further, provision is also made, that the other municipal officers, or boards in which is vested any portion of the municipal authori ty, shall be either elected by the people of the city, or appointed by the mayor and common council. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILES,) is as follows: "The mayor and aldermen of cities, and the president and trustees ot villages shall be elected, and all other officers shall be elected or appointed at such time and in such manner as the Legislature may direct." This amendment gives the Legisla ture power to provide, either that they may be elected, or that they may be appointed in the manner contemplated by the amendment of my colleague, or appointed in any other manner that the Legislature may prescribe. In other words, it provides for giving full effect to the exercise of such powers as have been complained of, the crea tion of boards by the Legislature, and placing the power of appointment en tirely in those boards, independent of the city authorities, and of the people of the cities. I was surprised to hear the remark of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. COXGER,) who addressed the Convention, this morning, that there was no difference between these two propositions. He urged that they were. identical. It struck me with surprise, that if they were identi cal, he should combat the amendment offered by my colleague, and insist so strenuously upon the amendment of fered by his colleague. The one amendment contemplates placing it in the power of the Legisla tureto divest the people entirely of the control of the appointments within a city in any manner, not only in reference to Detroit, but in reference to all other cities. The amendment of my col league contemplates leaving this power in the cities. If, in consequence of particular circumstances connected with the population of a city, the elec tion of such officers by the people may be inexpedient, and it is deemed better to alppoint them, then, according to the amendment of my colleague, the power to make that appointment shall be vested in the mayor and common council of the city, where the power maybe safely vested. W Vill any gentleman upon this floor pretend to assert here, that the people are not competent to elect a mayor and common council? And will they assert that the Mayors and common councils of cities are im proper depositories of the appointing power for cities? The mayor and common council are responsible to the people. According to the charter of the city of Detroit, as it is now, and as it will probably continue, there is an election of a mayor annually, and of one-half of the common council an nually; so that the common council is changed entirely every two years. There is a direct responsibility in that way to the people. It has been remarked here that re publican government is founded upon the will of the people. All officers de rive their power directly or indirectly from the people. Conventions repre senting the whole sovereignty of the State, in framing a Constitution and establishing and organizing the gov ernment of the State, parcel out the State into different political divisions, for the purpose of exercising power in reference to those divisions, or in ref erence to the whole State, as may be most subservient to the public interest. In reference to the affairs of the whole State, the elections -for officers of the State are general You divide the State next into counties; and you elect county officers by the people within those counties. You divide the coun ties into townships, cities, etc., and the people elect officers for the exercise of powers within those municipal govern ments. In all these subdivisions of the State*, for the purpose of exercising any political power, you vest power in reference to almost everything in the people who are to be affected by the exercise of that power. In the county, you give the election of the sheriff, clerk, register, and all other county officers, boards of super visors, who are to control the affairs of the county, to the people; and so in villages, and so in cities. What is proposed by the amend nient of my colleague is, that the power in referene- to cities shall be exercised by the people of the city, and not give to the Legislature the power to take away that control from the people of the cities, and place over them boards and organizations of officers entirely independent of their control, and who may: have, or may not have interests in common with them. In reference to this subject complaint is made of the attempt to organize boards, and to give them power entirely independent of the mayor and common council of the city; this is what we complain of. And it is no answer to us to say that some individuals maybcome here with petitions, and ask the Legislature to take such action. It is no answer to the complaint to say that there were members of the Legis lature who urged that this should be done. Why, I ask, should that power be invested in a board independent of the will of the people? Is it not cre ati'g an anomaly in the State and in the government, in opposition to the great principle upon which all our in stitutions are founded; the principle of self-government by the people? It seems to me it is most clearly so. If it is proper to invest the people of the different cities with the power to elect their own mayor and council board, their aldermen or trustees, it seems to me that it follows as a necessary con sequence, that they should be possessed of all the powers under those elections -when officers are to be appointed in stead of being elected by the people, they should constitute the proper tri bunals to make those appointments. The object of the amendment of my colleague, is to carry out that princi ple. It seems to me that if we do not adopt. that principle, we might as well return to the provision of the Consti tution of 1835, a Constitution which at the time it was formed, and for a long time subsequently, was considered an excellent one, and among the first of those then existing. The provision of the Constitution of 1835, to which I allude, was one vesting the power to appoint all State officers in the Gov ernor and Senate. Take away that power of electing or appointing within the counties, cities or villages, and let it return to the authority in which it was vested under that Constitution. /Abolish the election of your State off cers, abolish the election of-your county officers, and of your principal city, vil, lage and town officers, and let the L whole power of appointment return to the'Governor and Senate. I think that to refuse to adopt the principle em L bodied in the amendment of my col league, is to take a backward step, a step in the way of a return to that state' of things, when the appointing i power was vested as I have stated. , But if it is not designed that such a power shall be possessed and exercised [ by the Legislature, the power to cre 3 ate boards and appoint officers, en tirely independent of the community ) to be affected by them, if it is not s designed to do that, but it is designed to give the people of cities the same r I s i b t c a I 8 9 i 358 COSiUI~ L- CO VETI8 Thus d ayv e, ....~:.~ ~ _,,-. ~ l: -:.. " right of self-government that is given to other political divisions of the State, then why should this amendment of my colleague be objected to? It differs from the amendment proposed by the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. MiEs) in this; it provides that the appointments which the Legislature may prescribe, shall be vested in the mayors and common councils of cities. If the Legislature choose to take away from the people the election of these officers, then their appointments shall be vested in the mayor and common council, instead of being placed in a tribunal independent entirely of the people over whom the power is to be exercised, depriving the people entirely of any voice in their appointments. Is it right to strip us of all author ity, and of all influence in connection with that subject? Is it right to ena ble the Legislature to do so? Is not the principle we contend for in accord ance with the great primary principle -upon which all our republican institu tions are founded, that of self-govern ment by the people who are to be af fected by that government. It seems to me that such a course as we pro pose is entirely proper. However. after the full discussion which this subject has received, I did not intend to enter into it to any ex tent. I have already said more than I expected when I arose. I intended, in response to the gentleman from Ma comb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) to point out the effect of the two propositions, and to state what it was that we asked. It was remarked by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) that there was no difference between these proposi tions. It seem to me that the differ ence is very palpable. The difference is only in one clause, but it is an es sential differnce. In the one amend ment, the principle of self-government is carried out fully and effectually; in the other it may be taken away en, tirely. X. Mr. BIRNEY. I think we have had all the discussion upon this sub ject that is necessary; a full share of time has been devoted to it. I call for the previous question. The question was taken upon sec onding the call for the previous question, and it was not agreed to; ayes 41, not a majority of all the members elect. The question recurred upon the substitute of Mr. MmEs, for the amendmernt reported from the committee of the whole. Mr. WITHEY. Owing to the partially partisan character of the discussion which has been had upon.this question, I had almost concluded to vote against the amendment of the gentleman from'St.:Clair, (Mr. Maws,) rather than commit myself to a parti san view on this question, coming here as I do, not to represent any party, but to seek to place in our fundamental law, for the welfare of our State, great principles of right as- the basis of all the prosperity of our State. Last night, when the Convention adjourned, I thought I should support the amend ment to which I have referred, because it: seemed to me right in principle. But unwilling to lend myself to any partisan view of any question which shall be passed upon by this Conven' tion, I say I had almost made up my mind, at the time the Convention took a recess to-day, to vote against the amendment, for that reason alone; not that I had been convinced that the proposition of the gentleman from St. Clair was wrong, or embraced any error in principle, but because I had conceived there wasnothing wrong in principle in the amendment reported from the. committee of the whole. Our government is a government of the people; that is the basis of all our government in this country. The prin ciple is that the people shall come to gether in the State and elect our execu tive and legislative officers; in the county, and elect our county officers; in the towns, and elect our township officers; and in our cities and villages, and elect the city and village officers. We have come here to recognize that as a principle. Upon that principle we stand, and therefore there is nothing wrong in the proposition of the gen tleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLEL LAND.) But as I said before, I see no error in the principle embraced in the amendment offered by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MIrEs.) What is the difference between these two propositions? As I apprehend, the difference is simply this: if there are to be officers appointed in cities and villages, shall those appointments be made by the mayor and com mon council, by the president and board of trustees, or shall they be made in such other way as the Legis lature may provide, to-wit, by the Gov ernor of the State, or by boards cre ated by the Legislature? How shall these appointments be made? For instance, how shall the police and police justices, and recorders of cities be appointed, if they are not to be elected by the people? Shall they be appointed by the mayor and common council? The preposition of the gentleman from Wayne is, that if these officers are not elected by the people of the city, they shall be appointed by the mayor and common council of the city. I can see no particular objection to that way of disposing of all officers, other than the executive and legisla tive officers of cities. If the appoint ments are not made in that way, will we leave it to the Legislature to say how they shall be-made? That is the difference between the two proposi tions, as I understand them. Now, sir, I live in,what is considered, and I believe on account of its popula tion is entitled to rank, as the second city in the State. I propose to explain the reasons which will control my vote in this matter. I have no objection to either of these propositions; as propo sitions standing by themselves, I would not object to either one of them, except as I can see in the application of the one or the other to the city in which I live, and to other cities something to be gained, some good principle to be carried out. I am frank to say that in looking over this subject very carefully, and giving it such consideration as I have been able to give it, I believe there is an element in all cities of any consider able size, which has a controlling in fluence at the ballot box,-in reference to the officers electedin such cities. That element is one that is not controlled and governed by the highest interests of the people of the city. That element is not confined to any one political party; there is such an element in both parties in large cities; a sort of ir responsible element. They vote to elect certain men to office, that through those officers they may find the way to the public money, and have those offi cers so far as they can screen them from justice. Various motives control their votes, other than the desire to secure the best interests of the city. Whenever that element becoms so strong in a city, so powerful at the ballot-box, that the best interests of the city cannot be secured and pre served, whether it be by controlling the police judge or justice, or the po lice department, whether it be by get ting control of the police o~ the town so that crime shall go unpunished, or they can be screened through the judi ciary, then it is better that that class of officerss in every city should be appointed rather than elected. If that principle is good, if it is a sound principle, then it is right to say further, that if these appointments have to be made because the best interests of the city required it, it might be dangerous in some cities to have the mayor and common council make those appointments, because they obtain their election through this controirngelement in the city. They might be induced, rather than to preserve and conserve the best interests of the city, to yield to the pressure of that class for the sake of their votes, when they ask a reslection for themselves, or the CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 358 Thursd4y,. I July 25, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDGS.. 359 election of their friends. Therefore, it may not unfrequently be best that the Legislature should possess the power to otherwise provide for the appointments of the police, the police justices, recorders, etC. It may not be unwise that this power should be left in the Legislature, to make some other provision for the manner of appointment, than through the mayor and common council of the city. Looking at this subject in this manner, stripping it entirely of any partisan view of it, for that shall not govern me in the slightest degree in reference to this question, what is my duty as a member of this Convention in reference to the cities of our State, so far as they are to be affected by considerations coming within the principle of this amendment? Mr. NORRIS. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him a moment? Mr. WITHEY. Certainly. Mr. NORRIS. If the argument of the gentleman is a good one, will it not apply equally to the taking away from those cities, where they are so unfortunate as to elect bad men to office, the power to elect the mayor and common council? Mr. WITHEY. However desirable it may be, and might be sometimes to take that power from the cities, that is further than it might be advisable to go under our view of government. So far as I know, we have not in this country gone that far in reference to the cities of any State in the Union. It would be an encroachment upon, and. an overthrow of, the very first principles of government. Therefore, it would not be wise for us to look in that direction at all. And in further answer to the gentleman, I will say that there is another consideration; if the police of the city, and the courts which pass upon all questions coming within the jurisdiction of those cities, the recorder and police justice, are not within the power of appointment by the mayor and common council, then the executive and legislative depart ment of the city, acting without any control over these other branches and departments of the city government, can do but comparatively little injury. The peace and quietude of the' city, the best interests of the city will be preserved through those officers who are not within the controlof the mayor and common council, If the executive and legislative departments of the city misrepresent and misgovern the city, and the other departments of the gov ernment of the city are well adminis tered by officers beyond the influence and power of the executive and legis lature of the city, they will have the power comparatively to afford due pro tection. I say then that I regard it as my duty, under the circumstances, and with all the reasons presented here, to favor and vote for the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, although I confess, if the last clause of that amendment was stricken out, it would satisfy me just as well and a little better. But I am not going to be captious about that. The amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair provides that "the mayors and aldermen of cities and the presidents and trustees of villages shall be elected." I had just as soon it would stop right there. But there is added-" all other officers shall be elected or appointed at such time and in such manner as the Legislature may direct." This last provision does not change or alter what would be- the right and authority of the Legislature in the absence of such a provision. There is no authority conferred upon the Legis lature by that clause which they would not possess without it; therefore, it is a matter of entire indifference. With these views, I am personally content with the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair, and these views will control my vote. The PRESIDENT. The yeas and nays have been called for on the sub stitute of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. MILEs.) The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was upon the substitute of Mr. MILES for the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. BURTCH. Mr. President (cries of "question" "question," from all parts of the hall.) Gentlemen seem to desire to have the question. Now, I am personally opposed to both prop ositions before the Convention. But, of course, if we cannot get what we ought to have, we should take what we can get. As I have said before on this floor on several occasions, the people ought to have the right to take care L of themselves, if they have the ability. *But it does not seem to be the dispo sition of this Convention to allow the L people those privileges. The proposition is, that the Legislature is the repository of the power of the State of Michigan, , and that they shall dole it out to the people of the State of Michigan as they may see fit. Therefore, they can. not receive all the blessings tliey might i-expect from the; government. The r proposition is to give directions to the , people. My idea would be to change that, and after securing inlthe Consti tution the rights of persons and propBerty, which should apply to every man, - woman and child in the State of Michie gan,- all else that would be necessary - would be to give directly to the people, not indirectly through the Legislature, the right to control and exercise their own functions as cities, townships and villages. The municipality of the State is the greatest known to our government as a State. The municipality of the county is less; that of the township is lowest among all municipalities, so far as the State government is concerned. Other corporations may exist as wheels within wheels, without any interference with the great principles of government. They are, first, to protect the rights and liberties of person and property, guard them safely, and then let the machinery run, not by the will of the Legislature, which may be all well to deal out justice, or it may not, but let it be run by the will of the people. Is every man upon this floor afraid of his brother, that his brother will commit suicide upon the body politic? Is that the principle of every one of you, gentlemen? If so, then why talk so glorifyingly about the extension of the elective franchise? You talk about enfranchising ignorant- men, — and women who are intelligent and virtu ous, and boys under age. Upon what principle do you advocate this? It is upon the principle that when you have placed the government of the State in the hands of the people, it is their government; it is their child, it is themselves, and they will not slay themselves. Therefore you may place the ballot in the hands of boys of eighteen, or in the hands of the ladies of this State at eighteen. I name that age, because I apprehend that when ladies possess the qualifications to enter into the contract of marriage, and the boys are bound to go to the battle field to protect the men of this Convention, they are fully competent to be entrusted with the ballot. If the people cannot be trusted, why not take the course that despotic gov ernments have taken? Why not wrest all power from the people, wrest the ballot from them, and establish impe rialdespotic power? Iapprehend that there may be gentlemen on this floor who would have no apprehension but what they would be saved by imperial power. But God save me from all im perial power; I have seen too much of a it upon this floor. [Laughter.] * Mr. LEACH. I call the gentleman ; to order... Mr. BURTCH. I ah in order; but L I will sit down. The question recurred upon the sub stitute of Mr. MILES for the amend ment reported from the committee of , the whole. - The amendment reported from the committee of the whole was as follows: i "Mayors and members of the common council in cities, and presidents and boards I d t I s t t t t i I DIBATES IAND PROC'F,FDINGS. 'J — 2.-.2 1867. 359 36 OSIUIOA OYTO Tusda ? of trustees of villages, shall be elected by electors thereof; at large or in their proper wards or districts, as shall be provided by law; all other municipal officers or boards in whom is vested any portion of municipal authority, shall be elected as aforesaid, or appointed by the mayor and common council, in such manner as shall be provided by law." The substitute offered by Mr. MILES for the amendment was as follows: "The mayor and aldermen of cities, and the president and trustees of villages shall be elected, and all other officers shall be elected or appointed at such time and in such manner as the Legislature may direct." The question was then taken upon the substitute, and it was agreed to; yeas 57, nays 26, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Birney, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Howard, Hull, Ingalls, Leach,,Longyear, Luce, McConnell, Miles, Mussey, Musgrave, Parsons, Pringle, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Tyler. Utley, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Withey, Winans, Woodhouse, Yeomans and the President-57. NAYs-Messrs. Alexander, Blackman, Brown, Burtch, Burtenshaw,Chapman, Crocker, D. Goodwin, Hixson, Huston, Lawrence, Lothrop, Lovell, McClelland, McKernan, Miller, Morton, Ninde, Norris, Pratt, Rafter, Richmond, Sutherland, Thompson, W. E. Warner anh Winsor-26. The amendment of the committee of the whole, as amended, was then agreed to. INCORPORATION OF CITIES, VILLAGES, ETC. Mr. WILLIAMS. Section one of this article reads as follows: "The Legislature shall provide for the in corporation of cities and villages, and shall regulate their powers of taxation, borrowing money, contracting debts, and loaning their credit." I move to amend this section by striking out the word "regulate," and inserting the word "restrict." It will be recollected that I offered this amend ment in committee of the whole. At that time it did not occur to me that it might be of any very great import ance. But it'appears to me now that the change should be made, that it is a matter of vital importance, and that the word "restrict," is the word which should be used here; that its meaning is definite and to the point; that it means that the Legislature shall in all cases provide a restriction upon the powers of taxing, borrowing money, contracting debts, etc., in cities and villages; that no act of incorporation may be granted without that restric tion in it. To "regulate," means no such thing; I insist that it would not be safe to grant any such power to the Legislature. But the power to restrict is the power that the people must have and should demand, in order that the powers of taxing, borrowing money, contracting debts, and loaning credits should be restricted. I hope my amendment will prevail. Mr. GIDDINGS. I like the word "regulate;" it seems to me that is the word which should be used here. The argument of the gentleman from Allegan (Mr. WILLIAMS,) is altogether too fine for me. I think all that is needed is covered by the word " regulate." The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, to strike out the word "regulate," and insert the word "restrict," and upon a division, ayes 40, noes 27, it was agreed to. Mr. WILLIAMIS. I think there should be another amendment made to this section; that is, a provision empowering the Legislature to alter or amend laws passed under, or by virtue of this section. It might be a question whether they would have that power unless it was given them here. I will prepare an amendment and send it up. Mr. MUSSEY. While the gentleman is drawing uip that amendment, I would inquire if he does not think that the whole matter will be accomplished by putting a section in the article on miscellaneous provisions, providing that all acts of the Legislature may be altered, amended or repealed? Mr. WILLIAMS. We have adopted a clause, like the one I have suggested, in relation to corporations other than muhicipal. It occurred to me that there should be such a clause inserted here. Mr. BILLS. I desire to inquire of the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLLIAMS,) whether that power is not invariably possesses by the Legislature in regard to municipal bodies, even without such a provision as he indicates? Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not positive whether it is necessary to have such a clause attached to this section or not. But it being in the article on corporations in the present Constitution, it appears to me that it is there for some purpose. I, therefore, move to amend this section by adding to it the words "all laws passed pursuant to this section may be altered, amended, or appealed." Mr. CONGER. I desire to make one inquiry of the gentleman. I would ask him whether he has changed his opinion in regard to the creature being greater than the creator? If the Legislature -an pass a law incorporating a city, it certainly can amend that law, or it would make the creature greater than the creator. Mr. WILLIAMS. As my friend from Berrien (Mr. COOLIDGE,) would say, I do not, perhaps, see the full forceof the joke of the gentleman. I stated my proposition distictly. I do not claim that this clause is absolutely nec essary here; but I find a similar clause in the old Constitution, and it appeared -to me to be very properly there. It can do no harm and it may do good hlere. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. WILLIAMS, and it was not agreed to. No further amendment was offered to the article. The article as amended was then ordered to a third reading, and referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, for correction and engrossment. LEGISLATIVE.DEPAIR'MENT. The Convention then proceeded to the consideration of the special order, being the article entitled "Legislative Department." The question was upon concurring in the amendments reported from the committee of the whole. QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE LEG ISLLTURE, ETC. The PRESIDENT. The first amendment reported from the committee of the whole is to section five, of this article. That section is as follows: "Every Senator and Representative shall be a citizen of the United States, and a qualified elector of some county embraced in the district he represents, or of which said district shall be a part. - A removal from his county, or the counties comprising his district, shall be deemed a vacation of his office. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he may have been elected, be eligible to any office which shall have been created, or the emoluments ot which shall have been increased (during such term; nor shall he be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the State, or any county thereof, authorized by any law passed during said term." The first amendment of the committee of the whole to this section is to strike out the words "some county embraced in;" also, the words "or of which said district shall be a part; also, the words:"county or counties comprising his;" so that that portion of the section will read: "Every Senator and Representative shall be a citizen of the United States, and a qualified elector-of the district he represents. A removal from his district shall be deemed a vacation of his office." The amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in. The next amendment of the committee of the whole was to the last sentence of section five; to insert the words "by the Legislature," after the words "the emoluments of which shall have been increased." The amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in. The next amendment of the committee of the whole was to section six, which section was as follows: "No person holding any elective State office, except that of regent of the University CONSTITUTIONAT., CONV'P4NTION. 360 Thursday, I July 25, 1867. DERATES AN-D- PROCEEDINGS. 361 or member of the board of education, or holding the office of probate judge, county clerk, register. ot deeds, county treasurer, sheriff, county superintendent- of schools, prosecuting attorney, or any office:to which he was appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall be'allowed to take or hold a seat in either House of the Legislature." The amendment was to strike out the word " or,' before.the words "holding the office of probate judge, and to insert -in lieu thereof the words "and no person;" so that that portion of the section would read, "and no person holding the office of probate ~,,... judge, etc. The amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in. The next amendment of the committee of the whole was to insert the word "common," before the word "schools," so that it would read, "county superintendent of common schools." - 'Mr. RIICHMOND. I hope that amendment will not be concurred in. The word "common," is not a proper word to be used in this section. The term "common schools" is not known to our Constitution, and should not be in the law, although I believe it is in the law providing for a county superintendent of schools. I think the word "common" is improperly used in that law. The reason given for this amendment when it was moved by the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) was that it would make the Constitution conform to the law.. I think it would be better to make the law conform to the Constitution, rather than to make the'Constitution conform to this law. We recognize in the Con stitution the term "primary schools," and I think if any word is used here the word ",primary'" would be; better than "common." I see no necessity for using either word in this place. The amendment of the committee of the whole was not concurred in. SESSIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE. The next amendment of the committee of the whole, was to section eight, which section was as follows: "The Legislature shall meet at. the seat of government, on the second Wednesday of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and on the second Wednesday of January in every second year thereafter,;and at no other time or place, unless as provided in this Constitution. The time of meeting shall be at- eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and the time of final adjo)urnment shall be at twelve o'clock, noon." The aendment of the committee of the whole was to strike out the word second," before the words "year thereafter;" so that that portion of the section would read, " and on the second Wednesday of January'in every year thereafter." Mr P. D. WARNER, I call for the Vol. 2 —No. 46. yeas and nays upon concurring in that amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. PRItNGLE. I. do not rise for the purpose of introducing debate in our deliberations, or to prolong discussion.: I rise only: to saythat I hope -this amendment will not be concurred in; and to express some reasons which will influence me to vote against concurrence, which I feel bound to express, because I have the personal assurance of a great many of my constituents that they feel so much interest in this question, that if this amendment should be concurred in, they would be compellel to vote against the entire Constitutibn. In fact, there is no one question in regard to which I have heard so much expression of opinion from my constituents, as this question of annual and biennial sessions. They are satisfied with the rule as we have had it, for the last seventeen years, requiring the Legislature to meet once in two years, and express the will of the people in the enactment of laws for their government. A great deal was said in the debate upon this question, in which I did not participate, in regard to the growing interests of our State, and the manifold interests of our State. There was considerable eloquence and poetry, if I remember right, spread all about our shores, through our forests, and along our rivers, in that discussion. There was a great deal said about the growing interests of this State. Still, as I cast it over in my mind, as I reflected upon it a little in detail, I did not sees clearly how it is, or why it is,- that, unless the Legislatures are to be changed every year, these growing in terests would be likely to receive any very valuable attention at the second session of the same Legislature. I believe it was not contended at all, in the argument made in the committee of the whole on this subject, that it was necessary, in regard to our general laws, such as punishing crime, provi ding the means of education, looking to the general interests of the State, and of all the communities of the State, that we should have any more frequent legislation than we now have. But it was claimed that there was a large number of local interests, in dif ferent parts of the State, which should receive that attention which; they would get from annual sessions of the Legis lature. That I'understand to be the idea upon which the amendment was adopted. Now, let us look at that a little. Some of these interests in regard to schools are local. Occasionally there comes an application to the Legisla ture to empower some particular dis itrict to vote money to build a schoolhouse, by a majority instead of a twothirds vote. Then again there comes an application for power to raise more than fifty thousand dollars. Then again there comes an application from a district that has less than two hundred scholars, to be entrusted with the power given to a district which- has two hundred or more scholars. But these are unimportant matters, that can be delayed if necessary for two years. As a general thing, unless they have been thought of for a year or two, such requests should not be granted. In regard to the power of making internal improvements, I imagine that the question of railroads more than anything else, is likely to affect the future growth of many portions of the State; the question whether railroads shall be encouraged, whether those avenues of communication shall be extended, or not extended, through all parts of the State. I need not tell gentlemen of this Convention that there are different opinions entertained in this State, in regard to the powers that may be properly intrusted to municipal governments in regard to aiding railroads to be built; also with regard to gravel roads, turnpike roads, and ma cadamrnized roads. Sometimes a Legis lature will be here with one set of ideas upon the subject; at another time there will be a Legislature here with another set of ideas; we cannot tell how that will be in the future. But it may be put down as pretty certain, that a Leg islature meeting a second time after the expiration of a year, would not be likely to grant what it had refused to grant when it first met. I agree that the sixty or eighty thou sand dollars, more or less, which a ses sion of the Legislature yearly would cost is an unimportant consideration, if by the meeting of the Legislature, large sections of the State will be opened to public improvement. Still, I do not see the reason why it is necessary in reference to those things to call the Legislature together every year; how a larger- or better vote is to be obtained upon the subject of railroads from the Legislature, if it were to meet next winter, than there was obtained from it last winter; the vote would probably be the same; probably no more bene ficial results in that direction would be obtained from our Legislature next winter than were obtained last winter. What is true about railroads is also true about harbor improvements, river improvements, and improvements of one kind and another that are wanted in different parts of the State. If the Legislature, after meeting and hearing the'matter discussed? shall settle down i 36'~~~ OOSIITOA COV-I~ Thursdav upon a particular policy in regard to it, it is not likely that when that same Legislature meet again they will change their policy; or if they do, it is likely that it will be only in regard to a few isolated interests. The effect of a second meeting of the Legislature will be after all only a tinkering of the law, such as is complained of already in many quarters. The constant revision of the laws is perhaps the fault of our Legislature. Laws should be improved whenever they can be; but if an improvement is immaterial, it is not worth while to present the idea of improving the laws as an argument in favor of more frequent sessions of the Legislature. We have wisely, I think, put a provision in this article forbidding the Legislature to extend the time for the collection of taxes, and for some other purposes, which have been sought heretofore from- the Legislature. I think I speak the judgment of most persons who have served terms in the Legislature, that it is not urgently necessary that the village and city charters applied for should be passed; that they might just as well.go over another year. That has been the general expression of opinion. so far as I have heard it, of those members'of this Convention who have been mem bers of the Legislature. I will agree that if we shall after all come to the conclusion that it is better to have annual sessions of the Legisla ture, if the members are changed from year to year, it is very likely that some good might grow out of it in regard to the improvement of the State; it is very likely there would be more done to improve the State. An improvement which is agitated one session, and fails because the members of that Legisla ture are against it, would be agitated among the people, and if they desire it, a different set of men, to a certain extent, might be chosen to represent the people, who would carry out the will of the people in that respect. But to call the same men together again is, in a great majority of cases, to have the same decisions upon the same identical questions. Then what good will have been accomplished by having annual sessions? The Legis lature will have come here; the re porters of the newspapers will have come here; interested individuals will be here looking after some particular object which they desire From one end odf the State to the other the peo ple will be inquiring what changes are to be made in the laws, and in those rules for the government of the peo ple, which ought to be plain and sim ple. And very likely the amendments of the laws which might be perfected, would prove to be after three or six months, the very ones not desired by the people. That, to some extent, has been the judgment of the people upon the past action of the Legislature. Under the operation of the present rule, for the discussion of all questions brought before the Legislature, the length of the session is unlimited. They may sit, if they please, three months, or six months, or whatever time is necessary, in order to accomplish properly, prudently and carefully such legislation as the State needs. In my judgment they will do it better if they proceed right along after they have commenced. I think perhaps the rule stated by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOvLL,) yesterday, in regard to school teaching, that a school of four months was worth twice as much as one of three months, and a school of six months twice as much as one of four months; though I-do not agree to his applica tion of the rule exactly-still I think some such rule as that would apply to the Legislature. All this machinery of legislation, the getting the Legisla ture into a position to work, getting bills perfected, the reports of commitees properly placed before the body, then bringing them up and considering them, and acting upon them, all this would have to be done over in the new session again. Matters are transacted in the Legislature with much greater rapidity than in such a Convention as this. The attention of members in the Legislature is not held so long upon different subjects as in this Convention. And the ideas relating to the subjects they have been considering, will pass out of their minds before a new session, and they will have to commence anew again. There is in the constitution of our Legislature, especially in the lower house, which is composed of new men fresh from the people, recently elected, trusted for their general intelligence, and general honesty, trusted in those : particulars for which a good man is summoned by the sheriff and placed on a jury to decide between his neigh bors-there is something in the fresh honesty from the people of the lower house of the Legislature, like the fresh honesty of a jury, to commend their de, Cisions to the people. I will agree tc L the idea that men are sometimes edu cated in these halls, that they become more expert in legislative matters from * being here for several sessions. But I ; have never noticed that it is likely to ~ improve a man's honesty, or his capac ity to judge in regard to the way questions will affect the people, how they will be received by the people, what their effect will be in local com munities; I do not judge that a member becomes ordinarily much more expert in such matters after the first session, than at the first session. I judge that our people are satisfied with the rule of the Constitution of 1850. I judge they are satisfied with that rule which has substantially re duced by one-half the number of days which the Legislature has been in ses sion; which has substantially reduced the expenses of the Legislature by one half; which has to a considerable ex tent probably reduced the State ap propriations, and kept the State taxes within limited amounts. I judge they are satisfied with this rule, because, so far as I have heard their expression of opinions, it has been in that direction. I do not understand at all, that it was the main cause for calling this Con vention, that annual sessions could not be held under the present Constitution. If that had been the common senti ment of the great mass of the people, there would have —been reasons for holding extra sessions here every win ter. Yet, there have been but two or three extra sessions under the present Constitution, except those called during the war, and which were necessary L from causes arising during the war. It is in the minds of the people, it is put there by popular orators, by news papers, and in one way or another, to distrust legislative bodies, and to watch them and see whether they are pure and honest, to watch them and see whether they do faithfully and hon estly what they are sent to do. There is a doubt in the minds of the great 3 mass of the people in regard to the general character of the men who con, stitute legislative bodies. You will see r it in the jokes of the newspapers; in the jokes of popular orators you will see here and there indications and evi dences of it. We should never have known it I think from what has occurred , in Michigan during the last seventeen , years. As a rule I think we have had 3 legislators, the character of whose acts, and the purity of whose intentions, l have been such, and so manifest, that - there is going to be in Michigan a dif ferent feeling in regard to men who r are trusted to do our legislation. But i still I see the newspapers arectalking - in the same direction; I do not blame ) them because they are only expressing - those particular ideas which are ex3 pressed from person to person in the 1 talk of individuals. We cannot,I think, [ be too cautious in this regard. If we ) would have our laws honestly and well - made, we must be sure to get honest V men here,: and trust always to the peov ple to send intelligent and capable men , for that purpose. While I acknowledge all that has been said about their ca b p s 8 t r 1 CONSTITLITIO -NAT., CONVENTION. Thursda'y, 362' — ly 25, 1867. _ EBATES A~D PRO()EEDI~'G~. 363 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~~~~' f pability being improved in consequence of being here in the Legislature-I mean the capability of doing the routine work of the Legislature, to draft laws, reports, resolutions, and anything else in which the will of the people shall take the form of law, in which the mind of the public shall be expressed-while I admit all that, I deny that a man by being here a few weeks, or a few months, is likely to know how the people at home in the school districts and the townships feel about any particular matter, any more than he did when he first came here. When he comes here he comes as one of the people, and if he acts honestly, he will act as the people will require. It is this fact, that the honest will of the people at home is so fairly represented by members when the Legislature first gets together, which makes their decisions upon the whole so good, their legislation upon the whole so respectable, and acceptable to the people of the State. It is this fact, rather than the capacity of legislators, which recommends their work to the people. And that I insist will be more likely to be -secured, if the members of the Legislature come together, and at once act upon the matters brought before them, once in two years rather than every year. If a member shall show by his actions here that he is deserving the confidence of the people, he can be summoned here again, as an arbitrator is called upon again and again to render service, when it comes to be universally known that he is wise and just in his decisions. That is the view I have entertained; it is the view my constituents entertain. I know a great many of them have such positive views in regard to this matter, that I would fear they would at last carry into operation their threat not to vote for the Constitution, in case this change not desired by them shall be made. I submit these views as a reason why we should retain the rule which, I insist, has worked so well during the last fifteen years. MKr. HENDERSON. I rise to express a wish, which I believe I entertain in common with a great many other members of this Convention, that inasmuch as this article has received at the hands of this Convention more attention and occupied more time than any other article, and there are gentlemen here who have already obtained leave of absence, and others who expect to go away in the morning, in order that they may have an opportunity to vote upon these several amendments, we may concur in them without debate. Of course my individual wish will not control the matter. But if we can, I hope we may vote upon these amend ments, and pass upon the article at once. Mr. CHAPIN. I do not wish to con sume the time of the Conve ntion un necessarily. But not having been here L at the time this section was considered in committee of the whole, and the amendment providing for annual sessions was adopted, I feel called upon to state some reasons which will govern my vote upon it. I shall vote for annual sessions, and I shall do so upon principle. I believe that a State like ours, yet comparatively young, with most of its interests to be developed, requires annual sessions of the Legislature. I believe it is a matter of the utmost importance to the newer por-tions of the State that we should have annual sessions, instead of biennial sessions. I think a great deal of the difficulty under which we have labored for some years past has resulted from biennial sessions of the Legislature. Our legislation has necessarily been in very many respects injudicious and objectionable. If we were to sub stitute annual sessions of the Legislature for biennial sessions, without any restriction as to time, I think we should have far better legislation, more satisfactory to the people, better calculated to promote the improvement of the State, and to develop all its inter ests, legislation far better in every re spect than we can have under the bi ennial session system. I believe a large majority of the people of the State have become satisfied that such is the fact. In my judgment, the old system of biennial sessions of the Legislature, re stricting the Legislature by a pro vision of the Constitution to biennial sessions, is wrongo It seems to me that such'a restriction implies a dis trust of that body, which is unworthy of the people of the State, and unworthy of the persons whom the people elect to represent them in this Capital. Such a restriction implies that you cannot send them here every year, for fear they may fritter away their time, and squander the money of the people. It implies that you must impose all ianner of restrictions and shackles upon the men you send here to make your laws, for fear they may spend a little more time than is proper, or a little more money than they should spend. Now, it strikes me that if there is any evil connected with the subject, the correction is with the people. If leg islators come here and spend time im properly, and legislate upon subjects not proper to be legislated upon, then the people can send a different class of men the next year. If those they send here one year do not answer their purpose, then let them send a different t class of men the next time, and con tinue to do so, until they get the right - men for their purpose. There is no - difficulty about the matter. I apprehend the whole system of biennial sessions is wrong in theory, and wrong in practice. We have complained of the present Constitution, L and it has been justly complained of L by the people of the State, on the ground that it was continually imposm g unnecessary, impolitic, and unwise restrictions upon the Legislature. But L it strikes me that the most unwise, im, politic, and unnecessary restriction which it imposes upon the Legislature is the one providing for biennial ses sions; then saying that they shall not introduce any bills after the first forty L days of the session, and that the session shall not extend over sixty or seventy days. In my opinion, that is unwise, and implies a distrust of the men you send here; it is unjust to the people of the State themselves, to shackle their representatives in that way. In the present condition of our State, when you take into view the fact that such-a large portion of the State is as yet undeveloped, and will require a vast amount of legislation for its proper development, I think it is deci dedly injudicious to restrict the Leg islature to biennial sessions. These, in brief, are a few of the reasons whieh will guide my vote in this matter.'- I shall vote for annual sessions. Mr. ALEXANDER. Inasmuch as I was necessarily absent when this sub ject was under consideration in com mittee of the whole, I propose to state a few of the many reasons which I might ofer for the vote I shall give upon this question at this time. I have taken no little pains to converse with the constituency that — I in part have the honor to represent, and I think I can safely say that a very large proportion of them are in. favor of annual sessions of the Legislature. They think that the great and grow ing interests of this peninsular State, demand frequent sessions of the Leg islature. I believe it is the practice of nearly all the States in the Union to hold annual sessions of the Legisla ture. I will not consume the time of the Convention; indeed, I am not able to do so properly at this time. But I will say that I.believe four-fifths of the constituency I represent, without re spect to party, are in favor of annual sessions of the Legislature. Were I, myself, opposed to annual sessions of the Legislature, I should not feel at liberty under the circumstances to vote against this amendment. The question was then taken upon the amendment of the cormmittee of i July 25, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEP-T)INGS. 363 I. 364 CONSTITUTION A TCO NVETION. ThurSda y, the whole, and it was not concurred in; yeas 38, nays 45. YEAS-Messrs. Alexander, Bills, Birney, Burtch, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Crocker, Daniells, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings, Howard, Ingalls, Lawrence, Long year, Lothrop, Lovell, McKernan, Miles, Morton, Musgrave, Parsons, Pratt, Rafter, Root, T. G. Smith, Thompson, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, Willard Winsor, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse and the Presidenit-38. NAYs-Messrs. Aldrich, Andrus, Barber, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Burtenshaw,Case, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Germain, W. F. Goodwin, D. Goodwin, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Hixson, Holmes, Hull, Huston, Leach, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Miller, Mussey, Ninde, Norris, Pringle, Richmond, Sawyer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Suthlierland, Tyler,. Van Riper, Walker, P. D. Warner, W. E. Warner, M. C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins, White and Yeomans-45. POWERS OF EACH HOUSE OF THE LEGIS ~~- -LATURE. The next amendment reported from the committee of the whole, was to section nine, which section was as follows: Each House shall choose its own officers, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution; determine the rules of its proceedings, and judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its members, and may, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members elected, expel a member. No member shall be expelled a second time for the samecause; nor fur'any cause known to his constituents antecedent to his election; the reason for such expulsion shall be entered upon the journal, with the names of the members voting on the question." The amendment was to strike out the words " the reason for such expulsion shall be entered upon the journal, with the names of the members voting on the question," and to insert the same words at the end of the first sentence of the section. The amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in. COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE LEG ISLATURE. The next amendment of the committee of the whole was-to section eleven, which section was as follows: "The compensation of the members of the Legislature shall be four dollars per day. When convened in extra session theircompensation shall be four dollars per day for the first twenty days, and nothing thereafter; and they shall legislate on no other subjects than those expressly stated in the Governor's proclamation, or submitted to them by special mess~age. They shall be entitled to ten cents, and no more, for every mile actually traveled going to and returning from the place of meeting, on the usually traveled route, and for stationery, postage and newspapers not exceeding fiftteen dollars for each member during any session. Each member shall be entitled to one copy of the laws, journals and documents of the Legislature of which he was a member; but shall not receive at the expense Of the State, books, newspapers, or other perquisites of office, not expressly authorized by this Constitution." The amendment was to insert the words "during the session thereof," after the words " compensation of the members of the Legislature;" also, to insert; after the words "four dollars per day," the words "for actual attendance;" so that that portion of the section would read: "The compensation of the members of the Legislature during the sessions thereof shall be four dollars per day for actual attendance," etc. The amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in. The next amendment of the committee of the whole was to the same section, to strike out the words "their compensation shall be four dollars per day for the first twenty days, and nothing thereafter; and;" so that that portion of the section, if so amended, would read: "When convened in extra session they shall legislate on no other subjects than those expressly stated in the Governor's proclamation," etc. The amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in. COMPENSATION OF PRESIDENT OF THE SEN ATE AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. The next amendment of the committee of the whole was to section twelve, which section was as follows: "The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall each be entitled to six dollars per diem compensation, and the same mileage as members of the Legislatnre, and no more." The amendment was to strike-out all after the words "President of the Senate," and to insert in lieu thereof the words, "shall receive an annual salary of five hundred dollars, which shall be in full for his services as Lieutenant Governor, and President of the Senate." The question was upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. BILLS. I desire to call the attention of the committee to the fact that this section, if amended in accordance with the recommendation of the committee of the whole, would give the President of the Senate a salary of five hundred dollars for each year of his term. If there shall be biennial sessions of the Legislature, then he will be paid for one year of the term, during which he would have no service to perform in the Legislature. If this Convention had provided for annual sessions, then there would perhaps be some propriety in the amendment recommended by the committee of the whole. But it will be recollected that the Convention have refused to concur in the amendment of the committee of the whole, providing for annual sessions of the Legislature, and that we are to have biennial sessions. Is it the design of this Convention-that the salary of the Lieutenant Governor shall be five hundred dollars for each year of his term? I desire simply to call the attention of members to that fact. Mr. BIRNEY. Iunderstand that in my absence the article on the executive department was so amended as to impose additional duties upon the Lieutenant Governor; one was that of being president of the board of State uditors. This section, as amended, proposes to give him compensation as Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senate. I would inquire whether it is meant by thus particularizing these two duties, to prevent the Lieutenant Governor from receiving any compensation for services he may perform in other respects? Mr. GIDDINGS. I object to this amendment. The object of it, as I unstood, and as stated by the mover of it, was to give importance to the office. Now, my impression is, that if five hundred dollars will add any dignity to the office, we better put it at one thousand, and then there will be twice as much dignity to it. I think if that is the object of the amendment, to add dignity, and it is- of any use to the State to have dignity'attached to the office, the amendment here proposed is not high enough. I am opposed to any such-amendment. Mr. BLACKMAN. My recollection is that the Lieutenant Governor is to have other duties to perform than those of President of the Senate. If I am mistaken in that, then I should vote differently on this question. Mr. BILLS. I understand that an amendment was made in committee of the whole, and concurred in by the Convention, to the article on the executive department,. providing that the Lieutenant Governor shall be chairman of the board of State auditors. Now, I have regarded that as I have regarded some other things which we have done here. A few hours ago we would have said that we were to have annual sessions of the Legislature hereafter; and I think still that it is not a matter entirely determined by this Convention whether annual sessions will not prevail. If it shall become necessary for the Lieutenant Governor to perform the duties we have already required of him, in connection with the board of State auditors, and to come to the Capital from week to week, and month to month, during the whole year, doubtless it would be no more than right that he should have this salary, and probably he should receive as much niore. But this is not the place to discuss the propriety of the service to be rendered by him. If the opportunity shall come, when it shall be proper to discuss the propriety of that provision, I should be disposed to discuss it. I have not conceived it to be among the wisest acts of this Convention. Mr. WATLKER. I move to strike I_ 2 1867.. -.... out this entire section. I think thesubject embraced in this section would properly come up in connection with the article on salaries. Mr. McCLELLAND. When we had under consideration the article on the executive department, the Convention adopted a provision something to-this effect, in regard to the Lieutenant Gov-; ernor; -he shall be Chairman- of the Board of State Auditors, and perform such other administrative duties as may be prescribed by law. I thought that was wrong then; I think it is wrong now. But if you require the Lieutenant Governor to discharge such duties as that, then a salary of five hundred dollars a year is entirely insufficient. I presume the board of auditors is -in session as many days, or parts of days, as the Legislature is in session. If so, then the compensation allowed by this section as amended is-entirely inadequate. Mr. CONGER. I understand a motion has been made to strike out this entire section, in order that the subject may be referred to another committee. Whenever the time comes for that motion to be properly made, inasmuch as the section is changed by this amendment so that it does not properly belong to this article, I hope the motion will prevail. Then, after having been perfected by the committee on salaries, and by the Convention acting upon their report, the section can be inserted in whatever article it may properly belong to. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I would like to inquire what would be the result'im case the Convention refuses to concur in the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? What would then stand as section twelve? The PRESIDENT. The original section as reported by the committee on the legislative department would then stand subject to the action of the Convention. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I will not occupy the time of the Convention in any extended remarks; I will simply say that I hope the Convention will -not concur in the amendment made by the committee of the whole, but that the section may be left as it was re ported by the committee on the legis lative department; or that it bestricken out entirely; either would suit me. In regard to the question raised by the gentleman from Bay,- (Mr. BIRNEY,) in regard to the additional duties re quired of the Lieutenant Governor. my impression is, though I may be mistaken, that the action of the com mittee of the whole in that regard was not concurred in by the Convention. If it was, it -was afterwards:under stood by the members of the Convey tion very geneally, that the am'endment would not be adopted finally. Mr. THOMPSON. I voted for the amendment to this section, under the impression that section eight, as amended, providing for annual sessions, would be sustained by the Convention. But inasmuch as that has been voted down, I shall certainly be opposed to the amendment to this section. I think the action of the Convention in- regard to annual sessions has so entirely changed the position of members upon this question, that the majority will certainly feel themselves bound to act upon this in a different manner from what they would. do if annual sessions were to be provided for. I hope, therefore, that this amendment will not be poncurrel in, but that this entire section will be stricken out, and the subject referred to the committee on salaries. Mr. FARMER. If we cannot go back on our action, and strike out the additional duties imposed upon the Lieutenant. Governor, I shall vote differently from what I otherwise would. In consideration of those additional duties, I believe the Lieutenant Governor should have this compensation. Trusting, however, that we shall go back on that action, I shall vote for this amendment. The question was then taken upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole, and upon a division, ayes 3, noes 48, it was not concurred in. Mr. UTLEY. I move that the Convention now adjourn. Mr. CONGER. Will the gentleman withdraw his motion for a moment, until I make a statement? Mr. UTLIEY. Certainly; I will withdraw the motion. Mr. CONGER. I understand there are several gentlemen who have obtained leave of absence after to-day, who are anxious to vote upon some amendments which we will reach very soon. Perhaps the Convention will be willing to sit a few minutes longer for that purpose, uniess some discussion may render it improbable that we should get through with this article to-night. BILLS IN THE LEGISLATUI. The next amendment of the committee of the whole was to section seventeen, which section is as follows: -.,Bills may originate in either House of the Legislature; but no new. bill shall be In-troduced after the first fifty days of a session shall have expired." The amendment of the committee of the whole was to insert the words "except appropriation bills," after the words —" but no new bill." - - The question was upon Concur'inr'g in the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. LOTHROP. I really hope that the hands of the Legislature will not be so tied that if they choose to receive a bill unanimously, or by a very large majority, after the first forty days of the session, they will be precluded from doing so. I am no practical legislator, but I can readily understand that should some occurrence happen towards the close of the session of the Legislature which would make it very important to introduce a bill, it would certainly be very embarrassing if there was a provision of the Constitution prohibiting it. Mr. UTLEY. I -hope this section will be amended in some way, so as not to compel members of the Legislature, just as the time for the introduction of bills is drawing to a close, to heap the Clerk's desk with any quantity of billheads, as you may say, to which there is nothing attached but the simple title. I know that the winter I was here, there were a great many bills in. troduced for the construction of roads, the title being, "An act to lay out and establish certain highways." When the bill came before the House for consideration, it was altogether foreign to the subject; but they had so much stock in trade to be used when they got around to it. I know one gentleman, who sat near me that winter, introduced five or six of these bills, and other gentlemen did the same, in order to get around this very provision of the Constitution. If & member wants to introduce a new bill, he takes some old bill and attaches to the title of it what he desires to introduce. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I desire to say that I am of the opinion the gentleman is talking upon a subject not before the Convention. The question is upon concurring in the first amendment of the committee of the whole to this section, not the second amendment. Mr. LUCE. I move to amend the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, by striking out the words' appropriation bills,'' and inserting in lieu thereof " by unanimous consent;" so that that-portion of the section will read: "No new bill, except by unanimous consent, shall be introduced," etc. I understand very well how bills are introduced in the Legislature to avoid this provision. ~I can understand very well that there may be bills to which no one would object. Mr. LOTHROP. I -would suggest to the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. Lucr,) to modify his amendment so that it would read, -" byla vote-of two thirds of the members elected.') Jul.y 2o', 1867. :DIMBAT-.jMS. ND... PROCEED-INGS. I 366 _T., _ _ Mr. LUCE. I accept the amendment. The question; was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. LuCE, to the amendment of the committee of the whole, and it was agreed to. The amendment as amended was then concurred in. The next amendment of the committee of the whole was to the same section, being to strike out the word ",fifty," and insert the word "forty;" so that that portion, as amended, would read -" and no new bill, except by a vote of two-thirds of the members elected, shall be introduced after the first forty days of a session shall have expired." The question was upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. CONGER. The committee of the whole changed this section from fifty to forty days, after having adopted an amendment to section eight provi ding for annual sessions instead of bi ennial sessions. The Convention having adhered-to the provision for biennial sessions, it is proper that this amendment of the committee of the whole should not be concurred in, but that the section should: be left to read ithe first fifty days of a session," as originally reported. Mr. PRINGLE. I will simply add to what has already been said by the chairman of the committee on the leg islative department, (Mr. CONGER,) that the limit of fifty days is the limit im posed by the people of the State in their recent amendment to the Consti tution. The amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in. Mr. ALEXANDER. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The question was taken, and upon a division, ayes 34, noes 42, the motion to adjourn was not agreed to. PASSAGE OF BILLS BY THE LEGISL.TURE. The next amendment of the commit tee of the whole was to section nine teen, which section was as follows: "Every bill and joint resolution shall be read three times in each House before the final passage thereof. No bill or joint reso lution shall become a law without the con currence oi a majority of all the members elected to each House. On the final passage of all bills the vote shall be by yeas and nays, and entered on the journal." The amendment of the committee of the whole was to strike out the last sentence of the section, and to insert in lieu thereof the following: "On the final passage of each bill, the vote shall be taken separately by yeas and nays, and entered on the journal." Mr. McCLELLAND. I would ask the chairman of the committee on the legislative department whether it is not necessary also to insert the words, or joint resolution," after the words, each bill;'4 or does he consider a joint resolution the same as a bill? Mr. CONGER. The committee of the whole changed the language of the section as reported. I think the words "joint resolution" should be inserted; they were probably left ouit by inadvertance. I therefore move to amend the amendment by inserting the words "and joint resolution," after the words "on the final passage of each bill." The — amendment of Mr. CONGER to the amendment of the committee of the whole was agreed to. The amendment of the committee of the whole was then concurred in. TIME FOR LAWS TO TAKEF EFFECT, ETC. The next amendment of the committee of the whole, was to section twenty, which section was as follows: " No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. No public act shall take effect or be in force until the expiration of ninety days from the end of the session at which the same is passed, unless the Legislature shall otherwise direct, by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each House." The amendment of the committee of the whole was to insert the word ,general," before the word "object," so that that portion of the section should read-" No law shall embrace more than one general object, which shall be expressed in its title." The amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in. ORGANIZATION OF TOWNSHIPS, CITIES AND VILLAGES. The next amendment of the committee of the whole was to section twenty-six, which section was as follows: "The Legislature may confer upon organized townships. incorporated cities and villages, and upon the board of supervisors of the several counties, such powers of a local, legislative and administrative character as they may deem proper." The amendment of the committee of the whole was to add to the section the following: "'The Legislature shall provide by general law, for organizing townships, cities and villages, on such conditions, and subject to such regulations, as may be prescribed." Mr. MUSSEY. I Am decidedly opposed to that amendment; it means too much, or else it means nothing at' all. If it means that the Legislature shall not have power to pass special laws for organizing townships, cities and villages, then I am opposed to it; if it means that they may pass special and general laws both, then it amounts to nothing. But I apprehend it will be construed as a prohibition upon the power of the Legislature. Mr. BLACKMAN. This amendment strikes me as being restrictive in its character. I may not be correct, but as remarked by the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) if it is not a restriction, then it would not seem to amount to much. The Legislature could do all this without any express provision upon the subject. If they can pass general laws and special laws both, under this provlision, then it is unnecessary. But I believe there is a general rule of construction, that when a law or provision of the Constitution. prescribes that a thing shall be done in a certain way, it excludes its performance in all other ways. It seems to me that construction would apply to this section. There are other legal gentlemen here who can perhaps give an opinion entitled to more weight than mine. Mr. WITHERY. I' trust that this amendment will not be concurred in. It is not necessary for any one to give an opinion in reference to the effect of it; it is enough to say that it leaves a question of construction. It is possible, if not probable, that the construction which would be given to it would be, that the Legislature should not provide for the organization of town ships, cities and villages, in any other way than by general law. As that question of construction is involved in this amendment, I hope it will not be concurred in. MAr. MORTON. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and ac cordingly, (at ten minutes before six o'clock p. m.,) the Convention ad journed. FIFTY-FIRST DAY. FRIDAY, July 26, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mr. WEED. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr.' WOODHOUSE.' Mr. LONGYEIAR left the Convention last evening, before the adjournment, on account of sickness. I ask leave of absence for him for to-day, as I suppose he is absent this morning on that account. Leave of absence was accordingly granted. Mr. MILLER asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for himself, after to-day. Mr. PARSONS. On account of the condition of my health, I ask indefinite leave of absence for myself, after to-day. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. W. F. GOODWIN asked and CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Friday. 366 July.26, 1867. DE'RATES AND PROCE,'DINGSo 367 obtained leave of ^absence, after to-day, for' an indefinite time. Mr. FERRIS asked and obtained leave of absence for himself, for tomorrow. Mr. MUSGRAVE asked and obtained leave of absence until Wednesday next. Mr. BURTCH asked and obtained leave of absence, after to-day, for an indefinite time. Mr. VAN RIPER asked and obtained leave of absence, after to-day, for an indefinite time. Mr. WHITE asked and obtained leave of absence, after to-day, for an indefinite time, on adcount of sickness in his family. Mr. HUSTON asked and obtained leave of absence for himself, after today, for an indefinite time. Mr. MORTON asked and obtained leave of absence for himself, after today, for an indefinite time, on account of sickness in his family. Mr. HARRIS. I dislike to object to any of these requests for leave of absence; but it seems to me that some reason should be stated why leave should he granted. Inotice that members have asked for indefinite leave of absence, without giving any reason at all. I think that is wrong; I think the Convention should require some reason for granting any such request. Mr. NINDE. I ask leave of absence for myself, after to-day, for an indefinite period. I am willing that my per -diem allowance should be suspended during my absence. Mr. McCLELLAND. That is no reason for granting leave of absence. Leave of absence was accordingly granted to Mr. NINDE. Mr. BLACKMAN. I object to any more leaves of absence being granted. PETITIONS. Mr. FERRIS presented the petition of Mrs. J. H. Tompkins, Mr. R. C. Luce, E. R. Ellis, M. D., and Hon. B. A. Harlan, and six others, citizens of the city of Grand Rapids, praying for adult suffrage for men and women alike; which was referred to the committee on elections. Mr. UTLEY presented the petition of Thos. J. Owens, register of deeds, John Dazill, county clerk, E. O. Rose, prosecuting attorney, C. C. Fuller, circuit court commissioner, J. E.:Escatt, sheriff, R. W. Shepard, superintendent of schools, Charlie Gay, publisher of the Pioneer, F. H. Todd, Orrin Stevens, William Vanloo, B. E. Hutchinson, E. P. Clark, and fiftyv-three other men, and Laura C. Aldrich, Elma L. Hutchinson, and ten other women of Big Rapids, Mecosta county, in favor of the retention of the prohibitory clause in the Constitution; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr. CORBIN. presented the petition of A. K. Nichols, Clark Jones, John Livingston and fifteen other legal voters of Monroe city, in favor of retaining section forty-seven, article four, of the present Constitution, in the new one; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. SUBMISSION OF THE QUESTION OF PROHIBI TION OR LICENSE TO A SEPARATE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. Mr. LOTHROP. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That this Convention will frame and submit to the people of this State, for their choice by a separate ballot thereon, two alternative constitutional provisions, in substance as iollows: 1. A provision absolutely prohibiting all license for the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage. 2. A provision for the regulation of the sale of such liquors by tax, license or otherwise; authorizing any city or town, desiring so to do, to prohibit such sales within its limits; prohibiting all such sales to minors, paupers and common drunkards, and within any city or town on any day when a general or special election is held therein; and requiring that venders of such liquors shall pay an annual tax or license fee of not less than $100. - I do not ask action upon this resolution at the present time, but will move that it be laid upon the table for the present. I give notice that I shall present for the action of this Convention the subject of this resolution, either in this form, or in such other form as may hereafter seem most convenient. ,The resolution was received, and laid upon the table. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. The Convention resumed the consideration of the unfinished business, being the article entitled " Legislative Department," with the amendments reported from the committee of the whole. ORGANIZATION OF TOWNSHIPS, CITIES, AND VILLAGES, ETC. The PRESIDENT. When the Convention adjourned yesterday, it had under consideration the amendments of the committee of the whole, to the article entitled "Legislative Department." The pending amendment was to section twenty-six, which section is as follows: "The Legislature may confer upon organized townships, incorporated cities and villa ges, and upon the board of supervisors of the several counties, such powers of a local, legislative and administrative character as they may deem proper." The amendment of the committee of the whole, was to add to the section the following: ,, The Legislature shall provide by general law for orgabizing townships, cities and villages, on such conditions, and subject to-such regulations as may be prescribed." The question is upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. McCLELLAND. What has become of section twenty-three of this article? I believe it was stricken out in'committee of the whole, but that action has not yet been concurred in by the Convention. The PRESIDENT. The action of the committee of the whole in relation to section twenty-three was accidentally passed over yesterday. After the consideration of the amendment to section twenty-six, the action of the committee of the whole in regard to'section twenty-three will be considered. The question was then taken upon the amendment of the committee of the whole to section twenty-three, and it was not- agreed to. CONTRACTS FOR PRINTING, STATIONERY, FUEL, ETC. The PRESIDENT. The committee of the whole also recommend to the Convention to strike out section twentythree of this article, which section is as follows: "The Legislature shall provide by law that the furnishing of fuel and stationery for the use of the State, the printing and binding the laws and journals, all blanks, papers, and printing for the executive departments, and all other printing ordered by the Legislature, shall be let by contract to the lowest bidder or bidders, who shall give adequate and satisfactory security for the performance thereof. The Legislature shall prescribe by law the manner in which the State printing shall be executed, and the accounts rendered thereIor, and shall prohibit all charges tor constructive labor. It shall not rescind nor alter such contract, nor release the person or persons taking the same, or his or their sureties, from the performance of any of the conditions of the contract. No member of the Legislature, or officer- of the State, shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in any such contract." The question is upon concurring in the action of the committee of the whole in striking out this section. Mr. CONGER. The committee on the legislative department, in reporting this section, in the words used in the present Constitution, thought that some provision of this kind was desirable and necessary. Perhaps the present form may not be the best; there may be objections to some portion of it. I have heard it objected to, be' cause the provision that the contract should be let to the lowest- bidder seemed to imply that the State authorities letting the contract had no choice, but were compelled to let it to the lowest bidder, whether the bid was proper or not. Perhaps that objection might be remedied by making some amendment to that part of the section, such as, that the person making the contract on behalf of the State should have ithe right to refuse any, or all bids which are offered. I do not make these remaks for the purpose of offering any -. - -. --.. I -. . - -, - I.. I I. I. A -.- - .. I- —, I 1...11 CONSTITUTIONA T. CQONVETION, 0 amendment, but simply ito say that it seems to me the subject-matter of this section should be provided for somewhere in the Constitution, and that perhaps we would do a greater wrong than we think to the people of this State, if we allow this section to be stricken out without making some provision of this kind. I make this- suggestion in order that gentlemen who wish to retain the section,- and those who wish to amend it, may consider what is best to be done. Mr. WVITHEY. By way of suggestion to the Convention, I will move that there be inserted before the words " bidder or bidders," the word "acceptable;" so that it will read, "shall be let by contract to the lowest acceptable bidder or bidders." That, however, may not be exactly what should be inserted. Mr. LOTHROP. Would not "responsible" be the better word? Mr. WITHEY. What I want is, some provision which will not require the board of auditors to take the very lowest bid under all circumstances, but will leave them at liberty to take any bid that is acceptable to them. Mr. LEACH. This section having been stricken out by the committee of the whole, I would inquire if it isin order now to move amendments to it? The PRESIDENT. The question before the Convention is upon concurring in the action of the committee of the whole, striking out this section. In the opinion of the Chair, it is competent for the Convention to amend the section before the motion to strike out is acted upon; because, if the Convention should refuse to strike out the section, then it would stand as originally reported, and could not be amended. The Chair is, therefore, of the opinion that amendments to the section are now in order, before the Convention act upon the proposition to strike out. The first question will be upon the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) Mr. BILLS. When this section was under consideration in committee of .... the whole, it was somewhat fully discussed. The objection then raised to the prevailing idea of this section, if I recollect aright, was this: that it was not desirable that the Legislature should be tied up to any particular method of furnishing the supplies nec essary for the State, but that they should be left perfectly free to let these. contracts to the lowest bidder, or in such other manner as they might see fit, having reference to the best inter ests of the State. It occurs to me that the amendment suggested by the gentleman from (-Kent, (Mr. WrTr~,) still confines the Legislature to a spe. cific method, to wit: the obtaining of these supplies by contracts to be let to the lowest bidder, provided that bidder shall be acceptable.- What I would desire would be, that this matter should be so left that the Legislature may, from time to time, change the method of procuring these sup-, plies; for instance, this year, if they have advertised to procure these supplies by letting the contract to the lowest bidder, and should find after the experience of a year that- they could do better, if not tied down to that method, but had a wider range, then they might resort to suchother method as they should see fit to adopt; they might exercise such discretion as-an individual might exercise in procuring the some labor, or furnishing the same supplies. It was that idea which prevailed generally in committee of the whole; and under that impression this section, after sundry amendments were made to it, was stricken out altogether, leaving the matter, as I supposed, with the Legislature with all the discretion in that regard that an individual would have in conducting his own affairs, with a view to the best economy in his own behalf. I hope, therefore, that the action of the committee of the whole will be concurred in; or, if not concurred in fully, that the section will be so amended that the Legislature will not be tied up to any specific mode, that there shall not be a constitutional provision requiring them to let these contracts to the lowest bidder, but that they may be allowed to let them in such a manner as would secure the best interests of the State, allowing them, from tine to time, to change the method; if one effortproves disadvantageous, then to resort to some other method. Mr. PRINGLE. With a view to carry out something of the idea expressed by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILS,) I propose to offer an amendment to this section, which will not-be considered, I suppose, until after the amendment of the-gentleman from Kent (Mr. WITHEY) has been acted upon. I move to amend this section by striking out all after the words "shall be let by contract;" so that the section, if so amended, will then read: ", The Legisature shall provide by law that the furnishing of fuel and stationeiry for the use of the State, the printing and binding the laws and journals, all blanks, papers, and printing for the executive departments, and all other printing ordered by the Legislature, shall be let by contract." My idea is that we should declare in the Constitution the sense of the6 people, as an obligatory rUie upon the Legislature, that it should not inder ake itself to carry on the printing business, to carry on the publication of blanks and the printing of its own laws, or to own wood-lands or paper inills, or to furnish its own stationery. We should do this, and it will be done by providing that the furnishing of all these matters shall be let by contract. I do not mistrustthe legislative honesty in providing a law which will be their best judgment as to the mode of letting these contracts, whether it should be in the exact language of the latter part of this section or not; whatever -way be that language it can be changed from time to time. But the great thing to be guarded against is the evil which follows to establishment of those public institutions known as State printing offices, and State manufacturing establishments of books. We do not want them, but we want to require that the furnishing of these things shall be by contract. All beyond that, it seems to me, is a matter of legislative detail, which should be properly trusted to successive Legislatlures. I believe they will deal with these matters honestly. If there should be any fraud, or any improper conduct, it will be in the boards which, from time to time, may be authorized by the Legislature to let these contracts. If it be found that a law passed for the purpose will not meet the exigencies of the case, then another law can be passed, and so on from time to time, to secure the people of the State from the payment of exorbitant prices for these things. Mr. BLACKMAN. I rise to call attention to the fact that an, amendment was made to this section by the committee of the whole before it was stricken out. I would raise the question whether that amendment should not be considered, before the question is taken on striking out, and before any other amendments are offered to the section. By reference to the journal of the 13th inst., it will- be seen that the gentleman from Ilgham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) moved to amend section twenty-three by striking out the word "departments," after the word "executive,'f and inserting in lieu thereof, the words, "or State officers." The PRESIDENT. The Convention has no lkowledge of any action of the committee of the whole, except that which has been reported by the chair man of the committee of the whole; which iu this case is simply that the committee of the whole struck out this entire section. Mr. PRINGLE. I will simply state in regard to the report by the chair man of the committee of the whole, that the amendment referred to by the gentlema from Van Buren, (Mr. . -"I I I - i. -.. -. - --., -. 7 —--. I I I. 368' Frida.y, July 2(3, 1867. DEBATES Api) riQEEi)IGs.. 369 BLACKMAN,),was adoped by the com mittee,:.-.and" "it was reported by the chairman.of the.committee::'. of'!the whole,,that. certain.- amendments -ihad been made to the.'iarticle. If the-.: arti elew wich,was.reported from the comttee of: the whole, is,, in a proper shape, I- think it ought to show,. allthe amendments which were. made im comcommittee of the whole. -Our journal: shows.the,,action.of'-the committee of the wh'oe in regard: to this -,section, first in. changing certain words, -and in-: striking out certain, portions of the section, land thenn in:striking.' out:- the whole.of,it.. Mr. -.CONGER.....:.The:,,-amendment made was.tostrike out.the word "adepartments," and -toinsert the words ",'tor State: -officers," so that Rit would -read,, "'blanks,'-.' papers and printing:for the executive or State officers.. Mr. MU.SSEY,.. I, thin that we-h-a-ve nothing to. do..,at i,his time, wth ithe, amendments which were made-,tothis section,'and-there were several of.them,. especially -in the latter part of,:the section. I think..as)the Chair properly. remarked, we can only: take the. report, that came,from the.committee. of the whole. If those who offered the amend — ments are not satisfied- with:takig: the sense of the Convention,upon, them,, in comnmittBee of te wh'hen they can renew' theamendments here;-but there is no other, way, I apprehoend,of reaching them.I take as much imterest,in. the matter:as any: one;. for one. of the' amendments which was' adopted.by the committee ofithe whole, was ifer.ed by myself. i shall.be. c.ntent-. to,, let the Convention tae'such -a, course as they may. see proper,.withput again offering that amendment. The question "before, the Convenftion is proprly:on the amendment offered by the gentleman nfrom Kent,:_(Mr." WITHEY.)" That: amendment-does not' exactly m eet my: vie'ws, even if: the-::sec,tion is'to be-:reta.ined.. Ait ~the time this. section"'w"as' under' _consider-ation" in. committee' of the' whole,.'I ex'pr'essed myself as: opposedato it. I:am'i Still opposed to' fit.in'.the..mainm,:from.:the': fact that~ it' is. purely'.of.a legislative, character." The L'egislature s~ave/:authority. to do~ all these.-'things: whichthis sectio0n rieqilir/es the~m tio do,if they: deem'be~st.':Afte'r-they. have once: enacted:in' the' shape'of a:'law the:pro-' visions:of this section,'then:'if: itJ provyes' to work injUriously..and unsatisfactorily,: it will be under the'co'ntroli of the Legislature," and t hey" can'" re10eal,:.alter;"m or amend it." But under no circ'Umstlances: could I' give my: assen't ~to:sUCh -a~ pro-.i -vision in. the Constitution,. unless there' was an'amendment':ma.de: which; would allow the.board of auditors'tO reject - Vol, 2-No, 47. 'any a~nd.1- all bi'ds: presented -i, they -should deem- best to. do-s'. Ie do not believe ti oha been,o any subtniluetth .tate; -Id beleve nthe Sate! ohea saved~~~~~~~~~s -,I sin ~,gle~ -dollar neitI Jo no eive- ha proiin of'this' kind ordinarily; work b enefic,ially-. T-he are vryread~ily evded. I: belive i is. -bettertolaetimatrtth 'control of such provis-ons as the Leg islature/may see tfit to make. Now, inmregard. to the amendmienti of 'the -gentleman from Jackson, (Mr PrINaLE;)' ihave- no partticbular. objec -.tion to that,-part.- -of th-e-' secti'onb'eing retained which he proposes to,have re tained,. I. think it:-m""uh.?better' that the Stater,should: not enter' intoG the -Carrying on of any business like print'ig -orbook making. I think itw.ould:be better for.' them- to' rvide for" the furnishing of supplies, rather than to go'into.the market:and' buy- them item ,-by-item. But I am wiling to:leave :that to the- Legislatu,re..' If he on vention choose differently,..am Willing "to~::say:.that- allt — th'ese. things:shall:be 'done by contract that! th-e-Stae'shallt :not. enter.. into' the. —.carryingii on.'f all .these. various!branches. of busiess. .But I am unwiling to go into',detail as :.this sec.tion does, and tie-:up theboard of -auditors, so -that they will:have' no! :choiCe ~ or: ilberty i.,regard' to these miatters:.:" I shall.vote against the section in its present,.'form;,inor in' any fOrm which has::yet been.presented,except- the one: presented by'the gentle.man from. Jackson, to'which' I ha-e no ~serious, objection-.: .:,The PRESIDENT. The Chair will read from Barclay's Digest, in order to::" 'satisfy the Convention that his-rUling i iS m accordance with:the practice: "If the"committee [of the wholel shall amend a- Clause,: and subsequently strike out -the clause so amended,. the irat amendment thereby falls, and cannot be reported to the House -and "vote'd:on.':So, too,~ if the comnimit-' — tee shall. amend a:.bill ever so much,.and sub — 'sequentlyl adopt ia.substitute:ther~efur,, the~ ':bill'is to be reported'to the" House With' but a' ~single: amendment,;' viz':: the/ substitut'e'; and theI:House has only to' choose betWeen the .original bill: and the. substitute..."...,'!.'..:. M:..:ir. HEND:ERSON.~.,With":referencee .to-,the main —question under considera-: .tion, I: do. n ot. propose, to. make' any'-re-, ,~marks, except-.:to._say?.that-I,:. am ~op-: posed to: the.. amendment:- offered,:.-and: w::ould, prefer' Something, in accordance' wadth: the::suggestion of ~the gentleman: ,'from: Lenaw'ee:, (MHr:.BIL~s,):and i.perlhaps: embodied-,in the? amen dment of: the.!gentleman.' from.,Ja:ckson, (MHr. :.that'.amendlment.' - I do. not.,find, in the'question raised::the. objection'which ~in-, d~uced.,1 me'[t:'ol v~ote: ~in —..the i~co.,mmit:-.: :tee...: o~f,. "the::-.whole,::for_::.:Striking~ out this section. That objection "~i"':~ fo6u~nda" in:: the latter ClaUse of the section. There were two amend-ments made to'the: latter clause, which ""amendments have not been.mentioned' in: this~ daiscaUssion~ aot all. The word "such"was stricken oUt, Uanadthe words "with the oState," were inserted after' the wo'd ",ontract;" $so that the cauSe w-ould read: "No memberof the Leg-'islatm-e or-officer of. the State, shallbe "interested, directly or indirectly in- any contra,ct with'. the-State." It is evil'dent tat the intentionh of the con mitte"e. in-.,reporting'this Section, was to exclu'de' State't officers and: members of' "the Legislature:from' certain contracts -referred,"-to. in'this section. By: the amendments.which:were -ade, to which:I -have~. referred, members of the Legislature -were precluded.: from en-' r:gaging in any contract with the State, "wh atever that contract might be.That having been done, the section'appeared "so6bjectionabIe' that it.was at once ist.ri-cken~'out., "Ithink:I- sta-ted wh~en'-:I': Voted -to,strike'out this section, that I" iexpected"::that something':would,': be 'embodied here'by the Convention, in 'sub:-stan'e: like.':.h'at "perhaps is':; em — bodied in the. amendment-of the gen — tileman from Jackson.' - M]r. P.:D. WARI-R; i hope this sgecton-'twenty-three R:ll notbbe s.tricken" out; I hope it will be perfected s:as: to"6bviate-the objection' aised by gentliemen, a-'and that it will then be:adopted. -There "have been' two ame nd-mentsiproposed, t'6 this' section. I sk p'e~rlilissiony to: read:forthe "informati:6n ':6f the Convention,an amendment'hich I'"'hope "will be f-vorably cdnsidered when it is in order. aThe amndment I suggest- is;- to.inserti a. fter the words "adequate and satisfactory security for -the! perforrmance- thereof,'the:words ",,but no contract shall be awarded tQ ~thelowest bidder as herein provided, unless.: such~ bid'.'shall be judged tob ~for,:the best inter'ests of the'-Stat:-e."-,i: :ca.nnot see why an:"amendment of "that/ :character~ doe's,"niot cover the'objectionS:" :which: have been:- raised to" this-Sectioni'; by-:gentlemen.' The objections "raised'. -in committee':'of''the:whole:w'ere,: :th~at by:- compelling- the!"board -""of ~ .auditors:,to.:accept.the' lowest bid,: 'there':might,-,'be, "as'-there' had ~'fre-. quently- been, "combinatiOnS: ""formedl: :against the interests of the State,...The " bo~ard-be~ing require~d absolutely by' the " Constitu-tion':to.:accept:' the~ lowe-st bi~d. offered,:'th'e-'interests..of-'the State.'fre::. ?quently! suffered thereby.' It I"would-: 'appear to me that by the adoption o'f.. ~the-:amend~ment"'which''I': -have.~ reafd,'. :tho0se. o~bjections:"might-be —obviated.''.~I: ~ cannot'-see:-any'objection: to 6the i.adop-:: 'tion ~of,the'. Section -by —the' Convoention:".' :I-:b~elieve the:: interests:.o:f the -'State:: would be much better secured by the DEBAT -P 0. -NG Jul - -.! I' i. 7.. Y, , - 86 370.") l7 T - ) De CO v1 I I i o adoption of an amendment of this character thaorn th-ey would'be ito'have'. the matter' open as'it w'as' previous to the adoption'of.' the' present' Constitution.' Mr. WITHEY. I am entirely satis-' fled with the: amendment suggested by the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) and I will therefore with draw my amendment..' Mr. McCLELLAND.- I would ask the gentlem'an from Kent, (Mr.WITIEY, ), if it would not be better, instead of withdrawing his amendment, to change the word' acceptable," to responsi.ble? I think that would give all the discretion needed to the officers of the government in letting these contracts. I think with that amendment, the provisions of this-section would probably be as good as they could be made., I am opposed to. the'amendment of the gentleman from Jackson,. (Mr.. PRINGLE.) While his amendment directs thee'things to be let by con-. tract,. iit does:not require any sureties to be: given at all. He proposes to strike out a portion of the section which. to my mind contains a very salutary provision. "The Legislature shall prescribe.by law the manner- in which'the State printing shall be executed, and the accounts rendered therefor, and shall prohibit'all charges for constructive labor." Printer's un-' dersta, d' this'perfectly, and.'geat deal better than we do..' This pr6vision was put into the Constitution of 1850, fori: the purpose of preventing any charges for' constructive:labor. The section then goes on'to provide that the'Legislature "shall not rescind nor alte'r such'contract, nor release the person or persons taking the same, or his or their sureties, from the performance of any of the conditions of the contract." I think that is perfectiy proper, because it is analogous to proceedings between'individuals in their private business.' The-: section then concludes:'"No member of the Legislature, or'"officer of the State, shall be interested, directly or indirectfy, in any such contract."' I think that is a good provision also. By inserting the word "'responsible," where the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) proposed-to insert the word "acceptable," I think we would meet the case' exactly. - Mr. WITHEY. Is not the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) satisfied with the amendment of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER?7) Mr. McCLELLAND. My own impression is, that'the word "responsible" would be'all that'would be necessary; I would leave the latter part of the sectiont t stand as it now reads. ~....... - -. *-..... Mr. P. D., WARR. Wol.d. not. a bidder who gave satisfactory security for the performance.- of a contract, be a responsible bidder?. 'Mr. MCCLELLAND. No, sir. In a great many cases a person who takes a contract is totally unfit to perform the work.: I can give instances of that kind. In many cases the litigation attending upon such contracts has sometimes been very expensive. The man who takes a contract should be,. ini the judgment of the' State officers, abundantly able and responsible in himself to perform the work. I have known many bids of this kind to be made by persons who were not practical printers at all.' Mr. COOLIDGE. Will the gentleman from Wayne allow - me to.ask him a question..?' Ai. McCLELLAND. Certainy.'. ' Mr. COOLIDGE.: I would ask if the. amencdment offered by the gentle. man from Kent, (Mrr. WITHE~,)'ould -avoid all danger' of collusion? Mr. McCLELLANID. I do not. believe that. you can by any possibility avoid- -that entirely. But I think the amendment offered by, the gentleman from.:Kent, (Mr. WIT'HY,) to insert the. words, "coompetent and responsible," would meet.the, case as inearly as; it can be met. I do' not' believe it is possible'for'any legislative enactment, or provision in the fundamental law of the State, to prevent'. fraud in all such case's; I am confident it cannot be done. But at the same time, I think it is our 'duty. to, he dge:- around these contracts i-such a way'as to provide, as far as possiblie, against these' frauds. That. is all we can do; we cannot go any -fuirther.' 'Mr." WITHEY. Inasmuch. as, it. is desirea' that the, amendment I offered. should not be withdrawn, but modified, I am willing' to''change- it' so. as to..'in — sert the words" competent and'responsible," before the wordsi "bidder or bidders." I-see'no' obj.ection to. such an amendment; I'am willing that the sense of the. Convention should bee taken upon it. The question was on the amendment of Mr. WITHEY, as modified. -' Mr. GIDDINGS.' I supposed this section was stricken out by the committee of the whole, because they thought the Legislature could look after these things quite as well as we can. AMl that is provided for in the first part of. the section the Legislature would of necessity take care. of;. the provisions about fuel, stationery, and. all that sort of thing, may properly be. left with l..t~he. Legislature. -So. far. as. this last clacuse is concerned,: in regard to State officers'and'members of. the Legislature,,:.being.interested in con-.. tracts, I can see no more reason now than I did in committee of the whole for retainingit. It seems to me.that if the Legislature is to take care of these things we should.. let the Legislature. do the work. -. For one, I -am .quite tired of doing work here in the Convention which I think the Legislature ought to do from.-time to time, as the exigencies of the case may re-. quire., Mr. ROOT. It will be remembered that in committee of the whole many amendments were proposed to this section, and some of. them adopted. After we had. spent some.time- upon it, it wasn concluded then to strike out.-the section. Now, I think,we may; spend a whole day in amending this section, as we did in committee of the whole, and; after we get through with it:we may. make up our minds..that it is legislation only, and strike it out..... I hope we will strike out this section for I believe the. Legislature can' pert form.the duty required.here. - The question; wass then taken upon the amendment of Mr..WITHr, as modified, andit, was agreed to....:.. The'question. was upon the; -amendment of Mr.:'-PRINGLE, to strike out all-. after the. -.words -shall.be let by con" tract.". .Mr..... ENDERSON.- The gentleman from Wayne, (Mr.: McCLELLAND,) read the last clause of this section as .it is printed and said that it satisfied him. in that form!. In that respect I .agree. with, him. The question now, arises, after the ruling of the' Chair, andafter the inquiry made here, to which a. tacit' assent has been given, how can' we reach..,this. subject? If all the amendments made to this section in committee of the whole, were swallowed: up by the action of the committee, in: striking- out this section, how canthe words be restored- in —this last clause which were struok out. by -the commit-. tee of' the whole-? With these -w6rds restored I am -in favor'of -the -section, but without them, I am opposed to the whole section. The questionis, whether 'the. action of the committee of the whole in striking out this entire section, placed it beyond the power of the Convention to act upon the former amendments to the section. . The PRESII)ENT. The Chair willstate, that in his opinion, it is in- order to perfect the section, or -to perfect it in any part, before the question is taken upon the motion to strike out the section. The Convention havel no knowledge of any amendment made by the committee of -the whole, exceptthe amendment to strike out the entire section. -.....-.' - - -- —.-. —- -.... . ~Mr. H ENDERSON,:' -I understand this.last clause remsai-sas itt was-.orig CONSTITUTIONAT, CONVENTION. 370 Friday, I J DElBATES AND.-.-PROCEEDINGS. inally-reported, with the word such," retained before the word." contract," :and the words "with the State," not inserted after the word.' contract."' The PRESIDENT. The section is now before the Convention in precisely the form in which it was originally reported' by the standing committee. If no amendments are made to the section by the Convention the question would be- between the section as ret ported by the standing committee and the motion to strike out the section. If the motion to strike out the section prevails, then there would be no sec-. tion in its place. If the motion to strike out the sectiondo0es -not prevail, then the section as reported by thestanding committee would) stand precisely as it was reported, and it would not then be in order to make any amendment to it.: Mr. CONGER. - It would be in order now to amend the last'clause of this sectionby-striking out the word- "such," before the word "-contract,"' and inserting-,the words, "with the State," after the word " contract;" so that this last clause would read: "No member of the Legislature or officer of the State shall be interested directly or indirectly in any contract with the State." The PRESIDENT. It is in order to amend the section in any manner the Convention:may desire. After'the section mhas been amended, then the question will be taken upon concurring in the action of the conmmittee of the whole, to strike out the entire section. M-r. PRINGLE. I desire to modify the amendment I -proposed, so as to save the last clause of this section. I therefore move to strike out the follow - to the lowest competent and responsible bidder or bidders, who shall give adequate and satisfactory security for the performance thereof.,' The Legisiature shall prescribe ny law the manner in which the State printing shall be executed, and the accounts rendered therefor, and shall prohibit all charges -for constructive labor. It shall not rescind or alter such contract, nor release the person or persons taking the same, or his or their sureties, irom the perrormance of any of the conditions of the contract." - The section, if so amended, would read as follows:' "The Legislature shall provide by law that the furnishitag of fuel and stationery for the use of the State, the.printing and binding the laws ald journals, all blanks, papers and printing for the executive departments, and all other printing ordered by the Legislature, shall be let- bV. contract.:No member- of the Legislature, or officer of the State, shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in any such contract.": - -.. - I would like t0 say just one word in response to- what was said by the gen tlemai from Wayne, (Mr. Mc(LEL LAND,) in regard to the portion of the section I have proposed to-strike out. 1: cannot conceive of a case where the Legislature would act upon the subject at all, wthout coverin'g this ground Of providing in detail, for the-manner in' which these contractsl shall be made, and the work shall be performed:*- As to the clause providing thatthe-Legislature shall not rescid or alter any such contract,.etc., there is anther section whichprovidesthatthelLegislatnreishall not grant any extra compensation to any. public -officer, agent or contractor. That, I think, provides for all that is necessary for us to provide for. -- Thelatter clause of this: section is -'as fol-, lows: " No member' of the Legislature -or officer of the- State, shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in any suich contract." That is they - shall not be interested in any contracts for furnishing fuel, stationery,'etc. I approve of that portion of the section.' The object of that - clause will not be. covered by the other section -to-which I have referred, nor by any law in the case at all. These other things-w-hich I have moved to strike out are merely legislative, or else they are substantially covered -by the other section. Hence, I move to strike them out, trusting as I think we may implicitly, to the honesty of the Legislatures which may meet hereafter in the State, to devise such legislation as maybe necessary I feel certain, that as this provision has been inthe'Constitution before, and the people's: attention has been directed to it, and and it is known to everybody what "'constructive labor" means, just as well or about as well as printers understand it,', the law would- expressly provide for prohibiting any such. thing. I cannot doubt that would be the case; I- cannot doubt- that the- Legislature acting honestly, would make such pro-} vision. The Legislature as'a body will not be guilty of frauds in reference to contracts.,, If,there be any fraud, some one of the State board may be a party to the transaction, but the Legislature can guard against that by ample details better than we can here. Hence; I think the State'would be more amply protected by striking out these purely legislative provisions.-: - ~ Mr. WILLIAMS. I cannot agree that these are purely legislative provisions. If I read them correctly, they are purely restrictions- on legislative power. I cannot see how we can< construe restrictions upon the' legislative power as legislative provisions.:It occurs to me that the Legislature should be restricted from authorizing charges for constructive labor, and' sh6uld be required to prohibit such charges. -It also appears to -me en tirely proper that the Legislature should be prohibited from rescinding or releasing any contract. I- hope the amendment of- the gentleman:from Jackson, (Mr. PROWLS,) will not pre. vail, but' that: these clauses't'il be retained.: -' -::: The PRESIDENT. The question will be first taken upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr P. D. WAiRNER,) to' insert -after -the -words "'-satisfactory security for the' performance -.-thereof," the words, - "but no contract shall: be awarded to the lowest bidder as herein provided, unless such bid shall be judged to be for the best interests of the State." - Mr. P. D. WARNER.' I do not desire to occupy- the time of'the Convention. But I certainly. do not understand that the amendment adopted on motion of the-gentleman from Kent, (Mr.- WITHEY,) inserting- the words " competent and - responsible,' before the words:' bidder or bidders," secures the object I had- in view in -offeringn my amendment. — These bidders- may be entirely competent to perform the contract, and may be entirely responsible for its performane.- But-" still: they may have formed a combination with others, to secure that contract upon the lowest bid made, to the disadvantage and injury of the State. Now, I cannot see why this may not be done, notwithstanding the amendment to this section which has been adopted. I can see that by the adoption of the amendment proposed by myself, it is -left discretionary with the State board to accept the lowest bid, or to reject it, as in their judgment -shall be for the best interests of the State - - I think if we are -to adopt a section of this character, to stand in the fundamental law of the State, we had better perfect- it and place it'in such shape that it may protect the interests of the State, and not be used for the advantage of those individuals who may be seeking to secure their own aggrandizement at the expense of! the public treasury. I cannot see any objection to the amendment I have offered, and I hope, unless there are good reasons why it should. not be adopted, it will meet with the favorable consideration of the Convention.'; Mr. LUCE. I do see an objection to the amendment; of the gentleman from Oakland, ('Mr. P.. D N W ER.Y) If I understand the force and effect of his amendment, there may be: two bidders to a contract for printing, or for anything else proposed to be let under this section,' and his amendment will leave it with the board to say whether the-lowest bidder shaU' have it or not. It is an objection to my mind that the board may discard the; lowest. bid, under the plea that thepublc' good requires it, and give the contract to the' one who submits the highest:bid. I much prefer the pro,vison I find in I ".1 - 1867. .371 Al CONSTITUTIONAL CONVEY TIO/N. -the.Wisconsin-'.:Constitution.: - That .provision is -very much to the effect of this, in so far that it prsvides-that th :print: ng shall be fhmrished by contract; . but-it ~also;contains a proviso h'at the :Legislaturemayestablish0a maximinm price:i for.the'Work'. Therefore, if the bids are:aall too -high. the -LegislatUre may provide the -highest price' to which any bid-!,,shalll reach', and be accepted, I:have a serious objecti-ont.o the ~amendment of: the gentlema from Oakland, for-the reasons I have stated The question was then taken upon .the amendment of Mr. P. D. WXRNrR; -and it was ~not-:agreed-to.'::.~:: i./:-The,,.question',then recurred upon t-he. amendment -of Mr. -PRGL; to strike out the following'. .-to the-, 1owest: competent and respons,ble:bidder; or bidders, whoshall.lveadequate and satisfactory security for,the p erformance thereof. The Leg'islature shall prescribesby law the manner in which: the'State prntin ~..:' shall. beexecuted, and. the accountsarendered! therefor, and shall.prohibit all. charges for Constructive labor. It shall not rescid:OT -alter suCh contraelt nor release:the person or .persons —taking thewsameo,- ork hiseor their. sure-b frties, om the performance of any of the cOn-: dition's"orthe contract. s'o'tlhat'the section would read: ' ",:The;Legislature shall provide by law that -.fthe'furnishing ot fuel ad stationery for the use of the State, the printing and binding the' laws and- journals, all blanks, papers' nd . —printing-tor:.the- executive: departments, and:: ..all other-printing ordered by the. Legislature, - shail be let by. contract. No member of;the L'egislature or'- officer of the- State,shall be interested,. directly or indirectly,., in:any such -contract.?,. The question was -taken; and upon: a division, ayes 28,1 noes 31, the amend-! ment was not.agreed to. The question:againrecurred upon the amendment of.. the committee of 'the whole,., to strike ou%t the entire sec tion. M r. BLACKMAN. I move the fol-: ..lowing slight amendment, which was ,offered in committeeo" of the.wle, to.: :i'perfect the language of.the' lstclause "of thissection,.to.0strike out the words, "ofier, of the State,"' and insert. th words, State officer;".:so hatit win, read::- No member' of the Legi'slature, or:State officer~,shall be:interestedl di rectly or indirectly in any suchconh. The.amendment of Mr.:[BLKC.KM was -agreed t-o. ':''Mr. M'~ORTON..I, move, to amend the last Clause' of. this section, by.striking out the words, Legislature, ox .State officer," and inserting the word", "board. of'State: aiuditors;" so,,-: that, i will, read: "No member'of.,,,the b:oard-:' .of State, -auditors shallI be"inerested, ': direc'tly:or:in.directly, ineany sueh con- -tract." -I believe the,,board of. State audit.or's'are part~ie.s~ to the' contra'ct,.onl; .:behalf o0f-thel state.,-I' do not.see. any::) .'necessity:for -.exeludhng members sof."~ the Le: ~gislature:-'and':' others, even if they a~re ~the parties who order: the -coit~ract -to -be, made. The amendment of, M.:Moitoxwas Thequestion.:again recurred npon strikingout -Iuthe section: as:amended. ~: ~:.~-.Mr..-:H,~ENDERSON.:'Before votig on that question,. I shouldlike to have i the amendment; offered:which Was of'fered: im committee of the wholeby the gentleman" from ".gham, (Mr. LONG Mr. LONGYEAR.z- I7 -will move to ::amend the'section M Ba sbomewhat dif feren-t mannterfrom whlht I proposed i4n committee of the whole. I move:te strike out -thozword" d'epartment," and to i ~ nsert i~n:-lieu thereof, thea word "',:',fdepartment.~and!State:offies', -so -that it.witll ~read, ",blanks,i.. papers, and primting, for the:ex,ecutive department nd,State offices, etc. !:,The amendment: of,::Mr. LoNGYEA .Mr.MILES.:I move to amend this .. secin by strking out atl after the words, "The Legslature shall provide,, and inserting in lien thereof the following: by law-that-: the furnishing of fuel:and ..stationery for_.the use: of' ~th"State,: the prlnt ing and b~' ]Jin'ding':.thel'"laws and journals, all 'blan~k's, vap~:ers agnd printing for the executive d.' epartment and State' o'ices, and all other p).rintiag ordered by, the..egistatre, shall be letbY contract to the lowes-t competent, respon~sible -bi'dder o'r bi-dders,~:reserving -the ,right.to reject anyor all bids, and shall pro,hibit, all ch~arles.. for constructive labor, No member of the- Legislature - or other State officer,shall be ginterested, directly or indi'rectly-, in:any such contract." M.RICHM.OND. -There, was, another- amendmen-t -offered to'this seetion in committee of the hwhole, wich I will renew here. I move to amend ,the last clause of the section by strikri/ng out:the word "::,:,~ such,".:~ before the word "co:'ctract,";:.-~ an':d::~ insert-ing after -the: 'word:'-" contract," the word' "withb he::State;."'.so'that: that' portion of' the' iseCtion::will ~ re~adl:::':"No member of-the, 'board of.:St~ate~: auditors tsh~all be in~'ter- i 'ested-':directly,:: or indir~ectly,[.'in a: ny' contrac't:with,.thq: State.-::,.:...,'~-.~i" Mr. PRINGL'E.:: I-cannot..consent' that:the..a-mendme'nt/of:the'-gentleman~ from Waslitenaw, (M~r, R,cHMaoN,):shall ~pasls!without /at.least uttering a. pro.~ test::against it.~:. -The:.members: of-:the. Convention-need.-reflect but a roemen~t, to see how:far it: wil reach.: I! cannot, perhaps,: better'illustrate moyidea,. than b~y ref[erring [to "'my.'iowna constituentS.; There'?are some t~en or: twelve contracts,'i i' im'agin(e, i~n.-connection -with the State' Prso0n,:'at~ Jackson,::for: labo,r, ~for fu-~.r nishing prov0:isions,.'and'"one thing a.nd. another"."There'/are some.,t~wenty'or: th'irty:/men.who- -have signed the~se-con-. tracts:Jasi-suretiesl~.' M,ost'of'th'ese: con-: 'rac~tors and- most-~ of thiese sureti~es i'ate: entirely responsible men.:The result ~:of the ametidden't would be, to pro hibit from taking a seat in either House of 0..th'e:Legisla'ture, somie twenty, thirty or forty,-as the cas e my be,a of my im tmediate c'onstituents'.What.iS true there, I imagine-Would betrue in Kal:':' amazoo0, -in' F*'lint, perhaps'in:A'nn: Ar bor; in this city, and in:: various: Other :-:parts: of the State. MAN~~ iiia'all:the' Mr. BLACKMAN' I would callthe' attention of the gentleman from'Jack son, (Mr.,PR'G,)'to-nan amendment ~ ~ ~ Which~. hash just been made, tthis po-r..tion of: the section, striking oUt the ['-: words: "',~L'egislatue or State officer," and, " iinsertig the:.'words4'"'board of [ State ~auditors,",:so: that.it reads "No member'o f s.,th b d State,.aUdit ors," etc. Mr. PRINGLE. If'the-clause is to ~-stanld in that- form, I have:noparticu lar objection to the" amendment'of the gentleman from-Wasltenawl(Mr.,Rici -MO- D):'But'if:it.is tstand as Origin E!lly reported, so.a to prohibit::these !~ gentlemen' ~from-takinm~g::seats in the Legislature I" can:se no r'eason for it, but,:on:: the contrary great, objection to it.. : ~' Mr.:MUSSE~,.'~"Will the' gentleman a allow1 me to ask him a question? Mr;. -PRINGLE. Certainly. ,-Mr. MUSSEY. Would.it prevent a ' c ontractor. from taking'his:seat inthe ,Legislature; o, rather.would it not pre vent him by taking his seatin the Leg-a ~ilatiure, from.taking. a- contract, from being one of the contractig parties? ~:'Mr.'.PR~INGLE.~-:~,The language of :::the'clause isi,:that he; "shal not:" be in terested::, directly or:indirectly in any such,.contract." If he was interest ed: directly or indirectly, the lawyers would tell you that he could not take his seat in the Legislature. Mr. Mi USSEY. Nota bit of it. /!Mr. HIE NDERSON. A' the:adop Mir.n of the:"aend.,ent of the gentlema fro Wm:':.'ot-w~s'ht.en'aw,'(MSr. RI[,CHMON~D,) in~ icommittee of the,'whole -led to the motion.to strike' out this's~ecetion,~ I hope ,i't wvllnot now be h~-'~ado pted (asi re-o: 0':ffered. It is ti'rue it is roblbed-somew~hatbfi the 'ob~jection.-,-which- origina~lly- obtained ,gentlemoan from Mon~roe,: (Mr.- Moxavo.m). -:Yet'it-is ~no~w objectionablei.:-if "a maan ha'nces':to~ b~e':a: m'emb'er: of':the: board of: Stat'e audi~tors, t:we ~wish::'to: say:that he shall/not be in~terested: in: any of: the co6ntracts:!mention~ed'in "this?' section. . BUt~ i-think:/we-,are::not~~' prepared to. say 'that he shall' not be ~interested in- any :other, contract' with theSta/te.:.' ~-:-:The question: was: then~!taken:upon :the'i a,mendment::of.Mr. RICHOliD,D and iUpon:adivision,.ayes: 42, noes 20,.it was 2 t7-i .'Vo-r-liday, . il CD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,9 CD ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(D CD. CD CD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~; 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CD-i crq~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c CI~~~~_ - ~ ~ ~ _~~O 0 0 0 ~ -D ",CD 0~ 0 ~ 0-? ~ ~ ~ P.4 0Z 0'D' -.,.6 ~~ CD ~~ ~~- " "c-. 0 0, 0 bi 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"'-:- 0 ~D~ 0, 0..- 0"., 0.~. ~-:I,', - ,;.-,.')'-'.,,,,',! n,;., 0~~~~~~~~ 0 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ 0 CO ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..'~.; (: ":0 e+:'''"0' ~' ~ I ~ - 0 ~ 0'; " i 0- X. - 0.. (~.. ~:. _.:, I,. -; 11' I,.ll.. m ~ - tMom n. or ___~i~C C CD ___0~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~( 0 ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~-* 0~~~~~~C Di~~~~~~~~~. 74 CD"' O ,C~~~~ - Di eD~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0~ 0 OI~ "CD i ~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0~~ 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P C D" 0 0 D0 0 ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~C ~~~Di0 00 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~D w~~~~~~~~~~I - cw ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ c 0 CD 0 0 PI~O C D CDi.C ~~~~~C D* 0~~~~~ D i ~ 1 Di.?'t 0 ~~~POPo S 0 <~.AdH ~ arS 00Di > ~.~ I.= ~i''..s."!... v H.:~.:'.X::S' L,' -.'..e"":::::~,~.:: ". i:" FtO *rs I ( C D :.C 0 o o CD 0000 ~,.... e~._L;,.~. .'? -'.;. ~,?,.1~.'.!: 0:i.~,:":::~':c, I I I i i m~ mn CD .C9 CONSITUTION AT.' DCO. TIOn. authorize any city or township to,' the words, b"raise by tax.".. The PRESIDENT. — The Chair has no such amendment before him.. Mir. MUSSEY. It, is so printed in the'journal.. Mr. PRINGLE. No such — amendment was adopted....: .The question recurred on the amendment of Mr. PRATT. Mr.:CONGER.: I'am in favor of that amendmentj; it- carries out what I suppose we intended by prohibiting a county from pledging its credit." The amendment of M-r. PR.ATT WaS agreed - to. Mr. INGALLS. I move to amend the amendment reported from the'committee of the whole, by inserting the word "county," before thewords "~ttE,:,' -..... ..... ~;'~ i.~ ~...~-~ i......,, ~:,, ~'."'~CD 0 D C 0 8 0i in B H ~S v Hr H; H; =N t _ 0: }=4 S * 0q Sw m 0 > 0H,,, $>,-f-u g t3 0 S 0 C) o 0 ~ g 0 7.& 4 > oHE 2 p& g0 g CD ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~. CD P WIH t:& W p- -. o-.,, -.~~~~o".-.'0 ~-"0" ~'-. ~ ~ 0 ~i'~~~~~ _H~: -~'.' -. -" o:,; C:'..D. g, 0~~: 0"' 0H 0 Hw' ": I=, 0 ~.< : O 0 5 CD' .' ~'~. ~ ~ -.'.",c cD ~' o~a'' t ,0.-..' .. 0,, -.~tl ~. 0 o H ~ ~ 0 - H.. LH... -w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'..~...~ 0o~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ 0 o o H 0ap > *0H~ C) i -Xo 4; .0 0..... .~~~~~-*... 0 0. D: H Q; t., p 0 o:, ~.: 3H00~H.,, H- 0..:. D, 0L0)~)~ r~~~~".'S'. ~..'f';C CD = W;2.0., 0 i.v ~::.. 0..,.. Hi~~H,;.'l,:-', C CD: ~H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CD C) 00 H H - s H CD ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I 0 wb, CD; i j 5 10, - -~~~~!'C ~0 H0 CD 0HH )0HH<~~H00CD0 H 0 CD ~H CD~ ~ CD ~ 0H H~ ~ o~CD -~ CD "5 HCD 0 ~ 0:.o::':'.:"'~! i'.'~ ~.'~~~~~~~ tt - H 0 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~CD 0 ~ o 0 ~ ~ ~ HC::HC::, ~-.o - CD.... CD. HOCDHO 00 OH H H0 CD0 Dw00 ... 0!,H,, ~CDH ~CDC) ~ ~ ~ 0 -. "? 0 0.- ~ 0 wa0 o l 00~D~ * H ~::.~;:.s ~:...p: ~.~,; c4:...~:.:., ot c:~ ~ ~.,: O.. 3(':.i ~3a4''~ 0 0 - 0. CD - *.P....o.,:, ~':':.. f.oR .I... I I'.'H 0 -'-C CD w~CD ~HH~CD~LD w C ~~~~~~~: CDC~ H 0 1~'-", ~r ID'ID fl~~~~~~~~D oq,. %:, '.0 ) -*C"~' o r..:;S q Sy ~~~~~~~~~(, f. ~ C~ 0 . !.. H .._~~0 w H H H H 0 H 0 H 0 H w H 0 0 H C 0' 0 C 0 '0~ w-[ I I - Jul 26 187 EAE N POEDNS ment will not be concurred in; I do not see the necessity of it. The section as originally reported has been a provision in our Constitution since 1835 It was placed in the Constitution of 1853, in the article entitled "Bill of Rights." It is found in the Constitutions of many States as a provision of that article. It is simply an enuncia-, tion of a principle; and I have no objection to the manner in which the principle is enunciated in this section. I agree that sectarian schools should not be supported by the State, and that no money should be appropriated by the State for the benefit of any religious sect or society, or any theological or religious seminary. I do not see anything in the necessities of this State, which should require us to go beyond such an enunciation. I do not see anything in the history of our colleges in this State to require more than this. I think exception might be taken to the language of this amendment, and that it might be considered as cause of offense. I think the section as originally reported is altogether preferable. I have no objection to the amendment which the gentleman from Kalamazoo (Mr. BRADLEY,) proposes to make to the article on education. I am entirely opposed to using the primary school fund for the support of any school under denominational control. We know that, with the exception of the University and:the Normal School, all the colleges, ad many of the academies and seminaries of learning in this State, are under denominational control. I take it no one has ever had occasion to find any fault with regard to their having made any attempt to control matters of State, or to take part in the politics of the State. So far as I am acquainted with them, they are purely literary schools, established for the purpose of supplying the means for a literary education. I speak now more particularly in re gard to the college at Hillsdale. That college is no more sectarian than the State University. The course of in struction there is similar to that of the University. It provides for a course of studies in moral philosophy, and upon the evidences of Christianity; the same studies are prescribed in the University. There is nothing sectarian about that college, any more than there is about the University at Ann Arbor. Then again, that college, and the other colleges of the State, have been, I take it, of great benefit to the State. The endowment fund of Hillsdale College is almost $100,000, and a very large portion of that fund-was furnished by persons residing outside of the State. The annual attendance of students at Hfillsdale College is nearly six hundred. Vol. 2-No. 48. I presume that college bas educated more teachers, annually, that even the State Normal School. I see no necessity for placing a provision of this kind in the Constitution, for the purpose of preventing any appropriation to those schools which are purely literary and not sectarian. I do not know but the time may arrive when it may be deemed wise, and an act of justice, to make an appropriation to these schools for the purpose of endowing a normal school department for the purpose of educating teachers. If it should be deemed proper and wise, at any future time, to make an appropriation for that purpose, I do not wish to have the Legislature tied so that they cannot do it. I think this amendment is unwise in this place, and I hope it will not be concurred in. Mr. CHAPIN. I hope the amendment will be retained, either in this place or in some other portion of the Constitution. I am not afraid that the primary school fund of the State will ever be appropriated for endowing any of these colleges; there is no apprehension of that kind in my mind. But I do not wish to see the people of the State taxed, I do not wish to be taxed myself, for the support of denomina tional colleges, or other institutions of learning. We have a State University, which affords all the facilities that are requisite for the education of the young men of the State in collegiate studies. If it becomes necessary for any de nomination to erect a college at Hills dale, or at Kalamazoo, or at any other place in the State, I am perfectly wil ling they should erect it there, and I am also perfectly willing that they should support it. But I do not be lieve it is right to permit the Legisla ture to be induced by influences that may be brought to bear upon them by these denominations, to tax the people of the State for the support of-denomi national schools under any pretext whatever. The suggestion that it may be thought necessary hereafter by the Legislature so append to these de nominational schools a normal depart ment for the instruction of teachers, I apprehend is fully met and answered by the fact that we have a State nor nal school at Ypsilanti, which is being liberally supported by the State, which is costing the State a large amount of money, and which must continue to cost the State a large amount, for some time to come. I do not see the necessity of attaching a department of that character to these denominational schools. I believe the principle is right to in-+ hibit the Legislature from imposing any tax upon the people of this State for the support of these denominational schools. We have now all the necessary facilities for educating our young men, and what further means we have to spend for educational purposes, I wish to see devoted to the primary schools in this State. The primary schools are the colleges of the people; they are the places where the poor man's son receives his education. I do not wish to see the people of this State taxed for the support of any further institutions of learning, until we have placed our primary schools upon such a basis as they deserve to be placed upon. Mr. BLACKMAN. I am sorry to differ with the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT;) but I am compelled to do so. I believe that not only is this amendment a proper provision in the Constitution, but I believe this is the proper place for it. I have but a very few words to say upon the subject. It is very well known that these collegiate institutions are fostered and sustained principally by the denominations which have control of them. This is all proper and right; no one has any objection to that; their efforts are - truly praiseworthy. But in my opinion it is not wise to allow other individuals, those perhaps who feel equally interested in other institutions, to be taxed for the support of favorite denominational institutions. It will be readily seen that if that principle were once adopted, the strong and popular denominations having schools under their control would be likely, through their extended and superior influence, to secure this aid, while those which are unpopular, or supported by but few adherents, would fail to secure it; it would create dissatisfaction, and a dissatisfaction it seems to me well founded. I believe the whole policy of our government has been to keep everything of a sectarian character disconnected from ourlegislation; that no person should be compelled in any way, directly or indirectlyr to pay for the support of any denominational society, school, or institution, without his free consent. I believe that prin ciple should be preserved inviolate, and held sacred. I believe the best inter ests of the denominations require that should be our course hereafter. I think this amendment is a wise provision, and I hope it will be retained. Mr. GIDDINGS. I do nlot appre hend that any of the difflculties sug gested by the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLA~.M' AN,) or the gentle man from Gratiot, (Mr. CHAPIN,) will hereafter arise, even if this amendment should be stricken out. In the first place if schools like those suggested -Tul'26, 1867. 1 y DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS ll 0, 377 4. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. by the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) one for instance at Hillsdale, one at Kalamazoo, one at Olivet, and I do not know how many scattered throughout the State, can be consid ered denominational, no proposition to appropriate the money of the State for the aid of one school can be carried through the Legislature without similar aid being extended to them all; and that no one supposes would ever be done. The moment a proposition was introduced into the Legislature to grant aid to the college at Hillsdale, then the college at Olivet, and indeed all the colleges and academies in the State would call for appropriations. Therefore there would be no use for this provision, because no such proposition would be entertained by the Legislature. You would never have a Legislature so destitute of good, practical common sense, as ever to make an appropriation for all these schools, unless it should so happen that some property or funds from outside of the State, should be placed -in possession of the State to be passed over to these schools. In that case I do not suppose any one would object to its being done. Mr. SAWYER. Does the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) say that the Legislature could not do that, if this provision was not in the Constitution?. Mr. GIDDINGS. Yes, sir. If Congress should grant to this State a certain amount of land, as in the case of the Agricultural College, to be applied for the purpose of promoting literary institutions, those lands would become the property of the State. In the case of the swamp lands which were granted to the State, the lands became the property of the State, and the people of the State, through their Legislature, have taken upon themselves to control and direct the manner of disposing of these lands. Now, if the Congress'of the United States should see fit, by-and-by to bestow upon the State of Michigan five hundred thousand acres of land, to be used by the State for the purpose of promoting education, that land would belong to the State; it would be given to the State, and Congress would never inquire as to how it was disposed of. If such an occurrence should transpire, we might not want this clause here, prohibiting the Legislature from appropriating any property belonging to the State to schools under denominational control. I think we should retain the power to give these schools such lands as those, if we should ever have them in our control. What is meant by "denominational schools?" Any institution which has a specific name is denominated by that name. The term "denominational" is too broad to be used here; any institution which has a name by which you can determine it, separate and apart from other institutions of a like character, is a " denominational school." If you look at the derivation of the word, you will see that the term "denominational" can be used in so broad a sense as to cut off any school which has a distinct and separate name. We denominate a person as John Doe, we denominate a school as Hillsdale College. If you had said not "denominational," but "religious," then there would have been some force in the provision. But the term used here is altogether too broad. And then I say, without finding any fault with the language, for I do not care anything about it, we do not want to say in so many words that, under no circumstances, shall the property of the State be used for the purpose of promoting education in schools under denominational control. It may turn out that in the county of Gratiot there may be some swamp lands, which the gentleman from Gratiot, (Mlr. CHAPIN,) might desire applied to some denominational school there, after those lands have been reclaimed. I would not shut out the Legislature from making any such appropriation, if they shall see fit. I can understand very clearly that they never will see fit as a State to make appropriations for any great number of schools and academies. But I would not put a provision in the Constitution which would prevent the Legislature from doing so in some cases, should- it be deemed proper hereafter. Now, what is the meaning of "denominational schools?" The gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MussEY,) and myself had some words about that the other day, almost a dispute. It was insisted that some of these schools were of a religious character; I suppose that is what this word "denominational" is intended to mean. I took certain grounds the other day in regard to the schools at Olivet, Hillsdale, and other places; and I have since learned that I was correct in my conclusion. They are under no religious control; they are really not " qenominational schools," in the sense in which that term is used in this amendment, although, they might be included under this general term. But really, and in fact, the school at Olivet, for instance, is not under denominational control. It is under the control of a board of trustees, who are selected from year to year, and none of whom are obliged to be even religious per-, sons in the ordinary sense of the term. If they are good substantial business men, they are allowed to control that institution. A majority of the teachers may be of some particular religious denomination; but the institution itself is not under any particular religious or denominational control. Mr. BLACKMAN. If it is not under denominational control, would it come within this inhibition at all? Mr. GIDDINGS. I said I presumed in the judgment of this Convention, they would not come within the term, "denominational control," as used in this amendment, but it would leave a doubt upon the subject. That shows that what I said the other day was correct; that this general expression is not the proper language to be put in this Constitution. It is pretty difficult to determine what institutions would be under denominational control. The most of these institutions, so far as my knowledge extends, are under the control of boards of trustees. It is not intended that they shall be under the control of any particular denomination, although in many cases, if not in all, the majority connected with these schools are members of some particular religious denomination. There is in this amendment a want of that specific language which would make it of any practicability; it will only create difficulty, and therefore I would not have it inserted in the Constitution. Mr. WILLIA:S. I would desire that the Convention might adopt the course suggested by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) who originally introduced the amendment. I do not think we should have this discussion upon this provision at this point, and also have a s'imilar discussion upon a similar provision in another article. Let this amendment be voted down, and let the discussion takeplace when the provision is introduced, in connection with the article on education. Mr. MICLELLAND. How would the gentleman from Allegan (Mr. WIDLILMS) attach such a provision as this to section three of the article on education, which contains provisions relating solely to the establishment of a system of primary schools in the State? Mr. WILLIAMS. It is proposed that it be moved as an amendment to section one of the article on education. Mr. McCLELLAND. Section one of the article on education is a mere abstraction. That section reads: "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Mr. WILLIAMS. Is not this sec. 378 Friday, July 26, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDINGS. 379 tion thirty a mere abstraction also? tee, holding the lands granted by the At all events, if the Convention want general government, for the particular any such provision in the Constitution, purpose designated in the act making they can find a proper place for it in the grant. The State is no more nor the article on education. I do not less than a trustee; I may be mistaken think we should now discuss the ques- in that, but such is my opinion. The tion as to where this provision should State has no right to appropriate the be placed. I make this suggestion, lands which it holds under any grant. because, if it is understood that we I hope the report of the committeeof are to vote the amendment down in the whole will be concurred in, and this place, we need not discuss it now. that we will place this provision in-the Mr. MUSSEY. Whatever difference Constitution. there may have been in the past be- Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to read tween the gentleman from Kalamazoo from Webster, who I think is the au(Mr. GIDDINGS) and myself, I accept thority in this Convention, to show his definition to-day of the technical that my statement is correct in regard meaning of the words used here. I to the meaning of the word "denomithink, however, that in speaking of national:" swamp lands he used the word "re- DENOMI,ATIONAL.-Pertaining to a denomclaimed;" he should have left off the ination or a number of individuals called by prefix, "re." prefix, " re." the same name. Mr. HOWARD. I am not particu- That is the only meaning that Weblar where this provision is placed; ster gives to that word. I take itthe still I think it would be well to leave it word "'denomiinational," used in this where the committe e of the whole left clause, was never intended to mean it. I am very much in favor of such what Webster gives as the meaning of a provision somewhere in the Consti- the word " denominational." tution.. The reasons given by the Mr. BLACKMAN. I desire to say gentleman from Kalamabzoo, (Mr. that I consider the objection raised by GIDDINGS,) why he thinks there is no the gen tleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. necessity for a clause of this kind, are GIDDINGS,) in reference to the word the very reasons which lead me to be- " denominational," as having very lieve that there is a necessity for, just little force. There. can be no doubt, such a provision. He says that the according to the common acceptation Legislature would never make appro- of that term, and the connection in priations of this kind, because there which it is used in this section, as to are so many of these institutions in what it means here. There is noword the State. That is the very reason in ourlanguagethatcouldbe putthere why they would make such appropria- that would more definitely express the tions. We saw the Legislature last win- idea aimed at, taken in the connection ter engaged in a general and combined in which it stands, than the word " deplan to carry through certain meas- nominational." ures; not measures of this character, Mr. PARSONS. I should certainly but measures which were of so generaldisike to see tis amendment of the a nature, involving interests so extend- committee of the whole voted down. ed, that one would suppose from the The gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. arguments of gentlemen that they GIDDrNGS,) claims that there is no danwould have found no advocate in the ger of the Legislature granting to Legislature. But we found the mem- these schools any aid, because there bers of the Legislature last winter en- are so man y of them. I-hink that gaged in a general scratching. One argument has been well answered by gentleman interested in a particular the honorable gentleman from Gene railroad said to another, who was in- see, (Mr. HOWARD.) I have seen some terested in another railroad-" you combinations in this very hall in scratch my back, and I will scratch another body, in reference to this mat yours;" and we found the whole Leg- ter. Four years ago last winter there islature scratching like blackbirds in a was a combination for the purpose of corn-field, until they were scared off by obtaining aid for these colleges; and it the vetoes of the Governor. And the waswith a great deal of difficulty that same thing would occur in connection that combination was defeated, and with these schools; one school would they were foiled in their attempt to get say to another, "you help me, and I hold of the lands belonging to the will help you." I apprehend that State. I hope this amendment of the where there are many institutions rep- committee of the whole will be con resented in the Legislature, there is curved in. great danger that such a proposition Mr. UTL EY. It seems to'me as f would be carried through. in this question there was somewhere So far as the lands voted to the State a very large cat in the meal. A prop are concerned, I have always under- osition, which E right'il itself, has stood to thte State was a mere trut been introduced lay way of an amend ment, and the Convention is now asked to retain it in this section, and make it a part and parcel of the organic law of the State. I do not care what particular definition is given to the word "denominational." Every man understands that a denominational school is that sort of school which is under the domination and control of some sectarian organization in the State; it is no matter whether that sectarian organization is one denomination or another. The school is either denominational or it is not denominational, and the Legislature can distinguish for themselves whether the school is denominational or not. If it is not, then they of course could make an appropriation of land or money, even if this amendment is-adopted. If the school is, in their judgment, a denominational school, then I apprehend it is our duty to place in the organic law of the State the -prohibition which is now proposed. I know of but two systems of schools in this State. The one is the system which this State and this Convention are called upon to foster, encourage and support; the other is a series of colleges and seminaries scattered here and there broadcast over the State. I think there are twenty-four of them in number, in all parts of the State. Some of them are better developed than others; they are all colleges of to-day or in embryo; I hope the time will come when they will all be equal to Hillsdale college and be an ornament to the State as that college is.'But I hope they will never have an opportunity to get a single dollar of the fund which has been provided for the schools of Michigan. Let them grow up as Hillsdale college has grown up, by the efforts of its president, and the individuals in that community. If any community wishes to establish a denominational school, let it establish it; no one can object to that. But if this State has a superabundance of means for educational purposes, let the State appropriate them where they con be controlled by the superintendent of public instruction and by the Legisla ture, not by sectarian influences; let them be appropriated for the benefit of the whole State, not for part of it. We have a State'University; we have another institution situated with in three miles of this city. We are called upon to support these two insti tutions, and it is for them that the funds of the State should be appro priated. The object of gentlemen in finding fa'fit with this amendment, is to leave the bars down, to leave a hole open by which they can hereafter reach the Legislature of their State, and se cure an appropriation of swamp lands, .July. 26 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 379 380 COXSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Fiday, or agricultural college lands, or some other lands, given to the State for various purposes, and override the trusteeship of the State. I think that the State has nothing but a trusteeship in reference to those lands. Gentlemen desire to have this amendment rejected, in order that these schools under denominational control may hereafter have an opportunity, perhaps, to get possession of a large portion of these lands. Every gentleman who has been a member of the Legislature, and fought there the railroad combinations, the college combinations, and other similar combinations, knows full well that, with a little preparation and a little forethought, directed to the nomination of persons to be sent to the Legislature, these interests can bring here into the Legislature such persons'as will enable them to control the entire lands, property, credit, and money of the State. I think if there should be any inhibition put in the Constitution upon this subject, this is the very one which should be placed there, because ii applies directly to the money and lands of the State; and unless the ap propriation of that money and that land is inhibited, these combinations will be formed, and these swamp lands and agricultural college lands of the State, and perhaps the treasure of the State, will be used for the benefit of these denominational schools. I hope, therefore, that the action of the com mittee of the whole will be sustained by this Convention. Mr. THOMPSON. I desire to make a few suggestions on this subject before it is finally disposed of. Mr. D. GOODWIN. Will the gentleman yield for a motion to take a recess until three o'clock? Mr. THOVlPSON. I will yield to a motion to take a recess until half-past two o'clock. Mr. D. GOODWIN. I will make that motion. Mr. HOWARD. I move to amend the motion of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. D. GooDwiN,) so that the Convention will take a recess until three o'clock. Mr. D. GOODWIN. I accept the amendment. Mr. BLACKMAN. I move that the Convention now take a recess. Mr. D. GOODWIN. I suppose an amendment to that motion is in order. Mr. LOVELL. I suppose that the motion to take a recess is governed by the same rule as a motion to adjourn and is not amendable. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that the motion to take a recess may beamended. Mr. BLACKMAN. I have no per sonal feeling in this matter, any further than I thought there were some members who particularly desired to leave town this afternoon, and who would wish to have as much time as possible for the transaction of business in the Convention this afternoon. Mr. WITHEY. I move to amend thismotion, so that we may remain in session until a quarter to one o'clock, and then take a recess. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) is not in order. The first question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. D. GOODWIN,) to amend the motion of the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) so that the Convention will now take a recess until three o'clock. The question was taken upon the amendment; and it was agreed to; upon a division, ayes 36, noes 32. The question recurred upon the motion as amended. Mr. P. D. WARNER.' I hope the Convention may be permitted to occupy twenty minutes longer in the consideration of this question. It has been stated here that there are members who have obtained leave of absence after to-day, and who desire to take the evening train. There are important questions to be considered in connection with this article, and bydevoting twenty minutes longer at this time, we may be able to finish the consideration of these questions this afternoon, before the time arrives for taking the train. The question was taken upon the motion for a recess, as amended; and upon a division, ayes 33, noes 45, it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole to section thirty; to insert after the words "theological or religious seminary," the words, "or schools under denominational control." Mr. THOMPSON. It is proper for us to inquire somewhat about the various institutions of the State, before we decide positively what shall be done by the Legislature with the money of the State. I notice by the Michigan School Report, for 1866, that the number of teachers in the schools of the State, are 9,182. The amount of money expended for the support of the Normal school has been $107,000; that amount has been appropriated for the avowed purpose of educating teachers. So,far as I can ascertain, there is an endowment for the Normal school, amounting to about $28,50Q. I cannot speak positively about the sum, but I am informed by agentleman wtho is acquainted with the institution, that the State pays as interest on that fund, about $2,000, which, at seven per cent. would make the principal about $28,500. I am not able, however, to state positively how that is. I also notice from this same school report-and by the way, I cannot believe the statement to be very reliable, as it is drawn from a letter from a gentleman of the name of Whitney, of Dowagiac, who is the secretary of the society of the Normal Alumni-that of those who graduated previous to 1863, about thirty-three per cent. are teaching; of those who graduated since 1863, about sixty-one per cent. are teaching. I say we have no reliable information at hand upon this subject, except this letter of Mr. Whitney. Now, I ask is it a supposable case that all those teachers, or even onehalf of those teachers are educated at the normal school, for which the State is paying this large amount of money, $107,000 appropriated directly by the State, and yearly also- the interest on $28,500 paid by the State? The number of teachers have been over 9,000. I ask who-are educating these teachers for the State? The college at Hillsdale commenced its operations in 1853 or 1854., The last year shows an attendance of 626 pupils. I am informed by professor Fowler, who left this city this morning, that the average yearly attendance has been a little over 600. I think those gentlemen who have made the statement that the University is abundantly able to provide educational facilities for all the young men of the State, have reckoned without their host. Take 626 as the average attendance at Hillsdale for the past year, and take the average of 600 during the entire history of that college, and then assume the basis for the other schools of the same kind, and do you think that you could provide at the University for all those scholars? And to say that this institution at Ypsilanti, with the aid of the one at Ann Arbor, is abundantly able to educate all the teachers for the State, is simply to assert a proposition which is not strictly in accordance with the facts, as it appears to me. Now, these teachers must be provided for by schools in the State. Mr. LOVELL. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. Mr. LOVELL, Will the gentleman state'whether those six hundred and odd pupils in Hillsdale College are in what is known as the college department, or do they embrace pupils of all grades of intellectual improvement? Mr. THOMPSON. Of all grades. Mr. LOVELL. About what num Friday, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 380 I I July 26, 1867. DEBATES API) PROC)]-~DI~GS. 38 ber are in the college department proper? Mr. THOMPSON. It 1866 there graduated in the college course, ten students; in the scientific course, two; in the ladies department, seven. In 1867, there were in the senior class of the college department, seven; in the junior class, nine; in the sophomore class, twelve, and in the freshmen class, seven. In the scientific department there were in the fourth year, three; in the third year twelve; in the second year, or sophomore class, eleven; and in the freshmen class, thirty. In the senior preparatory class there were nineteen, in the junior preparatory class, twenty-three. In the English preparatory department there were two hundred and fifty-seven. In the ladies course, in the fourth year there were six; in the third year, fourteen; in the second year, fifteen, and in the first year, thirty-nine. In the ladies preparatory department there were one hundred and thirty seven. It will be understood that a very large number of those who are in the collegiate preparatory department, and in the English preparatory department, are engaged in teaching. It is not at all supposable that the number of those who go out to teach from Hillsdale College, and from other institutions, is proportioned to the number from the Normal School, for the course of education is carried further. I speak of the institution at Hillsdale, because I am more familiar with that institution than any other. The num ber that go out from that school and teach, is vastly greater than the num ber from the Normal School, although the expense to the State has not been a dollar. Mr. UTLEY. To what authority does the gefftleman refer when he as serts that all those persons, who grad uate at Hillsdale college, graduate as teachers? Mr. THOMPSON. I have not made any such assertion. Mr. UTLEY. I understood the gen tleman to say that they had all gone forth as teachers. Mr. THOMPSON. I said that it was not to be supposed that the propor tion of teachers there would be the same as at the Normal School, because the course of education went further at the Normal School. I know itris true in Hillsdale College, and in other colleges of a like character, that there is a cdurse of study in the fall of the year, especially adapted to those who go out to teach. I have nothing to say against the Normal School. I believe it to be the model school of thie State. But I say that the amount of money app0o priated for that institution, being some thing over $135000 Mr. BRADLEY. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. THOMPSON. Certainly. Mr. BRADLEY. Is the gentleman making an argument in the Legislature, for the endowment of Hillsdale college? Mr. THOMPSON. I am not, as perhaps the gentleman will ascertain. I suppose the gentleman is not so obtuse as not to understand me. I stated once that I referred to Hillsdale college, because I knew more about it than I did about the similar institution located at Kalamazoo. I wish to say that there are teachers being educated all over the State, for the purpose of supplying the demand for teachers in the State. The number educated at these different institutions, whether at H'illsdale, Kalamazoo, Olivet, or elsewhere, should be entitled to the same aid from the State, if you look to their qualifications as teachers, as if they went through a course of training at the NormallSchool. But the opponents of this amendment do not ask anything from the Legislature; they ask only that this matter should be left alone, so that the Legislature may assist these institutions, if it is proper, and they have the means. We ask for no appropriation at all, if there is means in the hands of the Legislature to be used for this purpose. But we do say that so long as there are other institutions accomplishing the same work that is done at Ypsilanti, it is not proper to take from .the Legislature the power to use means for assisting those institutions, by the organizing of normal departments in those schools. There may be a misapprehension growing out of misstatements which have been made, that if an appropria tion should be made by the Legisla ture, it may be used for the theologi cal department in these institutions There is such a department, but its endowment is entirely separate from the others; it has nothing more to do with the literary department than if it was in some other place. Its endow ment is separate, its professors are separate, having no connection one with the other. We simply ask, then, that the Legislature shall be left fiee, if there be any means at their disposal, to control those means as they may think proper; we ask nothing more. Mr. PRINGLE. The question fairly presented by this amendment seems to be this: whether it would be the safer rule to cut off the Legislature of the State from giving, froa time to time, such assistance to these sectarian in stitutions in the education of teachers, or for such other purpose as shall be deemed of importance, as they may :think necessary; or whether we should guard against the combination spoken of, and that distribution of the money which would very likely do little good if distributed among twenty or fifty institutions, but which might do much good if bestowed upon one. Mr. THOMPSON. I would inquire of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) if he regards all schools under denominational' control as sectarian? 'Mr. PRINGLE. I will answer the gentleman that I do not regard them as necessarily so. I use the word sectarian" in its ordinary acceptation, and as a synonym of denominational. I speak 6f schools as under denominational or sectarian control; that is all I referred to. I think there is a great deal involved in this matter. I have noticed its operation in other States, in the State of New York and other places, where one interest will combine with another; and they together will be able to disburse considerable sums of money, and not, as a usual rule, to any great advantage. They Will give a few thousand dollars here, and a few thousand dollars there, when perhaps some twenty or thirty thousand dollars will be needed; when if the Legislature happened to give all to a particular school, it might do that schoo], and the general cause of education, a great deal of good. My opinion is that the safer rule would be to adopt the rule which is proposed in the amendment now under considera tion. Something has been said about the difficulty and dangers arising from combinations in the Legislature. I admit all that, and make it a part of my argument. It would not be pre cisely for the purpose had in view by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD,) if I were to instance the let islation of last winter. If I were to find a parallel there, I would say that it was a combination of railroads and railroad interests, and petty jealousies, more than anything else, which suc ceeded in defeating the. will of the peo ple of the State to have improvements made within our borders. The small pettifogging resorted to on that occa sion, was pretty largely resorted to by the president of one of the railroad companies,who happened to be enjoying a position where he could reach all of the people of the State in his messages. That such a combination could be made, as against the general demand of the people of the State, is perhaps a legitimate argument to show that we should not subject ourselves to the risk of such combinations relating to other matters. I think it is a legitimate ar gument, derived from that combina tion which, as I say, was made against 381.-. DER-A-TES-, AND PROCEIDlNGS,, ,fuly 26 - 1867. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. the people of the State last winter, and against a majority of both branches of the Legislature, in order to defeat beneficient measures, which were intended for the public good. I refer to it, as having more relation to the case than what the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. HOWARD,) has assumed to be the fact, to show that this particular amendment ought to be adopted. Mr. HOWARD. I have never availed myself of the many opportunities which have been presented, to defend the executive of this State, because I have not deemed it my duty, although I have the honor to represent the same county in which he resides. It is a well-known fact that the Governor of the State is a man of feeble health and of declining years. I hope his decline will not be helped along by having printed the witty attacks of the gentleman from Jackson (Mr. PRINGLE,) upon him. I hope the Convention will order any such attacks to be left out of the debates. Mr. LOVELL. If I deemed it entirely impossible that a combination for taxing the State for the benefit of a certain ring of denominational schools, could ever be got up in the Legislature, I would not say a word. But the fact that there is opposition to the insertion of this clause right where it would be efficient, and a desire expressed that, if it is placed in the Constitution at all, it should be placed in another section, which other section is simply a declaration of -rights and morals, is purely a prefix to the article -the desire to have this change made, and to have nothing on the subject at all in the Constitution, especially as those who are prompt in opposing the amendment of the committee of the whole happen, accidentally, no doubt, to reside, in almost every instance, if not in every instance, where there has been built up one of these schools to which this amendment might applvthese facts and incidents lead me to guess that it is just possible that this clause may do considerable good, if we leave it just as the committee have proposed we should, right in this section, where it will be a living, breathing prohibition. The gentleman from Hillsdale (Mr. PRATT) intimated that the assistance of denominational schools might be needed by the State to furnish instruction for its teachers. If that be the proposition, then in the name of the teachers of Michigan I would protest against the State ever calling to its aid schools of this class, for any such purpose. My experience as a teacherand I have run one of these denominational schools myself, and I would have been very glad, inasmuch as I personally enjoyed the emolument ac cruing therefrom, to have the benefit of a certain provision appropriating a certain amount of money to an academy, if it would teach a normal classmy experience is that these institutions in most cases teach those classes for the sake of getting the money. It is outside of their original design; they were not intended for any such,purpose, nor was it any portion of their design to instruct classes of teachers. But they do it in order to draw support from the State, so as to be able to maintain the. schools for other purposes. Gentlemen may tell me that denominational schools are not sectarian. The word "sectarian" is a good enough word properly used; I am not afraid of it. The Christian denomination to which I belong is a sect. The denominations that have these schools under their contol are sects. Although they are very glad to welcome to their halls pupils from other denominations, yet the religious influences of those schools are sectarian. The schools were founded by benevolent persons of the denomination under which they are placed, for the direct purpose of bringing sectarian influences to bear upon the minds of the young; that is their object, and it is a good and worthy object. But the State should have no sectarian belief; neither should it support directly or indirectly, sectarian schools. Its schools should be moral, religious, scientific, social and progressive, but never sectarian. Its teachers, if they are to be specially trained, I insist should be specially trained by those who are selected for that purpose on account of their qualifications to do their work, and not by professors of schools who were put in there, not because they were fitted to teach normal classes, but because they are fitte&d to give character to the institutions, and because they have other qualifications, and who, if they teach these normal classes at all, will do so because they are assigned that incidental duty. Now, our Normal School at Ypsilanti does not meet all our wants; we want several others in the State. ~ But we do not want the denominational schools to come to the Legislature and say —" Here, these normal schools are expensive; give us about two-thirds as much as may be necessary to give all the normal facilities you desire, and we will teach normal classes certain terms during the year." The teachers of the State of Michigan do not want any such policy adopted. If they are to have teachers' schools, they want them founded specially for the purpose of educating teachers. I insist that the most prominent purpose for which we have normal schools, isto instruct in the science of teaching. While there are ten thousand teachers in the State, not more than fifty of them at most, are fit to be teachers of teachers. There are many men in the armies of our government who would make splendid captains; not so many fit to be colonels, and still fewer fit to command brigades and divisions. The army of education is commanded by your teachers. Those who are to teach teachers, occupy higher positions, and should have peculiar qualifications in order to occupy those positions. Let us then keep these things distinct; let these denominations have their schools; that is all well enough. But let the grand eduicational system of the State be kept by itself, a unit. Let it have its primary schools, its union schools, its normal schools and its University. They tell us that this college at Hillsdale has six hundred and twenty-five pupils. Now, how many pupils has the college of the State of Michigan got. — Mr. LOTHROP. About thirteen hundred. - Mr;. LOVELL. About one hundred thousand. The college of the State of Michigan extends over the entire State. -I do not know particularly about the school at Hillsdale; but I apprehend they have a primary department, where they teach the A,;B, C's; and then they come up here and cover up the whole thing by the words, " preparatory department." Mr. THOMPSON. The catalogue says that no scholar shall be received under thirteen years of age. Mr. LOVELL. I am glad- to learn that the College at Hillsdale differs from many other colleges that may want this aid from the State. Still I judge that about five hundred of those six hundred pupils will be the same as those usually found in our ordinary union schools. The gentleman from Hillsdale (Mr. TuoMPsoN) read from the catalogue the different college classes, senior, junior, sophomore, and freshman, in numbers of pupils from three to twelve. I did not add them up, but I thought there were about forty of them. I only speak of this to show the nature of the institution; it matters-nothing. But it is desirable not to mix these things up. Much injury has been done to the school system of New York by having the academies and colleges mixed up with normal schools, and institutions for the train~ ing of teachers. I know this from my own knowledge; and I want in this State that those things shall be kept separate. Hence, I shall vote to retain the provision in this section, as adopted in committee of the whole. 382 Friday - I DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. Mr. ALEXANDER. I move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly, (at half-past twelve o'clock p. m.,) the Convention took a recess until half-past two o'clock p. m.. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at halfpast two o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. T. G. S'ITH. I ask leave of absence for myself, after to-day, until Tuesday next. The PRESIDENT. The Chair understood the gentleman from i Van Buren, (Mr. BLACIOANi) this morning to object to any more leaves of absence being granited. Mr. T. G. SMITH. I have been here I believe, every day of the session thus far. I have a little business to attend to, which is of some importance t) me. Mr. BLACKMAN. It is with a great deal of rbltictance that I interpose any objection to a request of this kind. I interposed an objection this morning, when no one was asking leave of absence at the time, in order that it might not be considered as at all personal. I am well aware of the situation in which we are placed here every week, by granting so many leaves of absence. It does seem to me desirable that we should have a better attendance here during the fore and latter parts of the week. In fact there are but about two days in the week when we have anything like a full attendance. It is barely possible during the first and the last two days of the week to keep a quorum in attendance here. I have felt for a long time that it was the duty of some one to interpose this objection. I have refrained from doing it on account of delicacy. But it does seem to me that some attention should be called to this subject, and that if possible members should endeavor to remain here, so that we can go on with our business. Mr. RICHMOND. I move that leave of absence be granted to the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. T. G. SMITH,) for the time he asks. The motion was agreed to, and leave granted accordingly. BILL OF RIGHTS. Mr. NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, submitted the following report: The committee on arrangement and phra. seolog,y to whom was referred the article en titled "Bill of Rights," respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report that they have made some corrections therein, and they recommend that in the first line of section three the words "civil and religious" be restored, and they ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. T. NINDE, Chairman. The report was received and the committee discharged. The article, as corrected, was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed at large in the journal, as follows: SECTION 1. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit ofthe people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. SECTION 2. Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of religious worship, or pay tithes, taxes or other rates, Ior the support of any minister of the gospel, or teacher of religion. SECTION 3. The civil and religious rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged, on account of his opinions or belief concerning matters-of religion. - SECTION 4. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justiflable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. SECTION 5. No bill of attainder, cex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be passed. SECTION 6. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus remains and shall not be suspended, unless, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. SECTION 7. The right of trial by jury shall remain, but shall be deemed to be waived in all civil cases, unless demanded by one of the parties, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law. The Legislature may authorize, in all civil and criminal cases, a trial by a jury of a less number than twelve men, in all courts not of record. SECTION 8. In every criminal prosecution, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartialjury, to be informed of the'accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his Iavor, and have the assistance of counsel for his defense. SEcTION 9. Any suitor in any court in this State shall have the right to prosecute or defend his suit, either in his own proper person or by an attorney of his choice. SECTION 10. The persons, houses, papers and possessions of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thtng, shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. SECTION 11. No person after acquittal upon the merits, shall be tried for the same offense.'All persons shall, before conviction. be bailable by sufficient surneties, except for murder and treason, when the proof is evident or the presumption great. SECTION 12. Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless upon the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confesslon in open court. SECTION 13. Excessive bail shall not be required, excessive fines shall not be imposed, cruel or unusualpunishment shall not be inflicted, nor shall witnesses be unreasonably detained. SECTION 14. No person shall be compelled in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. SECTION 15. No person shall be imprisoned for debt arising out of or founded on contract, express or implied, except in case of fraud or breach of trust, or of promise to marry, or of moneys collected by public officers, or in any professional-employment. No person shall be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace. SECTION 17. tvery person has a right to bear arms for the common defense. SECTION 18. The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. SECTION 19. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without consent of the owner or occupant, nor in time of war, except in a manner prescribed by law. SEcTION 20. The pe6ple have the right peaceably to assemble together, to consult for the common good, to instruct their Representatives, and to petition the Legislature for redress of grievances. SECTION 21. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crime, shall ever be tolerated in this State. SECTION 22. Aliens who are, or may hereafter become, bona-fide residents ot this State, shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment and inheritance of property as native horn citizens. SECTION 23. Private property shall not be taken for public use without compensation. STATE OFFICERS. Mr. NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, -also made the following report: The committee on arrangement and phraseology, to whom was referred the artic'e entitled "State Officers," respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report that they have made some corrections therein, and they recommend that in the first line of the first section, the words "at each general biennial election," be restored, so that the section shall read as originally reported, and they ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. T. NINDE, Ch1airman. The report was received and the commrittee discharged. The article, as corrected, was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed at large in the journal, as follows: SEcTION 1. There shall be elected at each general biennial election a Secretary of State, a State Treasurer, a Commissioner of the State Land Office, a Superintendent of Public Instruction, an Auditor General and an Attorney General, for the term uf two years, each ot whom shall keep his office at the seat of government, and shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by law. SEcTION 2. The term of office shall commence on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and of every second year thereafter. SECTION 3. Whenever a vacancy shall occur in any of the State offices, the Governor shall fill the same by appointment, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, if in session. SECTION 4. The Secretary Qf State, State Treasurer, and Commissioner of the State Land Office, shall constitute a Board of State Auditors, to examine and adjust claims July 26, 1867. 383 38 COSIUTOA COVsI~: rdy against the State, within such limits as shall be prescribed by law. They shall also constitute a board of State Canvassers, to detetmine the result of all elections for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, all State officers, and such other elections as shall by law be reterred to them. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. The Convention then resumed the consideration of unfinished business, being the article entitled "Legislative Department," with the amendments thereto reported from committee of the whole. STATE AID TO DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS. The PRESIDENT. At the time the Convention took a recess to-day, it had under consideration the, amendment reported from the committee of the whole, to section thirty of this article. That section is as follows: " No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious seminary, nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes." The amendment of the committee of the whole is to insert, after the words "theological er religious seminary," the words "or school under denominational control." The question is upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. HUSTON. I believe that members are now ready to vote on this question; I therefore call the previous question. Mr. NORRIS. I hope the previous question will not be seconded, for I desire to say a few words upon this subject myself. The question was taken upon seconding the demand for the previous question, and it was not seconded. Mr. NORRIS obtained the floor. 'Mr. LOVELL. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment? Mr. NORRIS. Certainly. Mr. LOVELL. It has been shown me that I did injustice to Hillsdale College, in the figures which I used in my remarks this morning. I per ceive by reference to the catalogue of that College, that in the year 1866 there were thirty-two students in the College course proper; in what is called the scientific course there were sixty-five studeAts, and in the ladies' course there were seventy-eight stu dents. I will say that, after looking over the catalogue, I am-: satisfied that the persons in these latter courses, though not in the full college course, are all pursuing collegiate-studies. Mr. NORRIS. It would seem that yesterday was a day of tribulation for the county of Wayne. It seems-to me that to-day is a time of tribulation for the county of Washtenaw, or for some of its institutions. I represent in part the county of Washtenaw, and I feel justly proud of it. It has within its borders two of the leading educational institutions of this State, the University and the Normal school. Taking into consideration the fact that it is the second county in the State, in wealth, population, intelligence and virtue; [laughter,] or rather second to none in intelligence and virtue; it is by reason of these things that we have for so long a time been enabled to maintain there the ascendency of the democracy.- Therefore it will be readily seen why I am in favor of an intelligent suffrage. There have been some remarks thrown out here which, if not contradicted, or met by some explanation, might lead those not acquainted with the facts to infer that the State had been unwise in expending what it has done for the State Normal School, and that it was not in a —flourishing condition. I desire to say a word or two in regard to that institution. It was organized in 1849, and is therefore one year older than the present Constitution. It was proposed to the people of the State that the city which should give the largest amount to the school, should have the school located in its midst. Several towns cntered into the competition; amongst the number was a small town located someWhere in the swamps of Grand River up in the in terior of the State, somewhat distin guished by having a humanitarian insti tution located there. That small town was beaten by the town of Ypsilanti, and the institution was located where it is now placed. But demur was made on the part of some of the Board of Education to the location of the school at Ypsilanti, even after the subscrip tion was raised, because it was thought that the subscription could not be col lected. Thereupon five of the citizens of Ypsilanti came forward, represent ing $850,000 of property, and guaran teed full payment of the subscription; and every dollar, with the exception of perhaps fifty, was collected and paid over, amounting to somewhere in the neighborhood of $14,500. The original appropriation and en dowment which has been alluded to here, was twenty-five sections of salt spring land. From that day to the present, I say without fear of success ful contradiction, that school has been the most popular institution in this State, and has done more good for the common' people than any:institution located within our borders. I am aware that we have an institution near this city, celebrated for the possession of a black Galloway bull, and for per haps some other things. The institu tution at Ypsilanti has gone on, from year to year, sending out teachers into the primary school districts of the State, who have discharged their duties faithfully. The allegation which the gentleman from Hillsdale (Mr. THOMPSON,) has made, that Hillsdale College has sent out more teachers than the State Normal School, seems to me to be the wild-. est assertion that could be made. I wish to cite to the Convention the statistics of the State Normal School, which I have taken from the documents. The school was opened in October, 1852. I desire to be perfectly fair in this matter. The State did appropriate $30,000 additional to the school, but this is all included in the $107,000. In 1855, it had in its normal department three hundred and forty-six students, who were qualifying themselves to teach in the primary schools of this State. Each one, as he enters the in stitution, must sign a pledge, that it is his honest and conscientious desire and intention to become and remain a teacher in the State from that time thenceforward. That year, there were eleven graduates. In 1856, there were two hundred and fifty-three students, all pursuing the course prescribed by the school. At that time there was organized a model department in t':e institution, with a view to furnishing some matter upon which those teach ers might experiment. That depart ment was found to be so very popular that in time it was necessary to cut it down, and to receive no larger number of" pupils than could be reasonably used in the experimental systems which were part and parcel of the education taught in that institution. I do- not find in the general documents, which I have in my possession, anything with regard to the years 1857 and 1858. In t859, the school had a corps of eleven teachers; in the normal department there were two hundred and fifty-one pupils, and in the experimental de partment there were seventy pupils. In October, 1859, the buildings were destroyed by fire. They had an insu rance of $10,000, however, which had been provided by the care of the State Board of Education, and the buildings were restored by expending in part the insurance money, and made much better adapted for the wants of the school than they were before. In 1860, in the normal department there were two hundred and ninety-two students, and in the experimental department, fifty students. In 1861, the normal department contained two hundred and eighty-three students, and the ex perimental department fifty students. At that time, while the building was crowded full, the principal writes the superintendent of public instruc tion, that over one hundred and CON&.VJLTUTIONAL CONV'FNTION. Frida.y, 384 July| 26,-~ 1867.^~~ DEBATES/~~~~ AND-~~~ PRO()~ 3 fifty students, who had not graduated, were then abroad teaching, because there was not room to receive them all; they were away during what is called the summer term. In 1863 the normal department contained four hundred and six, and the experimental department one hundred pupils. In 1864 the normal department contained three hundred and fifty-nine, and the experimental one hundred and forty-two pupils. A company was organized from the normal students alone, from those in attendance there, which formed a company of the 17th Michigan regiment, which marched to the battle field without a particle of drill, and celebrated itself at the battle of Stone Mountain, as is well known, acquiring for themselves and the regiment the name of the,, Stone-wall Regiment." 'While the institution has gone on graduating year after year from twelve to twenty-five students, those have not been the only teachers which have been supplied by that institution. The principal has reported several times to the superintendent of public instruction, that at no time was there less than one hundred students absent from the institution, teaching in all parts of the State. In 1866, there were four thousand school districts in the State. It is utterly improbable that one institution should supply all the teachers needed; yet at the same time it has been the means of great good. The report which has been alluded to so slightingly by the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. THOMPSON,) and which is an official report from the secretary of the society of the Normal Alumni, says that previous to 1863, thirty-three per cent. of all who had ever graiduated from the normal school were still engaged in teaching; and of those graduating since 1863, showing that the tendency was in the right direction, over sixty-one per cent. were engaged in~ teaching. When you take into consideration the casualties, also that a large number of the females who are taught are liable to the acci dent of being married, this is a larger per centage than any other institution can show. I hope there will be no impression left upon the minds of the gentlemen of this Convention that this institution, depending upon the State to a certain extent, although not entirely, for its means are somewhat larger than the gentleman from Hillsdale has said,-I hope there will be no impression left upon the minds of members of this Convention, that this institution should not be fostered and encouraged by the State. If there is a necessity for more teachers to be taught for our schools; if more normal schools are needed, Vol. 2 —No. 49. and I for one think there are, they should be provided by a liberal appropriation from the funds of the State. 'I do not know how it is in other communities; but in the community which I represent, and which organized the first union school in this State, five out of every seven of the entire population, will, at any time, submit to a taxation of from two to five per cent., for the benefit of schools. We'are willing to do that, and I think the people of the State are willing to do it. I think that schools for the benefit of the teachers of the State should not be under denominational control. For the very reason which has been urged here, would I insist that this clause should be retained in the Constitution. It may be possible that the very quiet suggestion, made by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) might have been carried out, had nothing been said upon this subject. But the argument has brought to light the object and purpose for which the defeat of this amendment is sought; that at some future day some appropriation may be obtained from the State for the purpose of educating teachers in those denominational institutions, to be sent all over the State. I am opposed to that. I think the light which has been thrown over this subject by this discussion, is sufficient to enable each member of the Convention to vote intelligently upon it. Mr. COOLIDGE. I desire to occupy the attention of the Convention but a short time 6nly. When this amend ment was first offered in committee of the whole I thought but very little of it. I had nothing particular against the amendment, or in favor of it. But I have changed. my views since then. In my estimation there is a great deal of importance in it. This forenoon I became a great deal bewildered; and yet I can stand quite as hard rubs as many of my friends here. We had quite a minute examination into the af fairs of llillsdale college; its worth, and its present and future prospects for good to the State. Then my friend from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDnDGs,) brought in the Congressional land grants, and what the State should do with those lands. Then there was something said about the powers of the State, as the trustee of those grants. Then we had a dis sertation on the art of teaching, illus trated from personal experience, by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. Lov ELL.) And then all at once came into the Convention the whole batch of railroad legislation last winter. And to wind up with, it became necessary here to look carefully into the charac ter of the Governor of the State, and see whether he was judicious and wise in his administration; and a defense of his character was made. Now, do you wonder that I prayed pretty earnestly under this pressure for an hour or two of recess? I was overcome, the integrity of my brain had entirely given way. Now, after a very careful examination of this question, during the opportunity I have had to gather my thoughts together, I have come to the conclusion that this amendment should be retained; I think it is necessary; I have been compelled to think so, from the character of the debate that has taken place here. The amendment, if adopted, will prohibit the Legislature from making grants to denominational schools. Now, I am willing to agree with what has been said by two or three gentlemen upon the vagueness of the term denominational." But I submit to you that there is nqt a gentleman on this floor who does not understand that term very well. No court will ever misconstrue the meaning of this amendment; there is no doubt as to what it means, and therefore nothing need be said about that. Worthy and able gentlemen upon this floor have said to the Convention that they wanted the Legislature to have power to make grants of land and money to these denominational schools; they have proclaimed-it.here upon this floor, fearlessly and persistently. Now, I am opposed to that entirely. In my estimation it is not a matter of slight consequence; it is a matter of very great consequence. In addition to what has been said it would appear to me upon a glance that it would be quite impracticable to adopt any equitable system of distribu tion in this State now, and it will no doubt be so forever hereafter. There are Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Romanists, and a great variety of other denominations; if such an appropria tion is to be made at all, of course it should bee in proportion to the people constituting those denominations. No person will pretend to the contrary at all. But I hardly think the State will ever institute an inquiry, for any such purpose, as to the particular number of these denominations. Therefore, I think a system of distribution of the funds of the State among these de nominations would be quite imprac ticable. In my estimation the policy of such a thing is wrong, and it is against what I believe to be the settled policy of this State. Through the aid of Congress, and by the fidelity and good judgmeht of the early founders of this State, we have a most magnificent system of education. The great object has been from the be ginning, and gentlemen have eloquent 1 t 8 t J'UIY 26, 1867. DEBATES AND - PROCEEDINGS. 385' A I CONSTITUTIONATL CONVENTION. ly spoken upon it in this Convention, and upon other occasions, to provide the means of education, in all the solid branches of learning,. to every child in the State, irrespective of class and con- dition. -Year after year, the State, by this means, is trying to find its way to every home and family in the State. The policy advocated by gentlemen here in reference to these denonmina tional schools is directly against the Bettled policy of the State. These gentlemen advocate the appropriation of a part of the funds, or the property of the State to denominational schools and institutions. I do not believe there is a man upon this floor who, in his heart, can endorse a policy so directly against the settled policy of this State. Ancld for that reason I shall cer tainly vote to retain the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, in this section. I am opposed upon another ground to any policy in this State by which the funds and the property of the State shall be given to these denominational schools. That ground is, that it is taking away these means from the poor, and giving them to those who are not themselves poor. As a general rule, kas I know perfectly well, these colleges are filled by the children of those whq are wealthy and in affluent circumstances. Very few of the com paratively poorer classes find their way into those institutions. I have not one word to say against those in stitutions. They have contributed largely to the intelligence and morahty of the State, and they deserve the encouragement of every man in the State. But I say that I am un willing to- take these means which according to the theory of the State, are to be appropriated to furnish the means-of education to the poor and the. rich, to the high and the low, to the black and the white alike, may I say-I am unwilling to take these means and give them to these institu tions, where but a class usually con gregate. In my estimation, such a pol icy would be troublesome and danger ous. I need but simply state that it will be troublesome, when gentlemen on this floor, who have been in the halls of our Legislature, and who are conversant with what-is done there; have told us day after day of the scenes which have occurred there; how committees from one place and another place, have beleagured them, and how members of the Legislature have yield ed to. them. Now, it is not a new thing in this State for these-friends of denomina.tional.schools.to come to the Legisla ture and ask for favors of this kind. I am told here by men who have been in the Legislature, that such applications have been made there more than once; and they have said that at one time it appeared asif the aid would be granted; but it was not. I say it is dangerous to adopt such a policy. When you open the door to the precedent which is asked for here, who can see the end of it? If the friends of one denominational school can go to the Legislature for this aid, so may the fr-iends of another. If two' can go there, so may la dozen, and the Legislature will be beleagured by these persons for ai'd. The gentleman will go there, as he has done in this Convention, with.his catalogue of his particular and favorite inStitution, and he will portray its prospects for usefulness in the State; will tell how many excellent teachers it has sent out, how many it is likely to send out hereafter, and will beseech-the. Legislature to grant aid to that institution: For this danger, I look not to the past history of this State, for we have no precedent; but to all those States where a policy of this kind has prevailed to some.extent. If my opinion is correct,. the grants of that kind which have been made in those States have been n-made from improper motives, and in the wrong direction. If this policy is to be established in this State, and.we, would encourage it by refusing to con cur in this amendment, there may be perilous times in consequence of this very fact. 'I will not admit that there is a man on this.floor more friendly to these denominational schools than I am, myself. They are. noble institutions; they contribute greatly to the intelligence and morality of the State, and they deserve to be fostered by every man who has the means lto do it. If I wished to do an injury to these institutions, to -injure their present and prospective influence for good in the world, I certainly would allow legislative aid. In my estimation these institutions are far better off, their prospects for the future are far more bright, so long as they are kept entirely distinct from the State. There is nothing in. this - world like institutions built up by private energy. Look around the world, and wherever you find an institution supported by the government, that institution has been inefficient for public good. From that consideration I shall vote-n favor of this amendment. - Now, in regard to teachers: I will admit all that my excellent friend, (Mr. THOMPsoN,) has said about the number of teachers that are sent out from his college into the State. But I say th-at- there go from the primary schools of -the States from the humble ................................................................................ schools as well as from the.union schools, efficient and able teachers, before whose numbers.those..who.go out from.the Normal School, and from the colleges which have been spoken of, dwindle into insignificance. From the very system of education which we have adopted, from the persistent efforts of the noble board of education, we are creating, year after year, as able and efficient a body of teachers as ever were created in the would. Go wherever you may in all these union schools; and you wil find that year after year a noble and educated class of both young men and women go out, who are capable of teaching all the solid rudiments of education anywhere- in the State. By. our excellent system of education, we not only prepare our' girls and. boys for usefulness in society, but we educate them for high positions, .the highest_ in the..State. This -.is a part of its theory, and.a part of its mission. Now, sir, to be told upon this floor thatwe cannot, by — the means we now possess, firnlsh teachers for our youth in the State of Michigan, without going down to one of these denom'minational schools, sir, I am surprised that any man should make such a statement; it has no weight with me. The system of education which the -State fosters is the one upon which we must rely. I make no attack upon these denominational institutions; I assist them myself so far as my feeble means.will allow. But I wish them, now and forever,,to.be kept entirely separate from the action of the Legislature, so far as granting aid'is concerned. I do not wrsh them to rely upon, or to receive legislative aid. I wish them to rely upon their own industry and energy. I wish. them to be made popular by.the effect of their teaching upon the thousands of the youth of our State, who from year to year, gather there. hr. NORRIS. I desire to.make. a correctiou in favor.of my friend from Hillsdale, (Mr. THOMPsoN.) I stated this morning that an appropriation of thirty thousand dollars from the swamp lands was made in 1854. By the re port of the auditor general, now my attention.has been called to it by. the gentleman from Hillsdale, I fi)1d upon examination that I was mistaken. The auditor genaral was called upon to give the entire amount of appropria tions made for the benefit of that - -stitution. lie gives two thousand dollars for 1854. I stated that thirty .thousand dollars from the swamp lands had been been appropriated in 1854; in that I may have been mistaken. Mr. CONGER. I do not rise to dis cuss this question at any length, b:.ut to call the attention of the Convention'to f s e e e e 0 e t e ci e I e d t f e e, e s e e y I ,386 Friday, JUly 26, p867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 387 one- or two points in the speech of the gentleman from Washtenaw (Mr. NORRIS,) which I: think deserve more consideration than they have received, especially by the farmers of the State. I understand -that the gentleman asserts that the Normal school hs a model department which far exceeds the institution near here, although this one boasts, among oQther things, a Galloway bulr. - I understand the'gentleman — to say, that the pupils of that school generally pursue teaching, but that the female pupils who are taught there, after they leave there, are liable to the accident of marriage. Now, that is not a new idea with the gentleman from Washtenaw. It has been published in the papers for some days; and I send to the Clerk's desk, and ask to have read, a paragraph, partly to sustain the statement of the gentleman from Washtenaw, and partly to explain what he has said. The Secretary read as follows: Quite a number of women, most of them old maids, have issued a call for a conyention, stating their object to be'to gain a true knowlege of the nfiature and attributes of men.' [Laughter.] We would respetfully suggest to them that they are not going the right way to work. Why don't they get married?" [Renewed laughter.] Mr. BIRNEY. Any attendant upon the sessions of the Legislature for a number of years past, must have observed a lurking:-disposition to appropriate the swamp lands of the State to purposes of education in some direction. Those grants were made for sanitary purposes originally, or for the purpose of the reclamation of the lands, and were never designed to beappropriated to purposes of education. I simply wish to say, in this connection, that I am in favor of concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole, so as to foreclose hereafter these efforts to appropriate these lands in thisdirection. I wish to say to those gentlemen from the southern part of the State, who have shown a disposi tion to get hold of those lands, that in my judgment those lands appropri ated in mass never will be worth any thing to any institution to which they may be given. I would not myself give five cents an acre for any amount of them that might be donated to me, if I had to retain them in their present condition, and pay taxes upon them. They are worthless, unless they are re claimed and improved by roads being made through them. They never will be improved in that way, if they are donated generally for educational pur poses. They can be improved only by making roads through them, so that they can be occupied by settlers. I hope that on this accosut, if for no Other, the amendment of the comm,it tee of the whole will be concurred in. Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to make one word of explanation. In making some remarks upon this subject, I said something about the swamp lIands, and about appropriations from Congress. I wish to have it distinctly understood that we have not a foot of land, or of other property, that I desire to have appropriated to these denominational schools. I simply suggested that, for the sake of showing that it may be better not to tie up the Legislature entirely, as there might arise some occasion in the future when the State might desire to help these institutions in some way. The question recurred upon concurring in the amendment of'the committee of the whole, which was to insert, after the words" theological or religious seminary," the words "or schools under denominational controL" : r. UTLEY. Upon this question I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken, and the amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in-yeas 61, nays 12, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, An- drus, Bills, Birney, Blackman, Brown, Burtenshaw, Case, Chapin, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, DunCan, Dun-' combe, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, W. F. Goodwin, D. Goodwin, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Hixson, Holmes, Howard, Hull, Huston, Ingalls, Lawrence, Lothrop, Lovell McCleliand, McConnell, MoKernan, Miles, Miller. Morton, Mussey, Ninde, Norris, Parsons, Richmond, Sawyer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Tyler, Utley, Van Riper, Walker, W. E. Warner, M. C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins, White, Winsor, Withey, Woodhoue'and Yeomans61. NAYs-Messrs. Bradley, Chapman, Elliot, Luce, Pratt, Root, T. G. Smith, Thompson, Van Valkenburgh, P. D. Warner, Willard and the President-12. Mr. MUSSEY, when his name was called, said: I wish to Say that on a former occasion I oppposed the amendment,- from the fact that it was too restrictive. I am utterly opposed to appropriating any money or property to any schools outside of our State schools. I am sorry that this amendment is not to include schools which are not of a denominational character. But if I cannlot get what I want, I will take what I can get; and for that reason I will vote " aye." Mr. RAFTER not responding when his name was called, Mr. MORTON moved that he be excused from voting. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. RAFTER then voted "no." Mr. WILLARD. Is a substitute for this entire section now in order? The PRESIDENT. Not at the present time. The amendments of the committee of the whole must be first considered, before other amendments can be received and acted upon. LEGISLATURE PROHIBITED FROM AUTHORI zING LOTTERIES, GRANTING DIVORCES, ETC. The PRESIDENT. The next amendments of the committee of the Whole are to section thirty-one, which section is as follows: " The Legislature shall not pass any bill of attainder, ex post tacto lawv, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; n,,r authorize any lottery or permit the sale of lottery tickets; nor grant divorces; nor audit or allow any private claim or-account; nor pass special acts extending the time for the collectiQn of taxes." The first amendment of the committee of the whole is to strike out the words "pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts; nor;' so that that that portion of the section will read-" The Legislature shall not authorize any lottery," etc. The question is upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. BIRNEY. I desire to move to pass over this section, for the purpose of making it the special order for Wednesday next, when the Convention will be more full than at the present time. It appears to me that after the discussion of the resolution in regard to the separate submission of this question, members will be better prepared to discuss the question of the retention of these amendments in this section. Some members are going away on the next train, and it is important to have the question decided now as to the time when this subject will be taken up for action, so that they may arrange to be present. I therefore move that this section be passed over for the present, and made the special order for Wednesday next, at ten o'clock a. m. Mr.-HUSTON. I move to amend the motion by inserting "Thursday," instead of " Wednesday." Mr. PARSONS. I move to amend the amendment so as to make this suibject the special order for Tuesday of week after next. Hr. BIRNEY. I have no objection to that. Mr. NORRIS. I desire to make a suggestion, which I think will be acceptable; that this particular question, and all other questions in any manner pertaining to the prohibitory liquor law, shahl be discussed at the time when this is made the special order, so that we may dispose of the whole of them at that time, and have no further discussion upon the subject in this Convention than will take place then. I hope the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BIRNEY,) will modify his motion to that effect. Mr. BIRNEY. I will accept the amendment of the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. PARSONS,) SO as to make this the special order for Tuesday of week after next. I DEBATES AND PROCE-Fbl.NGS. ,tuly.-26, 1867. 387 e 388 CO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TITUTIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AL COXVENTIOX. Friaay,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The PRESIDENT. That will require the consent of the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr HUSTON,) who has moved an amendment to the original motion. Mr. HUSTON. I will withdraw my amendment for that purpose. I cannot be here on Wednesday next, but I will be here on Thursday. Mr. HOWARD. There appears to be a general disposition in the Convention to accommodate-all-members interested in this question. It is well known that members have asked and obtained leave of absence this morning, and have gone, or intend to go to their homes, either to-day or to-morrow. Two or three members are absent on account of sickness, who will not be able to return next week. I think that we will be more apt to have a full Convention for the consideration of this subject, if we defer it until a week from Tuesday next, than we would to take it up at any other time. Mr. PARSONS. It has been suggested to me, that on Tuesday the Convention is not so full as on Wednesday. So far as I am concerned, I would like to be here when this subject is considered and acted upon; but I feel that I could not stay here another week for the present. Mr. HOWARD. There seems to be a feeling and disposition here to postpone this subject until a week from Wednesday; that will probably accommodate every one. Mr. WILLIAMS. A week from Wednesday next will not accommodate me. I should be exceedingly happy to be here during the discussion of this question, but I could not be here at that time. I could be here next week, but it will be utterly imp6ssible for me to be here week after next. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I am in-exactly the same condition as the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WMLIAMs.) I-shall not be able to be here after next Wednesday for some time, perhaps not for the residue of the session. Mr. ROOT. I may be sick by that time myself. Mr. HOWARD. I will state briefly my reasons for the suggestion I made. I.know that Judge TURNER is obliged to be at Lapeer to hold court, next Tuesday. I may be obliged to go there myself. I know Judge TURNER would like to be here when this subject is considered, and I would like to be here myself. Mr. HENDERSON. I have no particular wishi in regard to this matter. It seems apparent, from the expression of opinions in different parts of the house, that next Wednesday will accommodate more than Wednesday or Thursday of the following week. We hnow that those gentlemen who asked and obtained leave of absence yesterday and this morning, have generally obtained leave -of absence until Tuesday next. r. BURTCH. I would suggest that we better put it off until next December, when everything will be perfectly cool. Mr. WILLIA M S. I hope this question will be get down for consideration on next Wednesday or Thursday, as originally proposed. Mr. ALEXANDER. If this subject is to be deferred, as I hope it may not be, I would dislike very much to see it placed so far in the distance that we cannot, with any reasonable —certainty, anticipate how full this Convention may then be. Gentlemen of this Con. vention will recollect that this is the season of the year when it is very important for many of us to be at home; also the necessity which often arises for some of us to go home on account of sickness. When this subject came up before, the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BIRNEY,) who has made this motion, then expressed a desire that it should be put over, in order that resolutions which have been introduced in connection with this subject, might be considered. It will be recollected that this Convention have refused to consider those resolutions until after action upon this section. For my part, I can conceive of no good reason for postponing this subject. We have no reason to hope that this Convention, for more than one or two days at least, at any one time, will be any fuller during the remainder'of the session, than it is to-day, or that we will be any better prepared to vote upon this question. For my part, I am willing to vote on it and decide it now, We have been here two months and over, and the people are waiting with breathless interest the result of our action on this subject. I think we should decide this question at once; for upon this question hinge a great many others. We want to get through the business of this Convention, and'return to our homes. Mr. MUSSEY. This seems'to be a very unfortunate matter. Something more than a week ago this question came up, and then it was claimed that there was a disposition on the part of some members of this Convention, to take advantage of merpbers, and spring this subject upon them. when many were absent who desired to be presen't, and take part in its consideration. Yet on that day the votes showed that there was a larger number of members present than had been present at'any other time since the fifteenth of June, probably more than will be again present. I apprehend we are as well prepared to vote upon this question now, as we will be fifteen days from now. I As to thle question of submitting this subject to the people, I would suggest that it would be better to put that matter in the schedule. I do not think we.will have any fuller Convention next Wednesday or Thursday, or a week from next Wednesday, or two weeks from next Wednesday, than we have now. I am prepared to proceed to a vote at once; I am opposed to postponing any matter of this kind, for the mere convenience of members. Mr. CONGER. I suppose it is not material at what time this or any other subject is taken up, so that we know beforehand when it is'to be considered. For myself, I am ready now, or at any other time, when it will suit other gentlemen better, to consider this matter. We know that some twelve or fifteen members have asked leave to be absent after to-day until next Tuesday. For myself, whether there be a discussion on this subject or not, I desire that as many members may- be here —as possible, to have an opportunity of recording their votes on this subject, and to take part in the discussion, if there isany, should they desire it.- If we could go through with this matter this evening, it would be very desirable, for not many members have left to-day. But, if we are going to have any discussion upon it at all, it is very evident that we cannot get through with it to-day. I would wish, however, before this motion to postpone is agreed to, that this Convention would now take action upon concurring in the other amendment to this section, so that there may be left just this simple proposition. I would, therefore, ask the mover of this motion to postpone, (Mr. BIRNEY,) to withdraw his motion until the committee may decide whether they will concur or not in the other amendment, re-. lating to bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, or laws impairing the obligations of contracts. There is a similar provision on that subject in the bill of rights, and it, therefore, may not be necessary to have it-repeated here, although it is highly necessary that it should be in the Constitution in some place. I presume there would be no hesitation in concurring in that amendment. There will then be left the single proposition in regard to prohibition, for our future consideration. Mr. BIRNEY. I have no objection to the suggestion of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER..) I made the moti6n at this time, not kno~wing to what discussion any of these amendments might lead, and because I knew there were a number of gentlemen who desired to leave upon the train-this. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. -Fridlay, 388 .1 Jul 2 187 EAE N POEDNS 8 evening I thought it important that this question should be decided while they were present, and then the Convention could go on and act upon the other amendments. While I am upon the floor, I would say to the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) that when this article was made the special order for Wednesday last, no hour was named for its consideration; and on that account other important subjects intervened. A motion was made and adopted at that time to take up the article on counties, which consumed one day. And then the article on cities and villages was taken up, which led to another discussion. In that way the special order has been shoved out of its place. And we are now almost at the close of another week, before we reach this important subject. I hope, as the motion to postpone is now pending, and will perhaps excite no further debate, we will have a vote upon it. Mr. BILLS. I am surprised that after this matter has been more than once reached, there is now a disposition to still further postpone-the consideration of this question. I believe we are as well prepared to vote now upon this subject, as we shall be after any delay, or any discussion. I have already stated my own idea as regards the best method of taking up this subject, and other subjects relating to this question, and the question of the submission of this subject to the people, either in - the Constitution, or as a separate' measure out of the Constitution. I see no objection to taking up this matter now, and passing upon it at once. If it shall elicit discussion, then let that discusion come; I do not myself desire to discuss it. I simply desire that the Convention shall come to a vote upon the question of concurring in the amendment made by the committee of the whole. Half of the time which has been occupied in discussing the motion to postpone would have disposed of this matter. If it is the design of the Convention to ~consider whether this and some other subjects shall be submitted to the people separately, that matter can be considered by itself. I can see no reason for postponing this subject on that account. I think we are prepared at once to come to a vote upon concurring in the amendment made by the committeee of the whole. I hope there will be no postponement, neither to the next week nor to the week following.. Mr. MORTON. I have heard a very general wish expressed among members that this matter might be postponed for a time. I cannot see that the business of the Convention will be hindered by go doing. We have the article on education, and the article on the judicial department yet to consider, and they will occupy some time. If this subject shall be postponed until next Wednesday, it can then be discussed for a half a day, if necessary, and after that time members can have the right to put their votes on record, if they see fit. I hope the motion to postpone until next Wednesday will be agreed to. Mr. HOWARD. I -wish to withdraw the proposition I have made to postpone this' question. The PRESIDENT. The Chair desires to state, that he understands the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HusTON,) and the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. PARsoNs,) as well a' the gentleman from Bay, (Hr. BIRNEY,) to consent that this motion should be to postpone this subject, and have it made the special order for one week from Wednesday next, at ten o'clock, a. m. The question is now upon that motion. The Chair desires to state, that in ihis opinion, it is necessary to suspend the rules, in order to make this a special order for the hour named. Ifit is made the special order for a certain hour, it interferes with the regularorder of business, and will require a suspension of the rules for that purpose. Mr. BIRNEY. Then I withdraw tha part of my motion fixing the time at ten o'clock a. m. The PRESIDENT. The question then will be on the motion to postpone this subject, and make it the special order for one week from Wednesday .next. Mr. HENDERSON. Although I am opposed to any postponement, I will offer a substitute for that motion; that this postponement be until next Wednesday, and that this subject be made the special order for that day. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. HENDE~sON; and upon a division, yeas 43, noes 16, it was agreed to. The question recurred upon the motion as amended, which was to mike the pending question the special order for Wednesday next. Mr. HENDERSON. I hope that motion will not prevail, but that We will proceed at once to the consideration of this subject. I moved the amendment I did because I preferred that time to the tire named in the original mdtion; but I am opposed to any postponement Mr. CONGER. -I wish to say that if the object proposed by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BmLs,) is simply that we may perfect this clause, and then consider at another time the manner of submitting the question to the people, I can see no particular objection to concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole at this time. Mr. BILLS. I will say in reply to the inquiry made by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) that that is all the purpose I have in view. I do not wish to place any limit or restriction in any possible manner upon the discussion of this question. But I think we would save time by concurriniig in the amendment, and then leaving the whole question of submission to be considered and determined upon at such time as shall be deemed best. Mr. NORRIS. Permit me to make a suggestion. It seems to me to be running in the minds of most of the members of this Convention that there is nothing to discuss, except the simple matter of separate submission. Now, the question of license will also come up for discussion, and there will be an alternative proposition to be considered. I desire to have all those subjects discussed at one time, and not have the time of the Convention taken up on different days, and on different su'ojects, in connection with this matter. If this subject comes up piecemeal, it will last the balance of the summer; if we can take all these subjects up together, then we can decide the question in a little time. Mr. CONGER. It is perhaps understood that many favor the adoption of this particular provision, who may desire the question submitted se'parately to the people. With the understanding that the adoption of this provison here is merely informal, so far as regards the place where it shall be located, merely for the purpose of perfecting the provision, and is not to be considered binding upon the Convention at all, as to the manner of its future disposition or submission, I have myself no objection to taking the vote upon it without discussion. Mr. D. GOODWIN. If we postpone this question until some other day, it seems to me proper that we should not take any vote upon it at this time, but have all the matters connected with the subject, taken up and considered together. I think it would hardly be proper to take a vote upon one part of the subject now, and then take up other matters connected with the subject hereafter. If we vote upon this amendment at this time, and concur in it, we make it a part of the article on the legislative department. The proposition of the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BIRNEY,) is to postpone this whole matter, without any vote upon either of these questions until some other time. At that time the question upon concurring in this amendment,' the question upon adopting the resolution reported by the other part of the corn ,.July 26- 1867 1 9 DEBATES AND CHEDINGS. 389 I ,O ::.........:3_ 0 "7:-'/ V'''.....'II.O- - - -'Y — mittee, and the question embraced in the resolution offered this morning-by my colleague; (Mr. LOTHROP,) may all come up together. If any of the propositions are postponed, I think the-whole of them should be, so as -not to predetermine any question in relation to this subject. I hope the motion to postpone will be agreed to, without any vote being taken upon any of these questions at this time. I would ask also that the resolution reported from the committee, for the -separate submission of this question to the people, be also made the special order for the same day. Mir. VAN- VALKEFNBURGH,. i think it evident from the statements already made upon this floor, that the majority of the members are in favor of postponing this subject until Wednesday next. We all wish to have a fair hearing upon this question; and as it appears from the statements made here that there will be more members present on Wednesday next, than at any time before that, I hope the motion as amended may be agreed to, and that this subject will be put over until that time. The question recurred upon the motion to postpone this subject, and make it the special order for Wednesday next. Mr. BLACKMAN. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays. T. e yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken, and the motion was not agreed to; yeas 34, nays 47, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Birney, Burtch, Burtenshaw, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker Daniells, Ferris, D. Goodwin, Hixson, Holmes, Holt, Huston, Lawrence, Lctell, Luce, McKernan, Miles, Morton, Ninde, Norris, Parsons, Pringle, Rafter, Richmond, Sawyer, T. G. Smith, Van Valkenburg, Winsor, Withey, Williams and the President-34. NAYs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapin, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Parmer, Germain, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Howard, Hull,Ingalls, Leach, Lothrop, McClelland,: Mc~onnell, Miller, Mussey, Pratt, Root, Sheldon, Stockwell, Sutherland, Thompson, Tyler,Utley, Van Riper, Walker, P. D. Warner, W. E. Warner,. M. C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins,White, Willard, Woodhouse andYeomans-47. Mr.- CONGER, when his name was~ called, said: I ought perhaps to explain my: yote. I vote " aye," because one of the fathers of the measure, and its most ardent friend, (Mr. BANXDKENnURnG,) seems to be willing that this subject should go over for a week, so' that all the questions connected With it may come up and be considered together. I wish to stand by him in this matter. The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon concurring in the first amendment made by the committee of the whole to section thirty-one,:which is to strike out the words "pass any bill of attainder, expost facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; nor," so that the section will read: ", The Legislature shall not authorize any lottery," etc. The amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in. TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING LIQUORS. The PRESIDENT. The next question is upon concurring in the second amendment of the committee of the whole to section thirty-one, to add to the section the following: " Nor pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors as a beverage." Mr. ALEXANDER. I wifsh to offer an amendment, with the view of separating this clause from this section, and making it a separate section, - so that it may be separately submitted to the people should the Convention so determine. I move to amend the amendment by striking' out the: word "nor," and inserting in lieu:thereof the words " The Legislature shall not;" so that it will read: "The Legislature shall not pass any. act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors as- a beverage.'I ~ Mr. LOTHROP.: I offer the following as a substitute for the-amendment of the committee of the whole: "At the election when this Constitution shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection, there shall also be separately submitted-to such electors the two following provisions: No. 1. 'The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors, as- a beverage.' No. 2. ' The Legislature may provide for the regulation of the sale of spirituous or intoxicating liquors by tax, license, or otherwise.: It shall authorize any city or town desiring-so to do, wholly to prohibit such sale within its-limits, and shall pass laws to entorce such.prohibition. No sale of such liquors to minors, paupers or common-drunkards shall ever be au. thorized; nor shallany place tor the sale of such liquors be permitted to be kept open, or any such liquors sold therein, in any city or town, on any day when a general or special election is held in said city or town. The annual tax or license -lee to be paid by venders of such liquors shall in no case be less. thsan $100., A —-separate ballot upon each provision, may be given by any elector, which shall be deposited in a ballbt-box provided for that purpose. On the ballots in favor of the adoption of the above provision No. 1, shall- be the words,' Prohibition-Yes;' and-upon theballots in favor ot the above provision No. 2, shall be-the works,'License-Yes;' and:up0on the head or outside of all said ballots, shall be the words, Prohibition or license,'. placed in such manner that the same shall he visible when the ballot is folded. It; upon the canyass of such ballots cast at said election, a majority thereof shall be found to contain the words, Prohibition-Yes," then said provision No. 1, shall become and stand as setion -, of article, ofthis a'Constitution, ii it shall be adopted; but if a majority of such ballots shall contain the, words,'LicenseYes,' then-the above provision No. 2, shall become and stand as section - -, of article -, of this: Constitution, If the same Is adopted." The PRESIDENT. The question will be first taken upon the amend ment offered by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) to the amendment: reported from the com mittee of the whole. Mi. ALEXANDER. I will withdraw my amendment, and let the question be taken- upon the substitute offered bv the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP. ) Mr. CONGER. I object to the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) being with drawn. I think it is a very proper amendment to be made. The PRESIDENT. Objection being made to the withdrawal of the amendment, it cannot be withdrawn, having been placed in possession.'of the Convention. The first question will therefore be upon the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien; (Mr. ALEXAND ER. ) Mr. CONGER. I wish to make one remark before we take a vote upon the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOThROP.) It seems to me that to incorporate that propo sition in section thirty-one of the article entitled " Legislative Department," would be going a little beyond what the committee who reported this article originally intended. Mr. LOTHROP. That is quitb prob able. Mr. CONGER. It is rather a long article now, and it has required some considerable labor and skill to engineer it through, with the material already in it. The committee — on the legislative department, would really like to get this article off their hands. I apprehend -that the substitute offered for -the amendment of the committee of the — whole, whatever we may think in regard to its merits, and it is certainly worthy of very: serious consideration, properly belongs to another portion of the Constitution. If such a provision is to-be adopted in any article, I think it should be inserted in the schedule. Although there are many members in this:Convention who will approve the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne,:(Mr. ILoTHEOP,) yet I think very:few: would be willing to oversadow so completely this section thirty-one, by placing in it all the provisions contained in that substitute. M r. WILLIAMS. It has occhirred to me, and it occurs to me now, that the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTeROP) can have no proper- application in any manner or form to the section:under consideration The language of the CONSTI"PUTIONAL , CON'VEN- ON. Fridtty, - I.... 390 I J.ly. 26 18~.EA E A.. r().?:......... substitute proposed by him would more properly constitute a.portion-of the schedule to this Constitution. It does appear to me that whatever action -we may take here upon that substitute.we will,probably have the whole battle to fight over again, when wecome to consider the report of the committee on the schedule. It seems to me it would be a very easy matter for this Convention to say now that they will'incorporate for the present into this article, without ptroposing to pass upon the merits of the question, this provision in relation — to prohibition, in the place where it will have to betinserted, in case it becomes a part of the Constitution. Then the committee on the schedule, if they see fit, or the gentleman from:- Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) if he sees fit, can move his propoirtion as an amendment to the report of the committee on the schedule. The question will be before the Convention, whether they will incorporate this provision absolutely into the article on the legislative department, or whether-they will, by a provision in the schedule, submit it to, the people to be voted upon separately. Our action at this'time is merely to say whether this provision properly belongs in the article on the legislative department, if it shall be incorporated in the Constitution at all. If there be any battle now in regard to this question, I apprehend we will have to fight the whole battle over again, when we come to consider the report of the commit tee on the schedule. Mr. MoCLELLAND. I cannot agree with the gentleman from Alle gan, (Mr. WmLIAMS.) I do not under stand this to be a provision which properly belongs -to the schedule. The: schedule is to be framed for the purpose of carrying out the different provisions which are contained in the body of the Constitution. Mr. WILLIAMS. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him a mo ment? Mr. MoCLELLAND. Yes, sir. Mr. _WILLIAMS. Will not the' schedule provide -for the submission. of this Constitution to the people? Mr. McCLELLAND. Certainly; and it will provide for the submission of the different sections separately, if there are any which the Convention desire so to submit. But it does not provide for anything differing-from what is contained in the body of the Constitution. Mr. WILLIAMiS. I so understand. Mr. MoCLEL]LAND. Inunderstand that it only provides for those contingencies that are not provided for in the Constitution, as temporary expe dients. But the body of your Constf tution mustcontain everything that is of -the character of organic law, that is to-be permanent in its operation. Mr..-WILLIAMS. The gentleman from Wayne, (Ir. MCCLELLAD,) misunderstands me. I apprehend that this provision will be contained in this article; -but still the question will be submitted to the people by the schedule whether it shall be retained there or not. Mr. McCLELLAND. But this is the difficulty; if the provision is incorporated into the article on the Legislative -Department, it will make us who are min favor of a license system, vote against that license system; and that is what-we do not wantto do, I say to those gentlemen who are opposed to license, and who are for retaining the old provision in this Constitution, if they are as -fair and just as I think they are, they will give us a fair chance in this Convention-to test this question .filly, before oit goes to the people. All Wwe want is to engraft this upon some provision in your Constitution which contains -the clause adopted by the committee-of the whole, on the motion of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILs.) I did not object to that provision at the time it was offered. But we say that we have a right to come forward now and move an amendment of this kind, not with a view to retaining it ultimately in this article, if you please, but providing for submitting the question separately to the people; and whatever -the people do with it, whatever they adopt, then let it be placed in this article on the legislative department. That is our object, nothing less, nothing more. It is true, as the gentleman from:t. Clair, (Mr. CoDGER,) says, that this provision, if adopted, would make this article:-apparently an unwieldy one. But I apprehend that the gentleman knows:as well as I do, that this article will be submitted to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, and that they will arrange it properly, and then submit it to this Convention; and whiatever arrangement that committee may make, if approved by the Convention, will satisfy every member here. All that we ask of this Convention, all that- we ask of th~ose -who; are opposed. to the old provision in the Constitution, is that we may have a chance to vote against that old provision. I have no doubt at all my self what the result will be. But we ask it, if not as a rightI think we ought to ask it as a right-but if not as a right, we ask it as a boon of the members of this Convention to permit us to have a fair-and f vote on this subjeoct. If we are defeated, well; if not, then as a matter of course, we sub mit the whole matter to the people, and with the judgment of the people we ourselves will be perfectly satisfied. Mr. BILLS. I desire to call attention to the statement of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. -cCLLLAND,) Ain reply to the question of the gentleman from Alegan, (Mr. W-mLMs,) in regard to the proper matter to be contained in the body of the Constitution, and the proper matter to be contained in the schedule. I adopt his language when I say that that belongs properly in —the Constitution which is to remain there permanently. Now, is there permanency-in the resolution which has been offered by the, gentleman - from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP?) Does not the full force -and effect of the resolution expire immediately when the submission is made to the people? How, then, does it belong as a part of the Constitution, under the definition given by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND? ) Mr. McCLELLAND. Will the gen.tleman allow me to interrupt him a moment? Mr. BILLS. Certainly. Mr. McCLELLAND. I presume the gentleman knows the fact that in the State of Massachusetts they submit everything of a permanent character in regard to their Constitution in a separate form to the people; that has been the usual practice heretofore. In several of the States they take all the provisions about which there is any dispute, and submit them separately, not through the schedule, but in a sep arate and distinct form. Mr. BILLS. I understand that per fectly; but that does not answer my question. The question is whether a resolution of this kind, being incorporated into this article, is to remain a permanent payt of the Constitution? I take his definition of the matter, and say it-does not become a permanent part of the Constitution. Now, in regard to the suggestion made by the gentleman from Wayne. He says-"We want a fair chance." Most assuredly; there is no dispo sition, I presume, on the part of any member on this floor to exclude any one from a fair, full, and unlimited participation in the debate on this question, as fully as upon any and all other questions. As chairman of the' committee on intoxicating liquors, I certainly desire that there shall be a fair and full discussion. Mr. MoCLELL.AND. I will ask the gentleman how we can have any fair discussion upon the question inl regard to submitting this subject in a separate form to the people, unless there is something before this Convention of the kind we propose? i I DEB S AND -PROC-RED-INGS. 391' li-uly.,:26, 1867. CONSTITUTIONAL, CONVENTION. Mr. BILLS. I will answer the gentleman with pleasure. We have already passed upon in this article the question in reference to elections; we have already passed upon another subject, in relation to annual and biennial sessions. Take any of these propositions; suppose that in the subsequent action of this Convention, it should be thought desirable to submit any one, or all of these questions separately to the people. Here they are; we have passed upon them, and matured them, as matters which we desire to submit in some manner to the people. Here they are in their places. For instance, we go on and perfect this provision, which we have now under consideration. The first question for us to decide is, whether we will submit it to the people in any form-whether we will have it incorporated in the Constitution, or have it submitted outside of the Constitution. We go on and perfect it, if it shall be the pleasure of the Convention to do so; that is the first step. In perfecting this clause, in the manner we desire to have it perfected, we ask all to participate in the consideration of the question. There is no unfairness in that; it is what we have done in regard to everything else. It will in no manner whatever preclude a full and fair discussion of the question as to whether we will, or will not, submit this as a separate proposition. I have no disposition to avoid that discussion. I have no disposition to avoid the discussion here upon the merits of this question; I have no disposition to avoid the discussion upon the question of separate submission. Having perfected this provision in its place, this is one step, then. If it shall be determinedc by the subsequent action of the Convention that we will submit this proposition separately to the people, here it is perfected, and it can be submitted. It- matters not really where it is put, except that it might be improper to incorporate it permanently in this article. But it can be taken out of the article, and submitted separately when we come to that decision.' Mr. McCLELLAND. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him one moment? Mr. BILLS. Yes, sir. Mr. McCLELLAND. The gentleman is too good a lawyer not to know that when in court he makes a motion, and gets his opponent to say, "Very well; I will admit that, and we can discuss it hereafter;" and then goes on a step flirther, and gets him to admit something else, with the understanding that it shall be discussed hereafter; after a while the court hals become so accustomed to allowing what the gen tleman ha6 got his opponet to admit for the time, that he might just as well try to drag down the moon as to try to resist the position the gentleman has obtained. In this case his proposition would amount to the same thing; he accustoms the Convention to the position which he desires to maintain; we run into the last days of the session, when everything is hurry and bustle, and then he says, "We are ready now to discuss this question." I will now make a fair proposition to the gentleman. When this subject was submitted to a separate standing committee, I was under the impression that when they made their report it would go to the committee of the whole, just as every other report has gone, and that it would be there discussed Separately and independently. But the gentleman did not delay for anything of, that kind. If he had, we certainly should have had an opportunity, not only to move this amendment, but we would have had thewhole subject before the committee of the whole for consideration. But the gentleman took advantage of this article; he proposed his amendment where he did, and it was adopted by the committee of the whole. How? As the gentleman is very well aware, the committee of the whole adopted it with the express understanding that, when we got into Convention, this whole subject was to be discussed. Now, I ask the gentleman how we can discuss this whole subject, unless upon some such amendment as has been offered, or upon an amendment embracing the resolution reported by my colleague, (Mr. D. GOODwn,) on behalf of an equal number of the committee who reported the amendment which has been adopted. Mr. BILLS. It is stated by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAD,) that it was suggested, when this subject was under consideration in committee of the whole, that when we came into Convention, this whole matter would be open for discussion. We are now in Convention, and this matter is now open for discussion. The entire matter is as open to discussion by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) as it is by any other gentleman. It natters not to me, so far as the discussion is concerned, whether it be carried on now, involving the whole question of the separate submission of this provision, or not. I only speak of the impropriety of incorporating this resolution as a part of this article. Mr. McCLELLAND. Suppose there is an incongruity in this resolution; grant it for the sake of the argument. The gentleman is a fair-minded man, and would he, upon the ground of incongruity, prevent us from having a fair chance to discuss the subject here? Will he not give us a fair chance for discussion, even if the resolution is somewhat incongruous? Mr. BILLS. I have nothing to give in this Convqntion; I have nothing to ask, except under the rules. Mr. McCLELLAND. Ah! yes; I understand. Mr. BILLS. I simply propose to discuss the question. Any question which is open for me to discuss, is equally open to anybody else to discuss. I am not here to grant privileges to anybody. Mr. D. GOODWIN. I desire to say a word in regard to the question of order raised by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) The amendment reported by the committee of the whole com s up now for the action of the Convention, for concurrence or non-concurrence. A motion is made by my colleague (Mr. LOTHROP) to substitute for that amendment the proposition which he has introduc d. [he question is, is that in- -order? It seems to me that it is perfectly in order, and is the ptr'oper mode of reaching the subject. The propos tion he introduces is an alternative one. If it s adopted in lieu of the proposit on reported from the committee of the whole, then it stands for that proposition, and will be referred, wi h the rest of the article, to the committee on arrrangement and phraseology. If that committee shall deem it improper to be retained in this a ticle, then they will put it in the article where it should be placed. If the provision reported from the committee of the whole shall be adopted by the Convention, then it will stand as a part of this article, and will be voted upon by the Convention in connection with the rest of the article. That is not the proper course to be pursued. By concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole, and placing this provision in the article, it excludes the consideration of the proposition submitted by my colleague, unless the Convention should see fit to consider it afterwards in another shape and form. But it is properly in order as a substitute for the provision rec ommended by the committee; and if adopted in lieu of that, it will be re ferred with the rest of this article to the committee on arrangement and phraseology; and if Kit should be properly placed in the schedule, that committee can place it there. This difficulty arises from the introduction of this proposition in commit tee of the whole at all. The provision was reported as a separate section, from a different committee from that which reported the article on the leg I f 8 392 Fricl'ay, July 26, 1867. DEBATES AD PRO.CEE])1N-GS 398 iliative department. The-'-subject: of the traffic in intoxicating liquors was referred to a separate: committee; and that: committee reported two propo sitions. The chairman of the commit tee (ir. BILLS) reported this — pro vision in behalf of one-half of the committee. The other half of the: committee reported the same provis ion,- but with it a resolution to submit the question separately to the people. Probably if this amendment had not been introduced in the committee of the whole, then the report of the com mittee on intoxicating liquors would have come up in committee of the: whole as a general order, like any other report of a standing committee. BtU tthat provision having been intr'o duced in the committee of the'whole, and moved as an amendment to this atticle and adopted, the committee of the whole have reported it to this Convention, and it is now before us for action. The proposition submitted by way of substitute for that pro'sion comes properly and directly before the" Convention for their ^consideration.' Otherwise the matter' could not be presented fairly for our action; otherwise the alternative proposition, and the question of separate submission could not be properly presented for our consideration. If the amendment of the committee of the whole, as reported, is:concurred in by the Convention, then the' consideration of the other proposition is excluded, and it can come before the Convention afterwards only in some other way. This substitute now comes properly before the Convention; and both propositions can be.properly considered at this time. If the substitute shall be adopted, then,' when. the article is referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, they can place this substituteo in such part of the Constitution as ithey may consider proper. The PRESIDENT. The Chair desires to state, before the discussion shall proceed further, that he does not understand the'gentleman from St. Clai'(Mr. CoDGER,) to have raised any question of order in regard to the substiute' offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) The Chair und~erstood him simply to intimate that, in'his judgment, the proper place for that substitute. was in the article entitled "Schedule.""''.' o:Mr. CONGER. I did not raise any question of order; I merely made the suggestion. M...r. rD. GOODWIN. I understood it to be argued as a question of order. M: i r. C(ONGER. I'made the; remark simply as an arguments in'favor of adopting the proposition of the gentleman irom Berrien, (Mr. AL:EXlR,) Vol. 2-o. 50. -to amend this clause of the section in such a way that it might stand as an independent section. I am infavor 6fi the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien for that reason., - Mr. BLACKMAN. As I understand the position-of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) it- is that if this provision be submitted sepa rately to the peoples it must still be: contained in the body of the Constitu tion..L Mr. LOTHROP. My colleague, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) is just now attend ing to somethin'g else; but I will an-, swer for him, and say that the gentle-i man from Van Buren, (Mr. BLAc:KMAN,)i misunderstands his position. Mr. BLACKMAN. If I misunderstood him, of course I am the one in error. But whether I misidnderstood him or not, I desire to show what was deemed by the Convention of 1850, of which one of the gentlemen from Way,ne (Mr. D. GOODwIN,) was the President, and of'which the other gentlemanfrom Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,;was an active member, the proper way of submitting provisions separately to the people. I refer to,the'journal of the debates and proceedings of that Convention. On page XLII of the introduction, where the provision in relation to suffrage of colored persons was sub-, mitted separately to the people, will be found the form adopted by that Convention. It will be found at the end of the schedule of the present Constitution, in the shape of a resolution, and is as follows: " At the next general election, and at the same time when the votes of the electors shall be taken for the adoption or rejection of this Constitution, an additional amendment to section one, of article seven,. in the words foIllowing: Everyicolored male inhabitant possessing the qualifications required by the first section of the second article of the Constitution, shall have the rights'- and privileges of an elector, Shall be separately submitted' to the electors of this State for their adoption or rejection, in iorm lollowing to wit: A separate ballot may be given by every person having a right to vote for the revised Constitution, to-be deposited in a separate box. Upon the ballots given for the- adoption of the said separate amendment, shall be written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, the words, "Equal suffrage to colored persons-,Yes;" and upon the ballots given against the adoption of the said separate amendment, in like manner, the words, "Equal suffrage to colored-persons —No." And on such ballots shall be written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, the words, "Constitution: Suffrage," In. such manner that such words shall appear on the outer side of su'ch ballot when folded. It at; said election, a majority of all the votes given for and against the said separate amendment snall contain the words, "Equal suffrage to coiored persons-Yes;" then there shall be inserted in the first section of the article, between the words " tribe " and "shall," these words:', and every colored male inhabitant," anything in the constitution to the contrary noLwithstanding." This shows what place was then ithought properf0or a provision of this kilnd i'm regard to separate submissionm I think that is the proper place now. Mr. HENDERSON. I would inquire : in the first place, whether the proposi tion of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LoTHnROr,) is now before the Con vention?'' The PRESIDENT. The question now before the Convention is the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr ALExANDER,) to0strike out the word "nor," and to insert in lieu thereof the words "the Legislature shall not;" so that the amendment re ported from the committee of the whole if so amended, would read: "The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors as a beverage." The substitute of the gentleman from Wayne -(Mr. LOTHROP,) is held in abeyance until the qu. stion shall be taken upon the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien. Mr. HENDERSON. I have no purpose or desire to engage in the discussion of this question at any time, or-to interfere or prevent an,bo'i3 else from discussing it. As has been remarked here by thg friends of both of tbese propositions, the adoption of either one of them does not preclude -the consideration and determination hereafter of the question in regard to submitting them separately.''I hope we will dispose of this amendment of the gentleman from Berr,en and vote it down; then let the other proposition come before us and vote upon that. And then if it is competent, asit seems to have been determined here, to take up hereafter the question of submission, we can do that. Mr. BIRNEY. This discussion shows the very'difflculty I wished to avoid, by the motion I made sometime since. A:ccordinig to my'view of this matter, the question of separate Submission is prior, in order of time:and discussion, to the amendment reported by the committee of the whole. If that amendment is to be made'a permanent part of this article, why- need it be incorported here now? Suppose that we do incorporate it in the article, and then go on and consider the question of separate submission, and determine that this provision shall be submitted separately to the people. lWe must thren turn back to this article, and take' this provision out of it by a separate motion,. The gentleman from'Lenawee, (Mr. BILLs,) says it is entirely fair to bring this matter up in this way, to take it from its order as a separate report, and consider it as an amendment -to this article. Now, I submit to: him' this D-F,;PATES AND,PROC-E--D-1-N-G-. 393 July,.,26,18.67. -94.O~STITUL... _...Ti. -.__,.. v1.... _ point for his consideration, this amendment can be incorporated as a part of this article by twenty-six votes; that is, by a majority of a quorum, should there be a bare quorum present at the time the matter is determined. But to pass the article with this provision in it, will require fifty-one votes. There is the peculiar advantage which he takes of those members who wish to discuss this matter separately. He can put this provision into this article by a majority vote of those present. Mr. BILLS. I desire to correct the gentleman by saying that I do not incorporate this provision into this article. Mr. BIRNEY. I do not charge the gentleman with doing it; it is not incorporated into the article yet. Mr. BILLS. I did not place it here. Mr. BIRNEY. The gentleman made the motion to amend the article by adding this provision to section thirtyone. Mr. BILLS. I did make that'motion, and the committee of the whole adopted the amendment. Mr. McCLELLAND. The amendment was adopted, as I understand it, with the express understanding that it was to pass the committee of the whole silently, without any particular discussion; and when it came up in Convention, it was there to be discussed and considered fully, as if it had been offered as an amendment in Convention. Mr. BIRNEY. I saw the difficulty which has arisen. It will be remembered that at the time this amendment was moved in committee of the whole, I submitted an amendment to it, in substance like that now proposed by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHnorop.) But, upon being requested bya dozen or more gentlemen to allow the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS, ) to be adoptedpro forma, I withdrew my amendment. His amendment was adopted by the committee, on the represention that it was to be passed upon pro forma, and that when we came into Convention, the motion was to be made that this subject should be made the special order for last Wednesday. The Convention did make it the special order for that time, but it has been sheved along, as I have stated. The motion now comes up, and a motion to postpone was m Lde and defeated. The amendment of the committee of the wholeis ndw before the Convention for action. There are members of this Convention who, while they might hope that the people would adopt this provision if submitted for their action separately, would not themselves, on their own responsibility, vote to make it a permanent part of this article and of the Constitution. I may, for instance, be perfectly willing to have the people vote in favor of capital punishment; but I might not myself be willing to vote to place a provision to that effect in the Constitution. I say that in this -is the unfairness of the thing. I do not use the term "unfairness" in any personal sense. The apparent unfairness of this course is, that this provision may be incorporated into this article by a small vote; and then to pass the entire article will require a majority of all the members elected to this Convention. I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHITOP,) will be discussed as preliminary to the question of inserting this provision in this article. Mr. LOTHROP. The embarrassment whatever it is, that arises here, is not of my making, not of my seeking. The embarrassment, if there be any, is simply formal, which I think will not trouble any member of the Convention, unless he desires to raise it into a substantial barrier. When this amendment was before the committee of the whole the other day, it passed without discussion, on the distinct pledge that when the question came up in Conventionit being understood that it was one which would excite attention and discussion here-it should there be treated as if it was for the first time before this body for consideration. I now press it upon the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) that, as'a fair man, and as the member in charge of a particular provision which may go into the Constitution, he is not entitled to put it into any other shape here, but is bound to permit the matter to stand precisely as if this amendment was now offered for the first time, according to the understanding that was had in committee of the whole. I received the pledge then made in entire good faith. I saw at the time that the matter might be taken advantage of, and I did have some reason to believe that it was going to be taken advantage of. Accordingly I offered the resolution which now lies upon the President's table. That resolution is to the effect that this Convention will proceed to frame two propositions upon this subject, to be submitted to the people separately from the rest of the Constitution. I offered it for the precise purpose that if anybody should assume to create the difficulty which is now solight to be created, the Convention could have within its reach, if it chose to reach for it the means of considering this question entirely independent of this article. I offered the resolution for that very purpose. I wish to say further, that there is no sort of difficulty in the proposition I now make, except a mere formal difficulty. The difficulty is merely whether this question shall be submitted separately to the people in the schedule, or whether it shall be placed in the body of the Constitution itself. I know nothing about parliamentary rules; but I infer that they must be founded upon good sense and logic. What is the Constitution which you are talking about? What is the body of the article? Every part of your Constitution is nothing in the world except a proposition to be submitted to the people of the State of Michigan for their action. When you propose to submit all the propositions together, then you arrange them in the form of articles and consecutive sections, to be submitted to the people in that manner, so that they will not require any further change after the action Qf the people. But you might as well submit various propositions, and provide that when those propositions shall be adopted they shall take the places in the instrument which they should occupy so as to have it arranged in' proper form. I say that I have the right to treat this as a substantive proposition. The gentleman from LJenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) tells me and other gentlemen of this Convention, that he is entitled to perfect his proposition. I take the very words which that gentleman and his committee reported to the Convention; I assume the provision as he reported it to be perfected. I have not changed it so much as the crossing of a t, or the dotting of an i. I use the very form which he presents as a perfect provision to be inserted in'this article. What else? I propose that that provision shall be submitted to the people. And I propose something else; I propose that another proposition shall go along with it to the people. That other proposition is that the Legislature shall have the power to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors; that they shall restrain and control it by certain restrictive provisions, which are included in the proposition. I propose that these two prepositions shall be submitted to the people. Now, I do not care in what place they stand, or in what form they are submitted to the people. If a majority of the people shall vote for the one provision, then it will take a certain place in the perfected (!onstitution, to be numbered se(ttion so and so, of article so and so. If the people shall vote in favor of the other proposition, then it will become a part of the Constitution by virtue of that vote, as section so and so, of article so and so. CONSTITUTIONA-T,, CONVENTION. Friday, 394 .1 July 26, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEEDINGS. 395 There is not the remotest difficulty about this matter. I say, then, that having the right to treat this amendment of the committee of the whole as if it were introduced here now for the first time, and the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) having proposed that the amendment shall be so framed as to become a separate and independent provision, and having accepted my substitute for his motion to amend, it seems to me that it is properly before the Convention. At any rate, the Convention have before them this proposition. They may propose to consider one of these propositions alone, or they may propose to consider whether they will submit both of them to the people. I insist that the proper way to discuss this matter is to discuss both sides of it; and those both sides are involved in the two propositions contained in my resolution. As regards the first proposition, so far as I am concerned, and I believe so far as other gentlemen who think with me are concerned, we will take the proposition introduced by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) as a perfect proposition; we do not wish to make any amendmen to it. As to the second proposition which I have offered, any gentleman can offer amendments to it. These are the two matters to be considered here; and if anything is to be sent to the people, I trust the Convention will send these two propositions to the people for their action. Mr. WILLARD. I do not rise to engage at length in this discussion. But it dons occur to me that the prec eclent established by the Convention 1850 might, very properly, be referred to. Mr. LOTHROP. Will the gentleman allow me to make one other remark, which I omitted to make. Mr. WILLARD. Certainly. Mr. LOTHROP. Suppose this proposition of mine is adopted here; if gentlemen then think that the symmetry of this instrument will be promoted by removing it from the body of this article, and placing it in the schedule, the committee on arrangement and phraseology can put it there. There is not the slightest difficulty in the world about that. Mr. WILLARD. I was simply going to say that the Convention of 1850 perfected a provision in regard to suffrage, and afterwards in the schedule submitted a separate resolution, which stood as section thirty of the schedule, as an amendment to the article on elections. That, it would seem to me, is the wisest course for us to take, and the fairest to us all, whatever may be our views in regard to the main propo sition presented to us. Certainly, if a majority of this Convention are in favor of a separate submission, then the question should be submitted separately. If the majority of this Convention are in favor of putting this provision into the body of the instrument,' I should expect that it would be so done. Mr. McCLELLAND. Will the gentleman alllow me to interlrupt him a moment.? Mr. WILLARD. Yes, sir. Mfr. McCLELLAND. The gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WILLARD,) and some others, appear to argue from wrong premises. They conclude that those who are opposed to the form of the restriction, are going to vote in mass for the separate' submission of this question to the people. He and some others may find themselves mistaken in regard to that before they get through. Mr. WILLARD. If there are those here who are in favor of having some other provision put in here, in place of that adopted by the committee of the whole, that question is one to be fairly and properly decided by a majority vote of the Convention. I cannot see the propriety of the position taken by the gentleman from Bay, Mr. BIRNEY,) that those who are in favor of this provision should be required to get a majority of the members elected to this Convention, in its favor. The same might be said with equal propriety in regard to any other section in the article on the legislative department. I submit that we, as members of this Convention, should decide this question by a majority vote of those voting upon it. I think it would be unfair to require those who are in favor of this provision, as it now stands reported from the committee of the whole, to secure a majority vote of the members elected to this Conven tion. I am willing that this question should be fairly and properly decided. Mr. BILLS. I want to say simply this; that I am not aware that any question of order has been raised. I do not understand that there is any embarrassment in discussing this ques tion now. Mr. VANVALKENBURGH. What ever else may be done on this ques tion, I hope no restrictions will be im posed upon the friends of license; that they may have a fair field and full op portunity to urge all their arguments in favor of their system. I think the idea of my friend from Bay, (Mr. BIR NEY,) to first pass upon the question of submitting this proposition to the peo ple, and then to pass the article, is a very strange one indeed. He proposes that we shall first ascertain whether we will submit this proposition sepa rately, and then afterwards pass upon it. My friend from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) says that if he is obliged to vote upon this proposition as it now stands, he will be obliged to vote against his own proposition. I tell my friend in all frankness, that is exactly what we want; not that they shall do it blindly, but that they should do it understandingly; vote for this proposition as it now stands, and against license. We hope they will do so; we hope that they will be converted to our views upon this subject, and do it-without any restraint upon their feelings. Mr. HOWARD. I do not wish to argue this question; my mind has been made up fully, and I have not been driven from the conclusion I came to, to vote to concur in the amendment of the committee of the whole, by any charges that the friends of this amendment were committed to take it up at any particular time, or in any particular manner. It will be remembered that a proposition was made by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) some time ago, when this subject was under consideration in committee of the whole, to defer action upon this proposition, in consequence of the absence of several members of the Convention, who wished to be here, and who wished to have an opportunity to vote upon this question. Among others, the name of Judge GOODWIN was mentioned, as being then absent, performing official duties. It was stated by several members at that time, that they did not propose to act upon the question of submission then, but were willing that that question.should be deferred until a subsequent period. I myself stated that was my idea. But while making my statement, suspicion was aroused on the part of some of my friends that I had committed myself to an agreement to take this subject up in some particular manner, and at a particular time. The report of our debates will show that I again took the floor, and stated specifically that I did not commit myself to any such agreement. How does this matter now come before the Convention? The amendment of the committee of the whole is now before us. The question of sepa rate submission has been deferred, and we propose still to defer it, until the propriety of such a measure can be properly discussed. The committee of the whole have been discharged from the further consideration of the article on the legislative department, and the sections of the article up to this one have been passed upon by this Convention. Gentlemen now come in here with a proposition which is opposed to this amendment, just the negative of this ..f :96 Co~sTITUT#O~AL CONSENT' ION. Fnaa;y: prohibitory clause, and say to us that they offer that as the platform of their temperance principles, a provision securing a well governed license system; or at least a proposition which shall submit to the people the question whether they will have prohibition or license. And accompanying that proposition they present for our consideration their programme of license. I apprehend that the friends'of prohibition have now reached the time when we can very properly, not only carry through by the votes of a majority of this Convention, if we have a majority, the provision as reported from the committee of the whole, but we may negative the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne,.(Mr. LOTHROP,) without any bad faith on our part, and without depriving gentlemen on the other side of an opportunity to discuss their measures, and to sp ak against the proposition we advocate. We have an opportunity now to discuss it, so far as the merits of the report of the committee are concerned, and that is all that is pending. If they seek to substitute their proposition in any manner which the rules of the Convention permit them to do, we are ready to meet them. But for them to set up the cry of bad faith, if we press this matter to a vote now, and by that cry seek to compel us to withdraw from the field, until they can get their proposition in an affirmative shape before the Convention, and then to palm it off as a substitute for our proposition, I am not willing to do it. I propose to plant myself upon the broad platform of prohibition. If I and other members of this Convention who favor that proposition are out voted, let it be done squarely and fairly, and not by the cry of. bad faith, not by any indirect method, not by skir mishing and resorting to parliamentary tactics, forcing us; from the ground we now occupy. I am unwilling to con cede that I am ready, as one of the members of this Convention, to meet the question of license or of separate submission at any time. I deny em phaticallythat I have myself ever com mitted myse~lf,or that any member of this Conventionho will vote as I will has in any way com~+dted himself, to any promise or agreement that before we consider our propoison, the :amendment reported from the,om mittee of the whole, we will go into a full discussion of the proposition sub mitted to us by the friends of lie nse. There has been no such agreement. I do not say that the friends of pro hibition here are the only friends of temperance, for that would be foolish. I do not stand here to say that the most ardent friends of the license' systemr are not temperance men. It is enough for me to sathatt I am in favor of pirohibition. It s enough for me to say that the people of Michigan have said once, twice and thrice, by overwhelming majorities, that they are in favor of prohibition. They have said it directly and indirectly, until by the power of a majority of twenty-five thousand, prohibition was placed upon the statute books as the law of the State. I say it.is too late in the day for any man to deny that the people are awake on this subject. It is too late in the day for those who are 6pposed to prohibition to say that they have not had time to wake up the peop]e, and the members of this Convention, to the true state of afairs here. What would be the result of the action proposed by the getleman from Wayne, (Ir. LOTIIROP)? It will defer action upon the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, and substitute for discussion at this time the proposition he has submitted. The gentleman from'. Bay(Mr. BIRNEY) says,'If youdonottakethatcourse; if you do not give us a full' and fair chance, and suspend your proposition, and substitute ours in place of it, we will give you to understand that before this article can pass this Convention, you must -get fifty-one votes." Now, that same threat might have been used against any other article in the.Con stitution. As one of the advocates of this amendment, I say to those gen tlemen they can take that course. Mr. BIRNEY. Will the gentleman allow me to correct him? Mr. HOWARD. Certainly. Mr. BIRNEY. The gentleman has misinterpreted my remarks. I did not make any remark in the nature of a threat, or design any remark I made to be considered in any such light. I said that the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) could get this provision incorporated in this article by twenty six or twenty-seven votes, but that it would require fifty-one votes to pass the article. If his proposition had been considered as a separate report, it would have required fifty-one votes to pass it. Mr. HOWARD. Is not that trie [in egard to every one of these articles? If any of them lack fifty-one votes, then we should have to fail back on the Constitution as it stands. For one, and I know that I speak the sen:tincuts of many good men in this stat@, I would rather see every other provision swept from this Constitution, that we amr. framing, than to lose that ptrovision which the temperance men of. this Statebave already gained. I would rather see the question of suf frage go by the board, I would rather see every other question go by the board, than to submit one iota in regard to this, or to take a single backward step in this reform. If we lack fifty-one votes to carry this proposition, which by a fair, legitimate course in this Convention, we have to-day the power to place in this article, then let the article rfil. For one, I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the merits of this question now. I disclaim entirtly ny intention to act unfairly in this matter. I say that when we come to vote upon the proposition now before the Convention, we shall be treating the oppoSition with entire fairness, if we vote according to our opinions on this matter.. - Mr.'MUSSEY. There has been so0me pretty pointed intimations here that there is a lack of good faith somewhere in regard to this matter. But -I must say that I do not see that the facts fully justifyiany sUch intimation. It has been repeated several times that it was agreed, when, the matter was before the committee of the whole, that this amendment was to be attached to this section with the understanding that, at some future time, it was to come up as if offered forthe first time. I:submit to every gentleman on this floor whether it is not now in precisely that position.? Suppose that the gen tleman from Lenawee (Mr. BILLS) had declined to offer this proposition as an amendment to the section until to-day, would it -have been in any different position from what it is at the present time? The question is whether tfhe Convention will attach this amendment to this section. I submit that it is now before the Convention as much a dis tinct proposition as thoigh it had been made to-day for the first time. The next question as I understand it, is the pr~position of the gentleman from Beryrien, (Mr...ALExANDER.) Whether the substitute offered: by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LO0HRoP,) is ax substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEX ANDER,) or ak6ubstitute for the amend ment reported from the committee of the whole, I do not exactly understand. But I apprehend it makes no particiilar difference. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTHROP,) moved his proposition as a substitute for the amendment made in committee of the whole. Mr. MUSSEY. That is the way I supposed the matter stood, for I did not see very well how it couid be placed in any other position. Is there any thing unfair, unjust, or anything'ike a want of good faith in that regard? 'cos TON.ATI CO'TNTION. I ri 96 I ju *'26, 180;7. ~...,....=...... iY'-AT]L!AND: Mr. LOTHROP. WiUlthe gentleman allow me a moment? Mr. MUSSEY. Yes sir. Mr. LOTHROP. - Had the provision in regard to prohibition been now moved here for the first time, as a: provision to be introduced into this article, would it not have been competent for me to offer my-proposition as a substitute? Mr. MUSSEY. I thinki —it would. Mr. LOTHROP. Most unquestionably it would. Then the question would have arisen upon this, proposition moved for the first time, and upon my-substitute. Do we ask anything except to put it in that positidn, w-here members of the Convention may vote either in favor of that proposition or of that substitute?.. N r. MUSSEY. That was the very point I was going to make, in regard tothe'proposition of tie-gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHfOP,) just of fered as a substitute for the amend' ment which was moved by the gentle man from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS.) The PRESIDENT. Perhaps'the Chair had better state his under'stand ing of this matter, in order that':the members of the Convention may un'derstand it. The question came up before the Convention in regard to concurring-in the amendment made in committee of the whole. The' gentle manfrom Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) moved an amendment to that amend ment. The gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHEOP,) offered a'substitute for the entire amendment reported from- the committee of the' whole, The gentleman from Berrien' arose and offered to withdraw his amendment to the- amendment of the committee of the whole, and allow-the question to be taken upon the substitute. The gentleman: from St. Clair, (Mr. Co GEi,) objected -to'his doing so, and-the Chair stated that objection having been made to the gentleman withdrawing his amendment, it' could not be with:a:wn;- that consequently the first question must be upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Berrien, and the substitute of the gentleman 'from Wayne would be'held in abeyance untilMafter the amendment of the gen tleman from Berrien had been disposed of. Therefore, the first question will be upon the-amendment offered by the gentleman from Berrien to the' amend-' ment reported' from the committee.'of the whole. -After that. question has been taken, the'question will recur upon thle substitute offered by the gen tltiman from Wayne, for -the amenid ment reported from the committee'of the whole.'''' Mr. MuSSEY. That is preoisetly as I uinderstand the question:. I: was therefore'a little surprised' at the constant reiteration of the remark, that there was a want of good faith and fairness in the matter, and an intimation that this question had been placed in a position where it could not be properly discussed. "Mr.'LOTHROP. That explanation is'e'ntirely satisfacto6ry, and- I accept it; it"shows most ample good0faith. M'r. MUSSEY. -If tthe substitute can be discussed properly while the amendment of the-'gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. AL.EXANDER,) is pending, I- should'say that those who are in 'favor of the substitute can discuss it in all its bearings,' both in-regard to prohibition an'd -in regard to' license, and also in connection with submitting this iatter 4separately to the people.'I think there is a wide'field' for discussion, one in- which,- it- seems to me,- any one can have the opportunity of ex expressmg his -views' futlly and fairly on this point, i ever-y possible conceivable Dway. I do' not' see that there is any lack'of good faith, or that there'is any difficulty in'the way.: I do not wishto discuss the main questien, for -1 am prepared to vote upon it at any time. Mr. PARSONS. Mr. President, [cries of "qestion " question i!"] I rise simply to call the previous ques tion.' "Mr. CONGER. I apprehend'that-in regard to the am-endmeint of the gen tleman from -'Berrien (Mr. ALExANDER) there is no-: need of' calling the previous question.'I shall certainly oppose the previous question. in regard to the substitute.; Mr. PARSONS. I will not call- the previous question. Mr. CONGER.' The first question before the Convention, as stated by the Chair, is' upon: the':amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, to strike out theword "nor,"'and to'insert in:lieu thereof the words- "The Legislature shall not." That, I believe, is a prop osition satisfactory to everybody. The !mxain proposition will remain just as it' ' is now. In my'opinion, whether it re-; miams in the Constitution to' be- sub-' w,itted with the rest{ of it,' or -whetheri it is submitted separately,- the amend ment of the gentleman from ~Berrien should be made for this simple reason: I think the committee on arrangement and p'hraseology weuld desire to have; :this a separate section, e,ven'if we do not :decide to submitit" separately to the people. Therefore,, in regard to the -amendment of the-.gentleman: from ,.:err,ien, i; asit alters' nothing, butfm'ierely perfects the proposition, I think ther.e c''an"'be'no occ'asion for'question or'dis-' p'ite.e,and Ai jii~tlimati~on has Aidngiven that the I pirevious q~uesioni will- be Pmorted Mid caried, so as to cut of debate upon the'two' propositions which'would then properly'be before this Convention. I shall oppose it until a reasonable time has" been had, so long as I have power to vote against it. I say to those'gentlemen" of this' Conventionwho act'with me politically, and I say t-o' the frie'nds of prohibition, that if' they shal cut off debate by the prenous question, against the wishes of' /any gen'tlemanin 'this Convention, who desires to express feely and fuLly "his views and his "reasonsfor his action, so that they may go upon our record of debates, they -will do an' injustice to' themselves, and' an injury to the cause they advocate before' the' people of the State of'Michigan. Onall' occasions and under all circumstan'ees, in the Legislature and in'this Convention, I'am one':of those who are not afraiad to have free speech and free discussion upon every question. And'unless it "descends' to mere' idle dalliance, and to mere fugitive talk, this Convention should never take away from the humblest -member here, -the right to express his- opinions and" have them spread upon the'record; and I can prophecy that that'will never be done. Mr. ALEXANDER. The effect of the amendment which I offered, is simply'what has been stated bythe gen tleman'from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) to so'separate the provision from the see ion to which'it is attached, that it may become a separate section by itself. When I accepted the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOT#ROP,) in lieu of my amendment, or rather when I offered to withdraw my amendment in order that the ques tion might be taken on his proposition, I'did so at the'suggestion of friends who sit near me. But I immediately saw the impracticability of my doing so. I intended before this time, if I could have got an opportunity, to have'stated that it would Dbe impracticable-in:carrying out the object I had in view. I there fore do not desire to accept the substi tute, but I- wish'the action of the Convention distinctly upon the propo sition I-have submitted. Mr. HOLMES. I move that -the Convention now adjourn....: - Mr. T. G. SMITH. Will the gentle man withdraw'-his motion for a mo ment? Mr. HOLMES. I will do so. MrH. T. (. SMITH.:I move thattlhe ' fuirther consideration of the article en' titled "Legslative, Department," be postponed until Wednesday, ~the': 31st inst., and be-made the special order for 'that day. Thisis FEriday:night; quite ' a number of gentlemen: here'have'ob, tained -leadve of aI'ab ce,:and desire to ,go away'to-:i6Tow. - I' believe it is I t i 1 i 398 CONSTITUTIONAT, CONVENTION. within the knowledge of every gentleman here, that on Saturdays and Mondays we usually have the smallest attendance here. It is evident that this question will give rise to the most important discussion which there will be during our sessions. I think, therefore, it would be better to set this subject down for consideration for some day next week. The PRESIDENT. This same question was acted upon a few moments since, upon a motion to make this the special order for Wednesday next. Mr. T. G. SMITH. My motion is different from the one which was voted on a short time since. My motion is that the further consideration of the article entitled " Legislative Department," be postponed until Wednesday next. The motion which was acted on a short time since was to postpone the fuirther consideration of this prohibitory clause until that time. Mr. BIRNEY. Is a motion to postpone in order, while there are two amendments pending? The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that the motion to postpone is nUw in order, and will take precedence of any amendment that may be pending. The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. T. G. SMITH, to postpone the further consideration of the article entitled " Legislative Department," until Wednesday next,and make it the special order for that day; and upon a division, ayes 34, noes 30, it was agreed to. Mr. MORTON. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at twenty minutes past five o'clock p. m.,) the Convention adjourned. FIFTY-SECOND DAY. SATURDAY, July 27, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mr. MCINTIRE. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. HOWARD. I regret to be under the necessity of asking for leave of absence until Monday next.- I had not intended to ask for some time for leave of absence; but I have received a letter this morning which makes it necessary for me to go away to-day. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. F. C.- WATKINS asked and ob tained leave of absence until Monday next. Mr. ALEXANDER asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for Mr. BIRNEY, on account of indisposition. MIr. HARRIS asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. VANVALXENBURGH and himself, for this afternoon. Mr. PRINGLE asked and obtained leave of absence for himrnself, for to-day, after ten o'clock this morning. PETITIONS. Mr. HULL presented the petition of H. Wetherbee, H. E. Clute, Chas. Tonda, and 16 other men, and Mary Hall, Mary R. Illenden, and 15 other women, citizens of St. Joseph county, praying for-equal suffrage for both men and women; which was referred to the committee on elections. ARTICLES ON THE ORDER OF THIRD READING. The PRESIDENT. The business now in order is the consideration of articles on the order of third reading. The first article on that order is the article entitled "Bill of Rights." Mr. PRINGLE. I would inquire if there is any other article on that order? The PRESIDENT. There is; the article entitled,State Officers." Mr. PRIN GLE. Ithink it would be a good plan to leave these artices to be finally passed at some future time. We may- wish hereafter to make some changes in the several articles, in order to harmonize them with each other; to transfer sections from one article to another, etc. With-that view, I move that the articles now on the order of third reading be laid upon the table for the present. The motion was agreed to. EDUCATION. Mr. UTLEY. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. WINSOR in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Education." PRIMARY SCHOOLS. The CHAIRMAN. When the committee of the whole last had this article under consideration, the third section had been reached. That section is as follows: "The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools by which each district in the State shall maintain a school, free of charge for tuition, at least four months in the year. Any school district neglecting to maintain such school shall be deprived, during the ensuing year, of its proportion for that yeawof the income of the primary school lund, and of 1l funds arising from taxes for the support of schools. The instruction shall in all cases be in the English language." The gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALEENBURGH,) moved to amend the first sentence of the section by striking out the word "four," and inserting in lieu thereof, the word " six," before the words " months in the year." A division of the question was called for, and the first vote, therefore, will be upon striking out the word "four." Mr. WILLIAMS. I believe the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HUSTON,) offered a substitute for this section. Before the question is taken upon striking out the word " foul," I would ask that the substitute be read, so that the whole question may be fairly before the minds of members of this committee. The substitute offered by Mlr. HIusTON was read as follows: "The Legislature shall provide for a system or primary schools by which each district in the State shall maintain a school, free of charge tor tuition, at least eight months in the year. The instruction shall in all cases be in the English language.' The question was'then taken upon the motion to amend the original section by striking out the word "four," in the first sentence, and it was not agreed to. The question then recurred upon the substitute offered by Mr. HUSTON. Mr. STOCKWELL. Before the question is taken upon the substitute, I desire to offer an amendment to the section as it now stands. I move to amend the section, by striking out the words, " and of all funds arising from taxes for the support of schools." From the reading of this section as it is reported from the committee on education, if I rightly understand it, a school district which shall fail to maintain a school free of charge for tuition for a certain number of months in the year, will be deprived of all funds arising from taxation for the support of schools, in addition to being deprived of its portion of the primary school fund. As I understand it, that would deprive them of the mill tax which is raised in the district, and which is assessed upon the property of the district for the special benefit of the schools in the district. I cannot see any propriety in depriving the district of that portion of the fund which has been collected from the property of the district, for the purpose of supporting the schools in that district. It seems to me it would be unjust to deprive the district of that fund. It should be allowed to remain in the treasury, subject to the order of the district, whenever schools shall be taught there. For that reason, I have offered my amendment. - Mr. GIDDINGS. I shall vote for the amendment proposed, but I would I.1. -1 I I "... - I Saturday, 299 Jul;,'' - _ S.' prefer to have it cover more ground. For one, I desire to strike out the whole clause, which is as follows: "Any ;school district neglecting to maintain such school, shall be deprived, during the ensuing year, of its proportion, for that year, of the income of the primary school fund, and of all funds arising from taxes for the support of schools." I do not believe that we will get any more people educated, by undertaking to enforce that kind of penalty. I think it is entirely impracticable, and when attempted to be carried out, will not have the effect that the committee thought it might have, in securing the keeping of schools. I can very readily see that where a school district fails to keep up a school for four months, from any little trouble, from any collision or other difficulty there, it would be unfair to prevent them from having this fund. I cannot vote for any such provision. Mr. BILLS. I do not agree with the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. Giddings.) It seemsto me thatif a law be made for the purpose of securing an end, it should be so made as to secure that end. The proposition here is that if a district fail to keep up a school, that is, if the fund for that purpoie shall not be expended for the purpose for which it is raised, and for which it has been appropriated by the State, then the primary school fund or any other fund raised by tax shall be kept from the district; that as they have not used it for the purpose for which it was raised and appropriated, they shall not be entitled to it. It seems to me there is no injustice in that. Suppose that for a series of years a school district should neglect to maintain'a school, and to expend the funds which are yearly appropriated for the benefit of schools in that district, but allows them to accumulate, should that fund still be allowed to that district? If they will not expend the fund for the purpose for which it is raised and ap propriated, then why should they be allowed to have it? Mr. GIDDINGS. WVill the gentle man allow me a moment? Mr. BILLS. Yes, sir. Mr. GIDDINGS. The point is this; "any school district neglecting to main tain such school shall be deprived, during the-ensuing year, of its propor tion for that year of the income of the primary school fund," etc. The sec tion says nothing about the use of any of the fund, whether it shall have been used, or whether it shall have been kept for future use. The section says, that if the school is not maintain ed for a certain length of time, then the district shall not have the fund. Mr. BILLS. I understand that, I believe. I say that if the primary school fund of the State has been distributed to the districts of the State for the year, and any district shall fail to maintain its school.and use the fund for the purpose for which it was raised, that is, for the maintenance of the school, the provision of the section as it now stands, requiresthat for the en suing year they shall be deprived of that fund. Now, it seems to me that is just; the fund was raised for a direct and specific object; if it is not used by the district for that object, why should they have it? A law which does not seek to enforce itself, is really only a recommendation, it is not a law. A law is a law when it enforces itself. If it provides nothing whereby it can be enforced, it is hardly entitled to be called a law. It seems to me there is no justice in appropriating a fund to a school district for the specific object of maintaining a school in that district, and then allowing the district to neg lect to maintain the school. It seems to me that this is a wise provision. Perhaps I may be mistaken, but that is my view of it. Mr. MUSSEY. I cannot see the force of the argument in favor of the amendment now pending. The gen tleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL,) says that the reason why he proposes to strike out the portion of the sec tion which he has indicated, is that the fund to which that portion relates, is obtained from a tax levied upon the people of the district. That may be or may not be; it depends upon how rich or how poor they are. I do not understand that all the two-mill- tax , raised in any district, is appropriated to that district; but that it is distribu ted pro rata, in proportion to the num ber of scholars in the district. Mr. STOCKWELL. I think the ; gentleman is mistaken I think the E amout assessed on the property is ap portioned back according to the prop erty in the district. Mr. MUSSEY. I differ with the gentleman; I think I have made that * distribution myself as many times as I have fingers and toes. Mr. HENDERSON. How recently? ; Mr. MUSSEY. Within three or four years. Mr. HENDERSON. I think it must -have been longer ago than that. Mr. MUSSEY. Well, say in 1861. H However that may be, the primary r school fund is just as much the prop erty of that district as the two mill tax, because it belongs to the people of the I entire State. The interest of the money - that accrues from the sales of the pub lic lands belongs to the entire people of the State. Any citizen or resident 1of the State who has any interest at all in the State, has a right of property in that fund, if there is any such thing as an individual right of property in it.' I think the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) has very well lsid that a law without a penalty, without any power to enforce itself, is not a law at all; it is simply advisory. We had a provision in the old Constitution which required a school to be kept up three months in each year, and it has always been found very difficult to enforce that provision. How can it be enforced? Can there be no law passed by which it can be enforced, so that each district shall be required and compelled to maintain a free school for three months? The course which has been adopted, and by which we have sought to enforce that law, was to make this the penalty, so that if a district does not maintain the school, it shall be deprived of its proportion of the public money, not only that derived from the primary school fund, but that also which is derived from taxation. It does appear to me that is the best way;- there is a penalty provided which enforces itself.L Without such a penalty, I think it is of no use for us to undertake to provide in the Constitution, or in the law, that every district shall be required to maintain a free school for any given time during the year. Unless there is a penalty which can be enforced, I apprehend that such a law will be a dead letter. Therefore, I shall be opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL,) and if it shall be adopted, I shall then favor the striking out of the remainder of the clause. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I differ widely with my friend from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY.) I think I can see distinctly the justice of the amendment. I am in favor of retaining the penalty against the school districts which do not maintain a school for four months, as provided in this section. I was in favor of extending the time to six months. I think four months a very short time to have a school in each district. The clause reads: "Any school district neglecting to maintain such School, shall be deprived, during the ensuing year, of its proportion for that year of the income of the primary school fund," etc. I think if they are deprived of the primary school fund, that it will be a sufficient inducement to them to keep up their school. And I think it would be unjust to deprive them of those funds, which are raised in the district by a tax on the property of the district. I think it would be carrying the matter too far to say that they shall not be entitled to the funds which they have themselves raised. I hope, therefore, b i s t DEBATES A WD PROC'P,'P.DINGS. July 27, 1867. 40 audy that the amendmenttoffered by the gentleman from Lenawee (lr. STocKWELL) will prevail. I thitk the penalty will be sufficient, if we deprive. them of the primary school fund. Mr. UTLEY. I have but a: word or two to say on this proposition. I wish members of this committee to remember that this is a general principle, which must be applied to all- parts of the State alike, as well in the newer and sparsely settled portions of the State as in the older counties in the State. I hope the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWVELL,) will prevail for this reason; if the provision in this section as it now stands shall become the law of the land, I hardly see how a school district in the northern part of the State, failing to keep up a school for four months of the year, can ever start a school again in the course of human events. It is perhaps well enough to deprive a district so failing, of that part of the school fund which is properly under the control of the Legislature and of the State, and which arises from the interest of the primary school fund. But that part of the fund which the individual inhabitantcs of the district themselves pay into the treasury, and which remains permanently in the township, and subject to the control of the township officers, should be left, it seems to me, to the district, and to the township officers, to be paid over to the defaulting district whenever it shall again start its school in operation. People in the sparsely settled portions of the State, depend mainly on the two mill-tax for the support of their schools. In the township where I reside, our schools have been maintained from four to eight months in the year. -Mr. BILLS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mir. UTLEY. With pleasure. Mr. BIL'LS. When a school district fails to keep up its school in any year, has it not already on hand a year's fund for the support of schools? Mr. UTLEY. I think not; that is the very object of inserting here the words ",and of funds arising from taxes for the support of schools." Mr. BILLS. A single word further. The provision of this section, as it noW stands, is, that if any district shal neglect for any one year to maintain a school, they shall for the ensuing year be deprived of the school fund. If I understand it, that leaves in the dis trict a year's fund which has not been expended; at least, that is my view of it. Mr. UTLEY. I do not see it in the. light in which thie gentleman from Leae (M -. BILLS) pt. n..... -the defaulting district'should maintain a; scho0oli for a second year,' there'must' be' one year's time, I take it, during:, which' that district would receive no support from the' primary school fund, or from the fund raised by taxation,: according to- the provisions ot this section. If they failed to keep a school last year, this year they must comply with the provisions of the law, and maintain a school; consequently, it leaves them one year without the school fund. I hold that the district should not be divested of that fund for one year, that when the school again starts the money in the hands of the treasurer of that. district should be devoted to that school. I hold that the State has really no right to control this fund raised by taxes in 'the district. It should be left there in the treasury; ifthere is no school kept, of course, no money will be drawn out for the district; but whenever the shool is kept, that money should be allowed to be used by the district. The primary school fund is controlled here at the Capital, by the.Superintendent of Public Inst, uction, and is a State fund. If a district fails to support a school for a certain number of months, of course the: Superintendent gives that district nothing for the support of schools. But not so with the fuds in a township. That money is raised, and is in the hands of the township treasurer, whether the school is kept or not. Ithinkyou will carry that provision too far, if you preclude the district from using that fund, whenever they comply with' the law. Mr. HARRIS. I think that one assumption made by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) and I have heard it made by others here, is wholly unwarranted. It has been assumed in this discussion:that if a district does not maintain a school for four months, it has all the fund which has been appropriated on hand, and that fund can be applied to the school0 in the district for the next year.: Now I do not understand this matter so at all;. A district may maintain a school for three months, or for three months and three weeks, or even for-the: whole four months lacking one day, and it may expend all its money; still it will not comply with the requirements of this section. In that case the district could not report that it had maintained a school for four months.:.It may only lack one day of the four months; but according to the provisions of this section it will-not be entitled to any money for school purposes the next year, because it has failed to maintain a school for the full four months. -It seems-to me that is unjust.: So far as I know aanything about our schools, the public moneye is all expended every year. I never knew an instance where it-was not. I have known an instance where a school was not taught the entire four months; but I have never known an instance where the public shool money was not all expended during the year. Mr. ALEXANDER. I desire to offer a substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL.) I move to substitute for his amendment an amendment to strike out all of section three, from and after the words "free of charge for tuition." We have heard a great deal said heretofore.about unnecessary legislation in the Constitution. It seems to me that if there is any section or any article in the Constitution that has unnecessary legislation in it, this is one of them. The portion of the section which I propose to retain reads asfollows: "The Legislature shall provide for a system of primaryschools, by which each district in the State shall maintain a school free of charge for tuition." I submit that that is all the legislation which is necessary on the subject in the Constitution. It seems to me that in this great and growing State, with all its diversified interests, it would be wisdom to leave all the legislation contained: in the latter part of this section to the Legislature themselves to transact. Let the -Legislature fix the time for which each school district shall be compelled to maintain a school free of charge; and let them also fix a penalty if they choose to do so.' It seems to me that it isfoy for us to assume to legislate definitely on this matter, when it can be left to the Legislature without any danger. It would be unwise for us to do so, inasmuch as there is no question which can be raised in regard to this Subject about which the Legislature would be likely to be influenced by personai or sectional motives. There is no railroad question in this matter, no corporation qu stion, no party question in it. No question can ever be raised in regard to it, by which there would be any danger of unjust legislation. Then, again, it may be necessary hereafter that there should be different systems in some respects applied to different parts of the State. Whileit might be necessary to provide a penalty in order to secure the maintenance of a free school in: some parts of the State, that might not be necessary in the other portions of the State. A great many members of this Convention have, I have myself, great doubts as to the propriety of attaching this penalty to this -provision. As I remarked, when this subject was under cow.deratZio.n before,: I do not suppose / co -N,,AT,-.CON-V,]M-Nrk ON. Sat.ur.da,y, 400 Il I7 1867..D.BA.E....I... II... I... II. 1.. I -I I I - it- would be proper —to deprive every district of its share of the school fund, which might fail to maintain a school for four, six, eight or nine months in the year, as may be required; to rob them of what little they may have of the two mill tax, or other tax, and give it to the older districts which are better able to support schools. I hope, therefore, that my substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL,) will be adopted. Mr. DANIELLS. I would suggest to the gentleman from Berrien to add to his substitute the words, "for such time as may be provided by law." Mr. WIILLA-RD. I fear that some members of this committee may be laboring under a misapprehension, because of remarks that- have been made by gentlemen who have spoken on this question. I think it might be inferred from those remarks, that the committee on education have reported a provision different from that which is contained in our present Constitution. In regard to the funds included in this forfeiture clause, as it has been termed, they are the same precisely that are contained in the present Constitution; there is no alteration whatever. Section five of the article on education in the present Constitution, reads thus: "A school shall be maintained in each school district at least three months in each year. Any school district neglecting to maintain such school, shall be deprived for the ensuing year of its proportion of the income of the primary school fund, and of all funds arising trom taxes for the support of schools." As has been already remarked, the apportionment from the primary school fund is not a very large amount to any one district. If that is to serve as an incentive to the different districts of the State to sustain schools, it will not be a very great incentive. I believe the apportionment to each scholar is now only forty-five or forty-six cents. I have inquired at the department of public instruction, for the purpose of getting information from that department in regard to this matter, whether the funds other than the primary school fund should be included in this penalty of forfeiture. It is the opinion expressed by the deputy superintendent at least, I have not seen the superintendent, that it is quite important that the other funds should also be included. I will say- that this is also in accordance with my own views. The statutes of the State upon this subject have been made to conform very nearly to the provision of the Constitution in this respect, though not precisely. Section 107 of the primary school law, which-has existed for some years, reads as follows: - The supervisor shall also assess upon the taxable property ot his township, two' mills Vol. 2-No. 51. upon each dollar of the valuation thereof,: In each year, and report -the aggregate valua. tion of each district to the township clerk; and so much of the said tax as the qualified electors -of said township shall decide -— by a majority vote, at the annual township meeting, shall be applied to the purchase of books for the district or township libraries, according to the provisions of law, and -the remainder shall be apportioned by the township clerk, to the districts in which it was raised for the support ot Whools therein; and all moneys'collected by virtue of this act, during the year, on any property not included in any organized- district'or in districts not having three months' school by a qualified teacher shall be apportioned to the several school districts of said township, in the same, manner as the primary school moneys are now appor. tioned." I suppose, however, that in that- distribution of the two mill tax, the distribution has been made to the different districts of the township, in the same manner that the primary school fund has been apportioned, for that is the direction of the law. "All moneys collected by virtue of this' act during the year on any property not included in any organized district, or in districts not having three months' school by a qualified teacher shall be apportioned to the several school districts of each township, in the same manner as the primary school moneys-are now apportioned." Mr. UTLEY. I would inquire: of the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WILLARD,) who makes that apportionment? Mr. WILLARD. The township clerk. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I would ask the gentleman from what year he reads the law? Mr. WILLARD. I read from the statute which has been in existence for some years, and which was -'amended last winterso as to conform more-fully to the provisions of the Constitution. The paragraph of the section as amended, reads as follows: " All moneys collected by virtue of this act during the year, dn any property not included in any organized district, or in districts not having threemonths' —school by a qualified teacher, shall be apportioned to the several school districts of said township, in the samd manneras the primary school moneys :are now apportioned." Mr. WILLIAMS. I would call the: attention of the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WILLARD,) to the distinction which should be drawn in this section under consideration. It is: expressly provided that the school shall be maintained free of charge for tuition, for four months in the year. Ini the present Constitution the -provision upon that subject is not to that effect; Mr. WILLARD. I understand that; but I wish the committee to under-. stand precisely the nature of thechan-, ges which the committee on education have made in this article in regard to primary schools. Mr. P. D. WARNER. My: understanding is, I may be mistaken, how ever, that the law which the gentleman has read, is not the law: governing the apportionment of the mill money at the present time. I am of the opinionand I1, know it is the practice in Oakland county at least, and I think it is by virtue of the statute-that the mill money goes directly without any apportionment, to the district in which it is raised. MrI. IENDERSON, I think -there is a misapprehension in regard to this act from the manner in which it is punctuated. Thegentleman from Oak: land, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) is correct. Al money collected by virtue of the act, on property not included in any organized district is apportioned to-the several school districts of the township, in the same manner as the primary school fund is now apportioned; but all money collected on property in an organized district, goes back to the district: in which it was raised. The amendment which was made last winter, adds to the money raised upon property not in any organized school district, the money which has been raised in a district where they have failed to keep up a school for three months. Mr. WILLARD. What I wish to say is, that, as regards the forfeiture, the- committee on education have made no change whatever from the provision in the existing Constitution. There would be. no more difficulty in adjusting the Statutes of the State to the provision we have reported, than there has been for the last seventeen years. But there is a difference in regard-to the character of the school which is required to be maintained. By the section under consideration, the school to be maintained must be a free school. But under the existing Constitution, the requirement simply is that they shall maintain a school kept by aqualified teacher, althbugh the words, "by ia qualified teacher," are not contained in the present Constitution. The provision of the present Constitution is, s" a school shall be maintained in each school district, at least three months in each year." - It seems to me that the simple question now before this committee, is whether this change in the character of the school shall be made. Shall we Ltake the provision existing in the present Constitution, simply as a direction or mandate to the Legislature, that a system of primary schools shall be provided for by which a free school shall-be-maintained in each district for four months in each-year; shall we make :that compulsory, or in other words, shallwe provide an alternative, which is equivalent to maliig it compulsory? Are we prepared to take the position, DEBATES AN-D PRO - 401.1 "-ly '27. 1867. 402 CONSTITTIOXAL CONVETION. atllrday, that in each school district thoughout the State, there shall be maintained a school for four months in every year, doing away with the rate bill? I hope that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL,) Will under no circumstances prevail. I should much prefer myself-I do not speak for the rest of the committee on education in that regard-that the existing provisions of the Constitution should remain, than that change should be made. It seems to me that all funds raised in the State, including the two mill tax upon the taxable property of the State, should be expended every year for the support of schools. It is a tax which we levy upon the property of the State for that purpose. We should say to every school district —, Sustain your school, and yqu shall have this tax; but if you do not sustain your school, then the districts which come up to the work and sustain their schools shall have the tax." I think that is not too much for us to ask. We have asked it for the pastseventeen years, and it has worked well. Mr. HENDERSON. Will my colleague allow me to interrupt him a moment? Mr. WILLARD. Yes, sir. Mr. HFNDERSON. My colleague says that we have had this rule for the last seventeen years. -T-h question will arise right here, what was tu se of the amendment made by the Legls lature last winter to the school law? That amendment was, that the money not expended in tha district should go to the other districts. The cause is that an instance of that kind has never been known. Mr. WILLARD. We have asked it in our organic law, and I was not aware that it had not generally been complied with. I believe it ought to be complied with directly, and I think it will be one of the greatest incentives that we can provide for the mainten ance of schools in every district in the State. Mr. SAWYER. In listening to the discussion upon this subject, it has struck me-I do not know how it may strike other members that we have been reasoning from a wrong stand point. We have never yet gone down to what might be considered the foun dation of this subject. I think if we will go to the foundation, we will dis cover that this is not a penalty fixed in this section; that it is not even in the nature of a penalty. To my mind, the section covers the case precisely as it should cover it. So far as the object of taxing for the support of common schools is concerned, our right to tax, and our duty to tax, is founded upon the principle that the good order of society is maintained by it, that general intelligence is increased by it, that the tax levied upon an individual is repaid to him fully and amply in consequence of the society where he lives, and in the whole State, being elevated thereby, and his social condition made much better. Now, to illustrate: take any one neighborhood; the property owners in that neighborhood, as a general thing, send but a small proportion of the scholars who go to school. The tax levied upon the property holders, is for the purpose of elevating the social condition of that neighborhood, and of the State; understand me, not particularly of that neighborhood, but universally of the whole State. Now, inasmuch" as the right to tax an individual is founded upon this principle, that it is not only for his benefit, but for the benefit of the whole State, for the improvement of the social and intellectual standing of the people of the State, then if the particular district in which he lives does not apply the money raised by taxing him, to the purpose and object for which it was raised, then he has a perfect right to claim that the State shall lay out that mo,ley for education in other parts of the State. You have taxed me for the purpose of promoting the universal education of the State; you have taxed nme for the purpose of elevating -the social condition ofthe State. Now, if myneighborhood neglects from any cause whatew to avail itself of the 'funds raised in t-manner for that purpose, then inasmuch~asthe money has been taken from me fordtht purpose, it is the right and the duity of the State to see to it that it shall be laid out in some other place for the purpose for which it was raised. Mr. BLACKMAN. It seems to me there has been considerable discussion here that is foreign to the question All this discussion about how the present statute provides in regard to this matter, it seems to me is foreign to this case. The present Constitution provides distinctly that any district which does not maintain a school for three months in a year, shall be de prived, not only of its proportion of the primary school fund, but also its portion of all other funds raised by taxation for the support of schools. Suppose it to be admitted that the statute does make a different provision in regard to the apportionment of funds; would that have anything to do with our action here? Would it even prevent the Constitution as it stands, from executing itself? I believe it is a principle that the Constitution executes itself, where it does not require any provision to be made by law to carry out the provisions contained in it. It is the law of the State just as much as if it had been passed by the Legislature of the State. This rule after all has no bearing upon the question; it is only in regard to apportioning this tax raised in the township, whether the amount raised in each district shall be apportioned to the district, or whether it shall be apportioned according to the number of scholars in a district; that is all. The question here is, whether the district shall be deprived of its portion of the school fund? if it does not maintain a school; that is an entirely different question. It is urged by some here, that while it may be right and fair to deprive a district of its portion of the primary school fund, it would not be right to deprive it of the-tax which was raised within its own limits. That may look very plausible at first; but how do we get our primary school fund? Is not the interest paid upon it every year, and which is apportioned among the school districts, raised directly or indirectly by a tax upon the people in each district, in exact proportion to the value of the property? Mr. CONGER. No sir. Mr. BLACKMAN. I know there are moneys accruing to the State which are appropriated for this purpose. But we have to raise a direct tax; where there is a deficit in any of these funds we must supply it by a tax directly or indirectly. Therefore, it seems to me that the justice of this is as apparent in the one case as in the other, when we come to the truth of it. Mr. COOLIDGE. Will the'gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. BLACKMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. COOLIDGE. I wish to ask the gentleman where this money which is forfeited by the district, according to the provisions of the Constitution, goes, if it goes anywhere? Mr. BLACKMAN.'I do not know that I understand the question. Mr. COOLIDGE. I understood the gentleman to say that in this matter the Constitution executes itself. Now, I wish to know where, according to the provisions of the Constitution, this fund forfeited by the district goes? Mr. BLACKMAAN. I suppose that if the Constitution is complied with, it is apportioned with the other school fund to the districts which maintain schools. Mr. COOLIDGE. Is there any provision of that kind in the Constitution? Mr. BLACKMAN. The Constitution does not go into details of legislative provision, how this shall be apportioned. It simply says that the 402 .CONSTITUTIONAL CO-N'VENTION. Saturday J'ily~~~~ ~ ~ 27 187 DEAE A- PRCEDNS 4 district shall be deprived of its portion of the fund. The Constitution does not even provide for raising the two mill tax; that is provided for by law. The law provides what shall be done with the money, and it must do so in such a way that it will not conflict with the Constitution. It provides that the money shall be apportioned among the several districts of the township in a certain manner. And when the Constitution steps in and says that a district in a certain event shall be deprived of its proportion of the fund, then of course that goes into the funds of the township to be apportioned to the other districts. Some gentlemen here have discussed this question in the same manner in which some other questions have been discussed here; as if they were here providing for the most extreme exceptions, instead of providing upon general principles in regard to matters as they generally exist. It is asserted here that if a school district should fail to maintain a school by some accident; for instance, if a school-house should be burned down, or the teacher be taken sick, or disease should prevail in the neigborhood so as to prevent the school from being maintained, it would not be right to deprive that district of its portion of the school fund. The gentleman from Oakland (Mr. HARRIS) says, that a district may keep a school for three months and three weeks, and yet, according to this section, it would be deprived of its portion of the school money. Almost all these arguments here base our action on the most extreme exceptional cases, instead of applying it to general principles. Everybody knows that it is impossible to pass any general law by which you will avoid all hardships in every case. We provide by law that, in order to exercise the highest privilege of a citizen, the privilege of voting, a man must go to a certain place in his township, and there cast his vote; he cannot send it by anybody else. Now, suppose we should get up an argument here against that provision; suppose that a man should happen by some accident to break his leg on his way to the polls. Would it not be a great hardship not to allow him to send his vote by some one else? It seems to me that all this argument is founded on that same principle. If there is any difficulty apprehended on the ground that this section requires a school to be kept-free of charge for four months, in contradistinction to the provision of the present Constitution, if there is any difficulty to be apprehended on that ground, if the Convention will just adopt a suggestion I made the other day, it will avoid all that difficulty. Increase the time to six months, for which provision shall be made for a free school; then require a district to keep a school for at least three months, in order to obtain its share of the money. I apprehend that if each district obtains its apportionment this year for a six months' school, and does not use up more than three months of it, it would have enough to carry on the school for three months next year, even if it should receive no money next year. And by carrying on a school next year for three months, it will be entitled to its full share for the year afterwards. It seems to me that all these objections are founded upon extreme exceptional cases, which should be provided for by legislation. Mr. WITHEY. I am rather loth to offer an amendment, by way of a substitute for this section; but I wish to call the attention of the committee to what, it seems to me, would be the correct policy for the State in regard to our primary schools. I do not desire to interfere with the committee who made this report in any material respect. But I have drawn up what seems to me to be a provision which will place this matter just where it ought to be. Before reading what I have drawn up as a substitute for this entire section, I will say that it seems to me we should lay down this principle: every school district in the State ought to maintain a free school for four months in every year. If they ought to maintain a free school for four months in the year, then they ought to be compelled to do it. We should adopt such provisions in this Constitution as will require the Legislature to make provisions which will compel every district to raise by tax a sufficient amount of money, together with the primary school fund, to which the district would be entitled, to maintain such a school. And if the inhabitants of that district, from any cause peculiar to themselves, should refuse to vote such a tax to maintain a free school for four months, then, through the action of the Legislature, and the laws we may have in the State, the courts should be enabled to compel the district to raise the tax. I know that in the newer portions of the State, where, in many cases, there is a portion of the population who are opposed to being taxed to sustain free schools, that class constitute a majority; so far as the votes of these districts are concerned, they control, and you cannot get a vote whereby a free school can be maintained, even for two or three months in the year. Therefore, the residents of those school districts, who would be glad to have a tax imposed sufficient to maintain a free.chool for four months in the year, are not unfrequently entirely deprived of all school privileges, and their children have no school whatever. I know of such instances in the newer portions of the State, and there were such, not many years since, in the county where I reseide. I have, therefore, prepared this substitute for this section: " The Legislature shall provide fo)r a system of primary schools, by which each school district in the State shall maintain a school, tree ot charge tor tuition, at least tour months in the year." That will make it necessary for the Legislature to provide for the maintenance of a free school in each district for at least four months in'the year, making it compulsory upon the district. Give them their proportion of the public moneys, and then put them in such a position that if the inhabitants of the district do not voluntarily do what is necessary, they may in some way be compelled to do it. I offer this substitute for the consideration of this committee. Mr. ESTEF,. I would suggest to the committee that if we are going to make it compulsory upon each district to keep a school at least four months in the year, we should provide some way whereby the school districts in the northern parts of the State shall be provided with qualified teachers. It is a fact, well known to gentlemen living in that section of the State, that it is often very difficult for all of the school districts there to obtain qualified teachers for their schools. I have personally known a great many instances where qualified teachers could not be obtained at any price, for they were not to be found. There were not a sufficient number within the reach of the township, to keep all the schools that it was desirable should be kept. It is not with us there as it is in the older portions of the State. We have not so many young men and young women who are qualified to teach schools, in proportion to the inhabitants, as they have in the older portions of the State. The reason for that is obvious. The inhabitants who move to that section of the country are young; they have not yet arrived at the point where they have so many young men and young women among their number, who are at liberty to teach school, as in the older portions of the State. Aside from all that, there are in the newer portions of the State more young men in proportion than there are young women; and it is not very unfrequently the case that a young woman is taken away from her business of teaching. I have known an instance where a school was commencd, DEBATE'S AND PROCE'PT)INGS. I . Tuly 279 1867.. 403 4O CONSTITUTIONAL GONVENTIO aturda.y, and the teacher got mnarried after- -she had taught but a month or two. -I know they tried a long time to obtain a teacher to teach the remainder of the term; but they failed to do so; they could not find one to- do it. I sent up an amendment the other' day, to strike out from this forfeiture clause these words: "and of all funds arising from taxes for the support of schools." I do not think we should attempt to rob a school district of the money which.it has itself actually paids simply'because it fails to keep::up a school for four months. It seems to methat would be wrong; and I shall therefore support the amendment'of the gentleman from Lenawee, (.Mr' STOCKWELL,) to strike out.. that part of the section. Mr. WILLIAMS. I am in favor of the principle suggested by the gentleman firom Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) in his substitute. But I would ask the Secretary to read the substitute introduced bythe gentleman fromTuscol,(r HUSTON,) when this question was before under consideration in committee of the whole, and also to read the substitute introduced by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. -WITHEY,) in order..that we may be enabled to compare the- two with each other. The SECRETARY read the substitute offered by Mr. HUSTON, as follows: "The Legislature shall provide - for a sys temn of primary schools, by which each, district in the State shall maintain a school free of charge for tuition, at least eight months in the year. The instruction shall in all cases be in the Englishqlanguage." The SECRETARY also read the substi tute offered by Mr. W:ITHrEY, as follows: " The Legislature shall-provide for a systemni Of primary schools, by which-each school district in the State shall maintain a school, free of charge bfor tuition, at least four months in the year." Mr. WITBHEY. I was nothere when this article. was before under consideration in committee of the whole, and was not aware of the substitute offered by the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HUSTON.) I perceive that the ouly difference between his substitute. and mine is, that he proposes that a school shall be maintained for eight months in the year; I propose that a school shall be maintained for four months:in each year I will, therefore,' withdraw my'substitute,. and move to ame nd the substitute offered by the.,gentleman' from Tuscola ( Mr. HUSTON,) by striking out the word "eight," and. iinsertmg the' word "four," before the words cmonths in the year." Mr. WILLIAMS. This is aquestion which will elicit perhaps as much attention and interest throughout the State as any question we may be called upon to consider. Gentlemen have charged that there. is a disposition to avoid the real question at issue. It strikes me at once, distinctly and positively, what- are the distinctive features between the article now under cOnsideration, and the article on -the same subject in the present Constitution. It appears to me that the distinction app p~.,to principally is, that a school shall be kept free of charge for tuition for four months in the year. By the laws adopted under the present Constitu tion,.that principle could not be car ried out. Then the question for conusideration is, is this right?' - In the first place is it in reality right for us to -impose a penalty in, the Constitution? it occurs to me that it is not. While much -has been said in this Convention in reference to the objectionable feaires of the present Constitution, in that they interpose so much legislation, I apprehend we are following the pres ent Constitution at this point in its -most serious aspect, for I consider ithat a most serious aspect when it is a penalty. This section'is in the main purely legislative. Now the Legislature should have the power, and it should be their duty, to enforce the provisions of the Constitution. And whether we say that free schools shall be main tained for four months, or for eight months in the year, we intend when we say it in the Constitution, that the Legislature shall prescribe such pains and penalties upon either the school district, or the officers of the district, as will carry out this requirement of the Constitution. It does not follow that we should attempt to prescribe a penalty here in a manner which cannot afterwards be changed. In other words, we should not make the school district in many cases absolutely re sponsible for that which may be purely the neglect of the district officers. By adopting this penalty provision we twill be depriving the children of the school district of the benefits of edu cation,: because of the neglect perhaps of' the officers of that school district. It may be, it is true, in consequence of the neglect of the school district it self..But under our present law, the school might- fail to be kept without any. neglect on the part of the district, or school officers of the district. In a large portion of our State, our present faind,would not support a competent teacher for four months in the year; it -would not furnish the requisite amount of money to carry on a school for four months in the year. Yet it is proposed to insert here an imperative provision, which cannot be complied with at least under our present laws. It may be said that this section requires the Leg islature to adopt a system which shall enable a district to maintain a school for this length of time. Precisely there is the whole objection to the proposition itself. You provide pains and penalties for the Legislature to eaforce. Why not leave the Legislature to prescribe these pains and penalties? They may be able to devise a better system than this, if not in five years, then ini ten years. Why put in an imperative clause here? The gentleman from Van Buren (Mr. BLACMAN,) says that. we argue this proposition upon exceptional cases. Precisely so, for thereby we show the objections to the principle. He- says a school may be taught -three months and three weeks, and if taught no longer,. the district wll los_e its share of the public money. He says that is the. exception, and as an illustration of his argument he refers to the case of a man who may be on his way to the polls, and may meet with an accident by which his leg is broken, and thereby he would be deprived of-the right to vote. That illustration-simply fails in carrying out the principle. If we should turn around and say t6 the man that he should not only be deprived of his right to vote, because he failed to get to the polls, and in that way neglected to perform his duty to the State, but we will take rom him a cer tain amount of money which he has in his pocket, then the illustration would be complete. Some members argue this proposi tion on the hypothesis that this money is raised by the State. And the gen tleman from Van Buren (Mr.- BLACK MAN,) wants to know-what is the differ ence between the money raised in the school district, and the money derived from the primary school fund. The primary school fund may be raised by taxes, it is true; but the tax is for the purpose of paying an indebtedness from the State to the primary school fund. The State is obliged to pay in terest on that fund; if it has not money for that purpose on hand, then it raises it by tax.r Here again comes the dis tinction between raising a tax upon the State at-large, and raising a tax upon a school district. The two mill tax is not raised upon the State at large. If I should putthe question to the city ofDe troit, "Are you willing that we should spread the two mill tax upon the prop erty of your city for the benefit of schools throughout the State?" they will answer, "',We will take care of the schools in our own territory, and use the two mill tax upon our property for our own schools, as we do now." But on the contrary the interest due from the State to the primary school fund is raised by a tax upon the State at large. Mr. BILLS. Will the gentleman CONS U-TION-AL.'CON ENTION. . AAI X,W Saturdp,y, July~~ ~ ~ 27487 DEAE AN PRCE1IG 4 allow me to make one inquiry of him? Mr. WILLIA[S. Yes, sir. Mr. BILIS. I would inquire whether the primary school fund, which is annually distributed, is not raised upon the taxable property of the State, as much so as the money which is raised in the school districts, and returned to those school districts? Mr. WILLIAMS. The distinction is just here; in the first place the primary school money is money due from the State, in the first instance, to the primary school fund. That money is collected upon the State at large, by a tax spread throughout the State at large, and is distributed not upon the valuation of property but upon the number of children between the ages of five and twenty years of age. Mr. BLACKMAN. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Mr. WILLIAMS. Very well. Mr. BLACKMAN. In-the first place, is not this fund to pay the interest of the primary school fnnd, and which is raised by a tax at large, raised in the same proportion upon each of these several localities that the two mill tax is? Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir. Mr. BLACKMAN. It is raised on the equalized valuation of the assess ment roll. Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. BLACKMAN. And each man pays his proportion according to the assessed valuation of his property in every district and township, just as much as he does on the two-mil tax. Mrl. WILLIAMS. I want the gen tleman to understand the distinction I am trying to make. Perhaps I do not make myself clear; perhaps the gentle man understands it, and perhaps he does not. -If not, then it may be be cause I fail to make myself clear, or because he does not understand a clear statement. For instance, in the county of Wayne, and in the city of Detroit, the aggregate valuation of property in propprtion may far exceed the num ber of scholars. The city of Detroit can, by the same amount of taxation, support far better schools than we can in the rural districts, with the same ratio of taxation. Mr. BLACKMAN. Will the:gentle man allow me one word? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes sir. Mar. BLACKMAN. I'underst and all that perfectly well. But is not that a different rule of apportionment, instead of a different rule of taxation? Mr. WILLIAMS. That is what I said. One is an apportionment upon the scholar, and the other is an appor tionment upon the valuation. We col lect a two mill school tax directly in the district for the support of schools. It is here proposed to take that money so collected, from the district entirely, in case of failure to keep up a school for four months in the year. SMr. BLACKMAN. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him again? Mr. WILLIAMS. I cannot stop to be catechised in this way. I propose to go through with my argument lnow; I certainly have answered questions as long as I think it is necessary. I simply say that while I would strike out the whole of this forfeiture clause and leave the Legislature to provide whatever may be necessary in the way of penalties, still I do think there is a difference in favor of the proposition suggested by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL.) But I will not vote for that, because I am opposed to the entire principle of putting into the Constitution this clause of penalties. For that reason I would provide, as suggested by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) and as suggested the other day by the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. Hus TON,)-whether for four months or,for eight months is not important; so far as I am concerned I would say six months, for-I think that is the better length of time for all these rural dis tricts-I would provide that the Legislature should devise a sys tem of free schools, as a duty which the State owes the children who are growing up to become in a few years the governing power of the State. I would say that the State ought to pro vide a system of free schools through out the State, the benefits of which will be open to all the children of the State. I would leave to the wisdom of the Legislature to determine, if they shall see fit, the system which will spread a taxation all over the State, or a system which will compel the rural districts to provide the money necessary for the purpose. And then I would leave to the Legislature the question whether they will provide that if a school dis trict fails to keep up a school free of charge, for a specified length of time, they shall consequently lose all the money they might otherwise be enti tled to. As has been said by the gen tleman from Oakland, (Mr. HARRIs,) Rand I think with a great deal of force, if a school should be taught for three months in a year, and all the money raised should be expended in that length of time, then the district would be prohibited from its share of the school money, should this provision be placed: ill the Constitution. Mr. CONGER. It seems to me that the proposition which is embraced in this section would prevent any school district that got behind in maintaining its schools, from ever getting started again in the world. Whether they have any surplus on hand or not, if they fail any one year to keep up a school for the length of time here prescribed, then, however large the tax they may be willing to raise the next year, whatever proportion of the school fund would be coming to them by the terms of this section, it is all to be taken away from them, so that they will have no fund with which to carry on the school. Therefore, under this provision, they cannot by any possibility, carry on that school during that year, because, even though they may raise thousands of dollars for that purpose, this section prohibits them from having a single cent of it. They will be deprived utterly of the opportunity of having a school that yar. And not having a school that year, should they raise another tax the next year for the purpose of maintaining their schools, they cannot have a single cent of it, or a cent of the primary school fund, because under the provisions of this section they have been deprived of the money necessary to maintain the school the year before, and so on ad infinititn. However much they may raise by tax, this constitutional provision comes in and sweeps it all away from them, and distributes it among the other districts of the State. I cannot see how, under this provision, should a district once get behind, it can ever get a start again. The only way in which they could obtain the benefits of the school system, would be to disorganize and be joined with some other district, and in that way be started anew. The asse~ sors assess them right along the two mill tax, whether they have schools or not. Then there is another thing: strictly, according to the terms of this section, a new school district never could have any fund to begin with, because it had not a school the year before; so they never could start. I tell the chairman of the committee on education (Mr. WILARD) that this is a provision which can never be enforced in its letter, or tin its spirit, without destroying a school district forever. Besides that, I am opposed to this system of punishing children for the neglect of the district offliers. - I am opposed to taking away the means of education from the children of the State, because of the neglect of the officers of the district, or perchance it may be in consequence of the visitation of God in permitting the lightning or fire to destroy the school-house at a time when the district could not re build it. My theory is that the State should educate the children of the State; not that the district should educate the children in that district. The true theory of our government is, J. -ulv, 27, 1867. D'P,'RATES AND'PROCEEDINGS. 405 40 GO-TTOA OYNI~ audy that the State shall educate its children; and that the means for that education shall be apportioned reasonably and equitably upon the property of the State; not as has been heretofore apportioned, whether'equitably and reasonably or not, by a rate bill upon the man who happened to have fulfilled the most completely the command in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply, and who may himself be desirous of educating the large family which (Pod has given him, and yet be entirely destitute of the'means of paying his rate bill. The theory upon which we act is, that the Ltate itself as a body politic should educate the children of the State. Gentlemen talk about the primary school fund as arising from taxes levied upon the property all over the State. Sir, new ideas dawn upon my mind occasionally, which I have never heard suggested before, and which astonish me with their brilliancy and their vividness. I thank God that I am permitted to come here to have such effulgences break in upon my benighted understanding. I never understood that the primary school fund was raised by any tax whatever, -or that it was increased by any tax whatever. I had supposed that under the ordinance of 1787, section sixteen in every township in the North-western Territory was set apart by the good old Continental Congress, even before the Constitution of the United States was adopted, for the education of the children of the people in that Territory. That provision has been continued by the government of the United States. Section sixteen near the centre of each six miles square min all that territory was dedicated to the education of the inhabitants of that territory; or, as the territory was divided into States, to the education of the inhabitants of the State. In the law admitting Michigan into the Union this provision was retained, and the State of Michigan assented to the proposition that section sixteen in every township should be devoted, as prescribed by the ordinance of 1787, to the education of the children of the State. That I understand is the source of the primary school fund. And the interest derived from that primary school fund is distributed to the several districts according to the number of scholars in the district; not according to the population, wealth or size of the district, but according to the number of the scholars in the district; so that the old or new portions of the State, containing an equal number of scholars, would draw the same amount of money from the school fund. Mr. BLACKMAN. Whio pays that interest? Mr. CONGER. What interest:? Mr. BLACKMAN. The interest on the primary school fund? Mr. CONGER. The man who buys the land pays it. Mr. BLACKMAN. Does not the State pay it, or raise it by tax? Mr. CONGER. If the State uses the money of that fund and agrees to pay the interest on it, then it pays the interest the same as a man would do it, if he had charge of the fund and had used it. Mr. BLACKMAN. How does the State raise the interest? Mr. CONGER. The State raises a tax to pay the interest on a debt. The State. borrowed the school fund, and we have always considered the State good for it. But I never heard that the interest on the school fund did not belong to the fund. If the State had not borrowed and agreed to pay the interest on it, it could have let somebody else have the money upon his agreeing to pay the interest upon it. I may be entirely wrong; I admit my darkness and obscure state of mind upon that subject. But if I am wrong I am willing to be set right. Because the State borrowed the money, and agreed to pay interest on it, is it taxation to keep up the primary school fund, when the State endeavors by tax to raise the interest which it has agreed to pay for the use of that fund? Is that a tax for the support of schools? Not a particle of it; it is a tax to pay a debt which the State owes. The primary school fund does not belong to the State, except for the single purpose of providing means of education for the people of the State. But there is a tax which is levied for the purpose of providing means of education. That tax is levied in the township; it is collected in the whole township, and apportioned back according the valuation and assessment of property in the township. That mode differs from the other mode. The mode originating with those old fathers and friends of this Northwest Territory, was to raise a fund from the land set apart in every single township, which should be devoted to providing means of education for the inhabitants of that Northwest Territory, or the inhabitants of the States formed from that territory. In our State the system is, that the interest upon that fund shall be distributed yearly to the several school districts; of course through the agencies of counties, townships, and school districts. It is distributed pro rata, so much to each scholar, whether he goes to school or not; so that there shall be no excuse for all not attending school. It is sent to the district that it may be subdivided according to the number of scholars in the district; that is the rule. I desire to say for myself that I believe this doctrine is true in theory. I had hoped that the gentleman who has charge of this article on education would have provided, not that each district should have the right or power to maintain a school, but that the State should maintain the school, that the State should provide the means for that purpose, on the principle that the education of the children of the State is necessary for the welfare of the people of the whole State; that it prevents crimes, that it encourages virtue and intelligence, and for that reason the State should educate the children of the State, by means of this vast amount of land, which has been given to it, and the additional resources raised upon the other property of the State. The only theory upon which we have a right to tax property in Michigan for educational purposes is,- that it is the duty of the State to educate the children of the State. It is not that each district should educate an undue proportion of the children of the State that may happen to be in that district, but that the State shall do so by the imposition of taxes equitably and equally, for the purpose of providing the means to do so. What is the provision in the present Constitution upon this subject? It is as follows: "The Legislature shall within five years from the adoption of this Constitution, provide for and establish a system of primary schools, whereby a school shall be kept without charge for tuition, at least three months in each year, in every school district in the State; and all instruction in said schools shall be conducted in the English language." The State is to provide that the school shall be kept in each district for three months. That is founded upon what I conceive to be the true theory, that the property of the State should pay for the education of the children of the State. But the provision reported by the committee on education commences at the other end. It says: "The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools, by which each district in the State shall maintain the school," etc. That is an entirely different proposition from-the one contained in the present Constitution. The provision in the present Constitution is, that the State shall provide a system by which the State shall maintain a free school in every district. That provision is large, liberal and comprehensive, recognizing the principle that the State shall educate the children of the State. But this provision now under consideration is narrow, restricted, inequitable, un CONSTil.eUTION.ATi C014V'PNTIONO Saturday, 406 ol 407 July 7, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDINGS. just, and is based upon the principle that each district, without regard to the number of children in a district, without regard to the wealth or poverty of the district, shall support a school free of charge for four months in the year, irrespective of what may be done throughout the rest of the State. Sir, I am opposed to the principle of this section; I cannot vote for it. I enter my protest against changing the fundamental theory of education in the State of Michigan, by the adoption of any such provision as this. I call the attention of this committee to the inequity and inequality of this provision. Why do we need any provision at all in the Constitution in regard to the length of time for which a school shall be kept? Is' there a gentleman on this floor who does not know that in all the wealthy and populous school districts of this State there has not been an instance where the school has not been kept for three, four, six, or even eight months in the year? Not one; where there is wealth, there is education; and where there are schools and education, there is wealth. Then at what is this provision aimed? Whom does this provision attempt to control? There are scat tered through the wilds of our northern forests, little openings which the in dustry of man has made beneath the overhanging shadows of the trees, where the sunlight may reach the earth, with here and there the log cabin of the hardy pioneer, blessed, as he thinks himself, with a multitude of young and growing children, for chil dren the world over are the poor man's wealth, and the poor man's heritage. When enough of these pioneers get together within three, four or five miles of each other, a district sometimes embracing an entire township, some times situated in a remote part of the township, with their desire to edu cate these young striplings growing up in the wilderness by their own means, the few families there make a sort of start and support a school. There is sometimes property enough in the district liable to taxa tion to provide the means for that school, by the imposition of the two mill tax. That, however, is not allow ed to stand in the way, because schools they must have, and schools they will have. Although the burden bears heavy upon them, yet I know many gentlemen here will bear me witness that these families deprive themselves not merely of the luxuries of life, but of the common necessities of existence in order to educate their children. Against whom is this section direct ed? Against whom is this sword drawn? It can only be against the poor pioneer of our northern wilds; it does not reach any of the rich, popu- lous counties of the State, any of the cultivated and prosperous portions of the State. It does not apply to a solitary district among the thousands that exist in those portions of the State. Why is this distinction made? Why shall we declare that only these ] poor, far off citizens of our State shall 1 be placed under this ban? Why shall we incorporate in our organic law a provision which shall seize from them the.litle tax which they are able to raise for the next year's education of their offspring? Yet that is the prop osition here. You may talk upon it, philosophize' - upon it, theorize upon it, and discuss it as you may. Yet the bold naked proposition before us is that this section is aimed at the poor and sparsely settled districts of the State, and at no other districts. Then there is added to that, and no argument and no sophistry can remove it, this additional provision; that if they shall raise their pittance for the purpose of educating their children, and if from any cause whatever they fail to keep up a school for four months in the year-although my friend from Oakland, (Mr. HARRIS,) says, and says truly, that they might have been able to keep up the school for three months and three weeks-the Constitution of the State of Michigan, framed here by an intelligent and Christian State, reaches out its hand and seizes this pittance from them. And however much they might tax themselves there. after, the effect of it will be that they never can begin again, because what. ever they may raise will be seized by the same strong hand, and taken from them, for the reason that the year be fore they were deprived of the means . of keeping up their school. I make these remarks because I am opposed to the whole theory of this section; to the beginning of it, to the c middle of it, and I- had almost said to the ending of it. Perhaps I should not say. that, because the end of the r section provides that the instruction shall in all cases be in-the English lant guage; that may be well enough, and very proper. But all the rest of the section is wrong in principle, wrong in s theory, unjust, inequitable add contrary 1 to the spirit of a Christian people, to say s nothing of an educated people. Aside from any objections to the , change in the system of raising means s to support these schools, I approve of t the proposition of the gentleman from ,, Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) I will go with him heart. and hand in striking -out this provision for withhold ing the money which may be raised in the district, and the proportion of the primary school fund due to the district. That primary school fund does not belong to the people of the State; it is dedicated to the scholars of the State. The people of the State did not raise that fund; it was raised before the oldest of us here knew about schools, or knew about Michigan. It was provided for before the wilderness was cleared away, before the white man trod upon the soil of this State. Let us keep it sacred forever, and let us join to it in the same spirit the provision that the State shall continue to add to that fund from its wealth, in order to provide for the education of the children of the State, and not make any distinction between districts on account of their wealth or poverty. Then we shali have done what the friends 6f education throughout the world proclaim to be the true theory upon which a government may tax thepeople for education, and not till then. 1 have said I could not vote for this provision. I tell gentlemen that the law which was passed last winter virtually violates the provision of the present Constitution; Why? The provision in the present Constitution is as follows: "A school shall be maintained in each school district at least three months in each year. Any school district neglecting to maintain such school, shall be deprived for the ensuing year of its proportion of the income of the primary school fund, and of all funds arising from taxes olbr the support of schools." The Constitution says that the distrist neglecting to maintain such schools shall receive none of the primary school fund, and none of the taxes raised for -the ensuing year.- What does the law say? The law says that in regard to those districts which do not maintain a school, the money from the primary school fund, and also the money received from taxes, shall be taken and be distributed among the districts of the State; of course it means redistributed as the primary school fund is. How is that? The primary school fund is distributed to the several districts according to the number of scholars in the district. The district failing to keep up the school has scholars in it, and will receive its share of this fund. So that if there are'eight districts in a township, then one-eighth of the fund which the Constitution says that district shall not receive at all is by the law distributed back to it. The law is inconsistent with the Constitution. But the- Legislature evidently felt the necessity of making some provision for the district, because the provision in the Constitution was so utterly wrong. I f s s s f 8 r s d d t DEBATES AN 1) PROCFIMDINGS. July 27, 1867., I 108 GO~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tr~~~~~~tTIO~~~~~~~~~AL ~~~~~~~~ VE~~~~~~~TION. S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~urd~ 1- -- -1 My remarks may not, however, touch the question directly in issue, but they go further. In conclusion I will say that I shall cheerfully support the proposition of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) because I would remove from our Constitution that provision which would take away from a district any of its funds. If there could be some provision to compel a district to maintain a school, and to impose a penalty upon the officers of the district, should they neglect to maintain that- school, I would be in favor of it, whether that penalty may be by fines, by imprisonment, by stripes, by scourging, I care not, so that you do not make the penalty fall upon the innocent children of the district, as this section proposes it shall. Mr. BRADLEY. I have been very delighted and very much interested by the eloquence on this subject to which we have just listened. But it seems to me that we should have failed to secure all this interesting discussion in regard to our great school interests, had it not been for a misapprehension of the section now under consideration. It may be that the article under consideration changes our whole system of common school education; it may be that the committee on education designed, or, if they did not design, they have unintentionally done so, to produce a section here which proposes a new principle, upon which the common schools of this State shall be established. But I do not so understand it. Now, let us see what is the true interpretation of the language here. There are just three clauses in section four and section five of the article on education, in the present Constitution, which refer to the particular subject now under consideration. In section four it is provided that a school shall be kept in every district, free of charge for tuition. In section five it is provided that a school shall be maintained in each school district, at least three months in each year. Maintained by whom? The very next clause in section five answers that question. "Any school district neglecting to maintain such school," etc. The school, under the system instituted by the State, in carrying out the provision of the organic law m relation to establishing such schools, is to be maintained by the district as the agent of the- State. Now, what do we propose in section three of the article under consideration? "The Legislature shall.provide for a system of primary schools"-and instead of going over the old phraseology, and repeating the declaration twice, before we come to what we really intend to say, we say it here in this third section-'by which each district in the State shall maintain a school, free of charge for tuition," etc. The -old phraseology was-" any school district neglecting to maintain such school," etc. This sectionsays at once —" each district in the State shall maintain a school, free of charge for tuition, at least four months in the year." Now I ask, where is the difference in the principle; or, if correctly interpreted, where is the difference in the system we propose to inaugurate in the State of Michigan? No gentleman shall go beyond "the gentleman from Kalamazoo" in zeal and interest in common school education. I say the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER) shall not go beyond the committee on education in that regard. Mr. GIDDINGS. Has not that provision-of the Constitution been practically ignored during the whole existence of the present Constitution, until last winter? Mr. BRADLEY. That may be so, if we accept the interpretation which has been given here to this article; but it is not so, if we accept the interpretation which has been given to it practically by the people ofthis State. That was our understanding of the article. If the language has been drawn carelessly, if the section is not calculated to convey the idea we intended, it can very easily be altered by a -simpleamendment. I apprehend that the committee reporting this article, and the members of the Convention are all agreed and in earnest upon the one principle to which I have referred, that the school shall be maintained by the State; that the State shall lay no onerous, burden upon these feebler communities; that if taxation is necessary, and I believe it is, the wealthier portions of the State shall assist to bear the burden for those who are feeble. This is our common sentiment; this-is our common position. We need have no quibbling or quarreling about the phraseology; we can make the phraseology to meet our views; and we can make the system as the State of Michigan ought to make it. Mr. MUSSEY. I desire to say but a few words on this subject. Notwithstanding the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGsER,) seemed to condemn this whole section, first and last, he concluded finally to except the last part of it from his condemnationi; and I also understood him to except the first, for he says he is satisfied with the propo sition of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WTITHEY.) Now, if he stands on that platform, then we stand together. Mr. CONGER. The gentleman misunderstands me. I said I was opposed to the section; but that it was some improvement of it to strike out the middle part of it, and I should therefore vote for that. Mr. MUSSEY. It seems to me we can agree exactly upon that substitute, and no one need be misled or in doubt about it. It amounts just to this and nothing more; if the second sentence of the section is stricken out, the section will read as follows: "The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools, by which each district in, the State shall maintain a school, free of charge for tuition, at least four months in the year. The instruction shall in all cases be in the English language." The Legislature then can, in such way as they may deem best, according to their judgment and wisdom, provide just such penalties: as they may see fit; just such means of enforcing the law as they may deem proper. It occurs to me that that power should be left with the Legislature, so that if one system does not answer, they may be at liberty to provide another. I think no one on this floor will object to the last clause in the section providing that "the instruction shall in all cases be in the English language." Now, there is precisely where I would like to leave this matter. As is very well known, I am disposed to give the Legislature a little something to do; to trust them with a little authority. Now, one word in regard to taxing for the support of schools. There seems to be a great deal of skirmishing about the school money, whether tax or interest. If we will turn to the article on finance and taxation, we will find that it is there provided that specific taxes shall be devoted to the interest on the primary school fund. The gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER)'says that this primary school fund was provided by and grew out of a provision made not by the State, but the national government. If the State, as has been the case until quite recently, has used up the primary school fund, then it owed the money, and should pay4 the interest on it. And this Convention has made provision that that interest shall be paid by specific tax, and not by general tax. That is to say, it will be paid by specific taxes, just so far as they go towards paying it. If there is a deficit, then it must be provided for by general taxation, or in some other way. I think there is no necessity to try and befog this matter, or to lead any one astray about it. The primary school fund was not provided by the State. We have used up the money, and we must pay the interest on it, and think our selves well off to get clear with that. Mr. WITHEY. I am perfectly im pressed with the importance of proper provisions here. I think the views ex 108 COXS'-LT.rtTTION-AT., CONV'P,N-TION. . Sattirday, DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. pressed by the gentleman from S Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) will, in the mai meet with a hearty response from th Convention, in reference to the impor ance of having free schools in ever district for four months in the yea] whether those schools shall be mail tained by a tax provided for and co lected within the district,.or whethe by a system under which the Stat shall maintain the schools, is the ques tion. I have drawn up an amendmen which I would ask to have take th place of the one I offered a short tim since, as an amendment to the substi tute of the gentleman from Tuscola (Mr. HUSTON.) I think it will accom nodate the views of all the members o the Convention, It is as follows: "The Legislature shall provide for a sys tern of primary schools,.by which a schoo shall be maintained in each school district in the State, free of charge for tuition, at leas four months in the year." I omit the words of the present sec tion, "by which each district in the ,State shall maintain a school," and in stead of them I use the words, "by which a school shall be maintained i each school,distriet in the State." Mr. WILLARD. I would ask the gentleman if he is aware that a simila provision exists in our present Consti tution, and that it has nlot been effec tual?, That provision is "The Legislature shall, within five year from the adoption of this Constitution, pro vide for and establish a system of primary schools, whereby a school shall be kept with out charge for tuition, at least three months in each year, in every school district in the State." And I would ask the gentleman whether there are not many districts in the State which have not complied with that provision? Mr. WITHE,Y. I would reply to that by saying that the subsequent sec tion in the present Constitution seems to be somewhat in conflict with the fourth section of the article on education in that Constitution. That fourth section does provide as stated by the chairman of the committee on education, (Mr. WrLLARD.) ~ The fifth section provides that ,IA school shall be maintained in each school district, at least three months in each year. Any school district neglecting to main tain such school, shall be deprived for the en suing year of its proportion of the income of the primary school fund, and of all funds aris ing from taxes for the support of schools." The law-makers have been led to regard these various constitutional pro visions, when placing them together and giving effect to them as a whole, to- mean that the districts were to main tain the schools; not that the State was to see that it was done, but that , the districts should do it; and if any district neglected to do it, then it was to be deprived of its proportion of Vol. 2-No. 52. t. the fund, as'a penalty fQr its neglect , The Legislature heretofore have looked in that direction. I think if we take that provision out of the Consttution y we are framing, we shall not hold this view forth to the Legislature any longer but they will plainly see that by our - removing it from the Constitution, we r intend to have enforced in every dis trict a free school at least four months in the year.. That maybe done through a general State tax for the support of these schools, or it may be done, as it is now provided for, in part by taxes on the property of the district. Suppose , a school district fails, at its annual, special, or adjourned meeting, to pro vide at a' specified time to vote the necessary tax to maintain, in connec tion with the primary school fund, a free school for the time prescribed; then the law may provide that the su pervisor shall add to the tax of that district a certain per cent. for that purpose-leave- that to the Legislature .to determine sufficient, with the pro portion of the primary school fund coming to that district, to maintain a free school in that district for the time prescribed. The tax then will be raised, because the supervisor will be compelled to include it with the other taxes to be raised. Or if he shall fail to do it, then make him liable to such penalties as will secure the performance of his duty, or make provision tQ meet the case in some other way. Mr. WILLARD. Could not all that be done, and very properly done, un der the section as reported by the committee? Mr. WITHEY. I think it could bUe done; but I apprehend it will not be as likely to be done under the provis ions of the section reported by the committee, as though we re-formed the section in the manner proposed by the amendment I have offered. I am in favor of any provision which will ac complish this purpose. I am in favor of giving educational facilities to all the children of the State, at least to the extent of four months free school in each year. It is due to the people of the Stater it is due to the great in terests which are to be developed in this State, to the position which we will occupy among the sisterhood of States; it is due to the children of the State, now and hereafter, that this provision should be made. The Legislature should be required to provide the nec essarv legislation to enforce upon each district in the State, a free school for at least four months each year. I would be glad, as the gentleman from Aliegan (Mr. WXLLIAMS,) has said, if it could be made six months instead of four months. But in some of the new counties of the State, where the popu lation is sparse and scattered, it might not be possible for them to maintain a e school during the inclement season of the year, in the winter-time, and they s could only maintain a school during ,some portions of the spring, summer and fall seasons of the year. There fore, it seems to me that the time, - "four months," is the better time to be named here as the minimumn. But I insist that free schools should be enf forced in each district. Mr. THOMPSON. I desire to oc cupy the attention of the committee for a few minutes. I am not certain that the language employed in this section is the best that might have been chosen; but I am not at all tenacious on that point. I wish to call the atten tion of this committee briefly to the practical working of the law, as we have had it under the Constitution for a number of years past. I will be par doned for saying that for fifteen years, more or less, I have been a member of the board of school inspectors, and I think I can speak advisedly as to the practical workings of this provision of the Constitution in the township in which I have resided. I know there are are some fears that if this section shall be adopted in its present form, unless a school shall be maintained in a district for four con secutive months, the public money could not thereafter be obtained by that district. Allow me to suggest that so far as I have ever known, when the directors of the school district come before the inspectors to make their annual report, the question about the three consecutive months of school three months being the time named in the present Constitution-has never beenasked. Thequestion is: "Have you maintained a school for three months in the year?" It makes no difference whether the school has been kept two months in'the winter, and one in the summer, or how it was kept, if it was kept for three months during the year. It is said that if a district is required to keep a four months' school in the winter, and has only money enough to pay for a three months' school, then it will be deprived of the share of money that would have come to it if the school had been kept four months. Suppose that the district has three months' school in the winter, and then when the summer comes it has one months' school in the summer; when the di rector of the district is asked if his district has had four months' school in the year, he can answer that it has. I have never known an instance where a district has been deprived of its share of the school money under the present Constitution for that reason. ,Yuly 27, 1867. 409' 410 OOITUTIOAL CONVENTION. aturda, -Mr. WILLIAMS. — Do -the S.'-chool inspectors ask whether' the school has been free? Mr. THOMPSON. "Have you maintained a school- according to law, by a qualified teacher?" is the question.' Mr. WILLIAMIS. -Whether by rate bill or not. Mr. THOMPSON. "Have you had a school three months, and by a qualified teacher?":That ls-.the only ques-' tion. I do not know whether it was in strict' compliance with the Constitu tion, but I know that has been the practical working of the law where I have been residing. During -the last fifteen years I have never iknown aninstance.of a school district losing its share of the school money,, on account of the school-house being burned, or the teacher getting married. There may have been suoh cases,.but they have never come to my knowledge. It seems to me that some gentleman in looking at this section havem agni-: fled a mole-hill into a mountain. Some of the remarks which have been ~made here have been altogether too- fanciful and' etherial for my comprehension, and I will not attempt to answer them. I think we-.have nothing to fear in regard to the forfeiture provided:by thi' section. If the public money has been voted for the purpose of maintainingschools, I thmink the money should be forfeited if the schools.are not maintained as required by law. I might refer to some instances where I have known: a,, district to lose their school m: ney; but I'hold that the officer who ,fails to make the proper return is ~re..sponsible for the loss of the district.The district need not lose its -share of the public school money. In regard to the'forfeiture of the money raised in.the district, I shall. leave that for others to disc'uss. Blut this has.not been heretofore athe prac.tical working.of the C:onstit~u,t~ion, as we have understood it, and of the laws made in pursuance thereof. I suppose if the views of the majority of the members.of the committee: on education could be ascertained, it ~would be found "that they are in'favor of extending the time during which this free school should be taught, and of-making the property of the State educate the people of'the State.-If' this two mill tax was made a State .,tax, it woula- fall short only "about thirty-four thousand dollars of the amount required for the State. I suppose the older counties would be in favor of.paying their share under such a tax. Let the property of the State educate the children of the'State. This section will not be' found to stand in, the way; n~or will any one who has -advocated the report of the committee on education. as it now stands, be found to stand in the way of any such proposition. Mr.- -LEACH. I am exceedin'gly anxious,-if any change is to be made in the provisions of the present Constitution in -regard to education, that the change shall be one which will accomplish the 6bject which all gentlemen here seem to have in view;- thai is, the establishment of free schools in the'State. I —-think every gentleman, who has spoken upon this subject has advocated the'establishment of free schools; certainly every one has said that the propertyof tie State should be made to educate the children of the State; therefore we are entirely agTeed so far. :W.ill "the section reported by the committee on education, or any substitute for it which has been offered here, accomplish that object? I very much question whether such would prove to Sbe'lhe fact. We have had a clause in -the Constitution of our State since 1850, requiring the Legislature to establish a system whereby a free school should be kept in every school district in the State for at least three months in each year. Yet it -is within the knowledge.of every gentleman on this floor that that has not been done. And now shall we repeat the experiment, and merely say'.that the Legislature shall establish a system by -which.. the free schools shall be kept a month or two longer than is required by the present Constitution?'I apprehend that if we do the result will be — thesame as heretofore; the,,same consequence wil follow. -A system will be kept in existence which will give us a free school in some districts, and a school maintained by a rate bill in other districts. — It will give us a free schoolfor six months in some districts for three months in other districts, and no free school at all in many other dis~icts. A sI intimated the other day, I would. place in this Constitution a provision which should. forever prohibit the collection of tate bills in the districts of !this State; I would make a rate bill a thing unconstitutional. I read a substitute the other day which I proposed to offer for this section when I should have the opportunity. I have modi-fied it' somewhat. since then, but there -is now no way for me to get it before this committee but to read it as a part of my remarks. It is as follows: "After the first day of January, 1870,. no charge for tuition, except in' the higher dopartments ofgraded -schools, shall ever be made in the primary schools of this. State. All bona fide residents of school districts shall be permitted to attelid the primary schools therein." I have modified my substitute somewhat from what I read the other day. I-have postponed until 1870 the time when the rate bill shall become unconstitutional, for the purpose of giving the Legislature an opportunity to so modify our system, and provide means for these schools, as to enable them to carry out these provisions. I also except the higher departments of graded schools, because it may be questionable whether, under'certain circumstances, it would not be proper to make a charge in those departments. Mr. LOVELL. Could not the gentleman/ make a slight change in his proposition, so as to provide that all residents of suitable age, shall be permitted to attend these schools? I have known many rural districts where the teachers have been required not only to teach all children of suitable ages, but also to act as nurses for the babies in the district. - Mr. LEACH. I would leave the 'matter of nursing the babies to the Legislature. Mr. LOVELL.. The Legislature would have no power in regard to the subject, under the amendment of the gentleman as it now reads. Mr. LEACH. I have no particular tenacity in regard to the phraseology. Mr. THOMPSON. Will the gentle.man also embrace in his substitute a provision that the instruction shall be in -the English language? Mr. LEACH. -I have no objection to that. I hold that the medium of instruction should be the English language; not that other languages should not be taught. I wish every gentleman to bear in mind that we may - say in this Constitution that the Legislature shall.do this, and they will do exactly as they please about it; we say in the present Constitution in many instances, that ;the Legislature shall do so and so, and they heed the commands or disregard them, as they choose. Now, I think we should fix this matter of free schools beyond the possibility of their avoiding it. If there is any better pla than the one I have proposed, I shall be very glad to support it. I would not :limit the attendants of these schools to any particular age; I would allow all, whether eighteen, twenty, or sixty years of age, to attend the district schools. In the early part of'life, I had considerable experience in teachinrg district schools and boarding around. I remember very well, that a man attended my school, who was'forty years of age; and his children at the same time attended my school. I do not believe his attendance was any detr riment to me, or to the district, or to the State. I do not believe it would .-.. I.... —.CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. -L Saturday -410 I -.1. 'DEBATES ANID PROCEEDINGS. be any injury to allow all who have attained a suitable age to attend our district schools. Mr. LOTHROP. I did -not intend, after what I said the other day, to add another word upon this subject.' Nor should -I now say anything, but for the extraordinay.views submitted by some gentlemen here, in reference to this section. Personlly, I care very little what shall be adopted. I do not find myself differing'min aim and object from those expressed. by gentlemen here. But it is assumed that the committee on education in their report have entirely. reversed the policy heretofore established by the Constitution of the State; that whereas the present Constitution requires the' State.to maintain a free school in each district, our report requires the froze sctool to be maintained by the district. It is said that, by the report of the committee on education, it will be incompetent for the Legislature to maintain free schools'in the districts, by a general system of taxation but that all the Legislature can do is to provide a system by which the district shall'maintain a free school, by means of taxes raised within itself. Now, if that be so, it is certainly a very serious objection to'the report. I think I can say, in regard to each member of the committee on education, that we concurred in the propriety'of the system by which free schools shoul be maintained generally from the, re sources of the State.'Still, we did not propose, in our report, to devise a sys tem which should accomplish that object, but' only to lay an injunction upon the Legislature to do so.' I beg leave to say that I think the objection to this section is not well ta ken. Do we.provide here that the dis trict alone shall raise the means, from its: own resources, by which a free school shall'be maintained in the dis' trict? The language of this section is — " The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools by which each district in the State shall main tai' a school," etc. Does that prohibit the State from providing the means to be furnished to the district?'In my judgment, there was an objection to the language used in the pi:esent Consti tution.. By a strict construction of the language there used, the. Legislature was authorized to dispense entirely with the agency-of the district in main taining the school. I presume there was never the slightest danger thatthe State would do so. But by the lan guage used in the section now under consideration, the State cannot dispense with the agency of the district in maintaining the scho'ol. The State may provide -the means: to maintain the school, but the district must be the agent to administer those means within the district. Undor -the present Constitution it is competent for the Legislature to provide a system. by which schools shall be maintained 'i the several school districts, by means of agencies existing here at the seat of government. I do not suppose the Legislature ever contemplated any such thing. The" only effect of the change in the language is to make the district the agent, in the system of schools established by the Legislature, of administering the means provided by the State. It never entered the mind of any member of tbis comnmittee on edication, nor is this- section open to that: construction, that the Legislature shall establish a system of schools, the. means to maintain, which-: shall be raised in the districts themselves. - The' Legislature may raise the means,: by' taxation.upon. the whole State, or by specific taxes;'but when raised- and given to the districts, those means must:be administered by the agency of -the districts; that is all there -is about it. We have not said to the Legislature that they shall raise those means by a general tax or otherwise. We have simply said that the Legislature shall provide a system by which a school shall' be maintained in -each district;- or rather,.by'which.'each: district shall maintain' a school free of charge for tuition, at least four months in theo year.":: I am' myself of the opin-' ion that it is desirable to raise the means for this purpose by generaLtax ation.. If. the Convention. think that should be done, I have no objection to their making an express provision to that effect. My excellent friend. fromn Grand Traverse, (Mi.'LEACH,) says that if we use the language employed in this sec tion, the Legislature will go and do just as they have done hitherto, pro vide for a rate bill. Now, I have no experience in this.matter,' but I have no hesitation in.'saying that if a rate' bill has. been provided for the three months'- school required by the exist ing Constitution, it is an utter nullity, if it is to raise'means to.pay for tuition. There could be no provision put in the'Constitution that would make a rate bill more of a nullity,-for I do not know of any degrees in nulli ties.- I. say that a rate bill' to'provide' for tuition is a nullity, which cannor' be enforced. If any man pays a rate: bill for" any.such -purpose, he pays'it voluntarily.. The'gentleman may put 'negative words into':this provision; I have no objection to that; but it will .add nothing eto it. The language of 'the Constitution is that the Legisa-l .ture shall p'royide a system for:the" maintenance of scoools free of charge for tuition, I take it for granted that my excellent friend does not suppose that;ai rate bill'wilf answer that purpose. eM. LEACH. I ask leave to call the attention bf the gentleman to the language of the- present,-Constitution. Secti6on four of the article on education reads — ' TheLegislature shall, within five —years - from- the adoption: of this' Constitution, - provide'for:andlestablish a system of primary schools, -whereby- a school shall - be -kept, without- charge for tuition, at least three months in each year, in every school district in the' State'."' Now,'I ask the gentleman if the Legislatiure-has:-'ever made'any -such"provision? - Mr. LOTHROP. I cannot answer. that question, for I do not lknow.- But what I'-say is this: if the Legislaturehave provided a law by which a.rate bill shall be levied for'maintaining the' three' months' school, then -suach rate,: bill- is a nullty. I think no gentleman can doubt it..' Mr''~;)CONGER. The Constitution requires the school to be kept "free of charge'for tuition." A rate bill; might be- charged- to pay the — board-of the teacher,.but- not to pay- the' salary of the- teacher, -as is done in. agreat- many 'cases to my knowledge. -' Mr.ELOTHROP.' A rate bill may be made f'or other charges. But I say that': arate bill for"the tuition would be a nullity.'hIn my- judgment, tuition -would include all the- charges for ateacher; any -charge for -supplying instruction to scholars,-'and I suppose the wages of the teacher would be a part ofthose' charges, would be charges,'for tuition. I suppose no court would hold to any other — construction.' I suppose — any law of the Legislature for a rate bill for any such purpose would be apnulli ty-. You may add the words proposed -by my-friend from Grand'Traverse, (Mr'.LEAcH,) but you would add noth.ng to the legal effect of the; clause. A Xbout-tthe other portion of the sec tion,-in regard'to the penalty, I' have -no concern:whatever.' The gentleman from:Grandi.Traverse says the' Legis lature should- be compelled to maintain these schools. How can we compel the Legislature except by means of an in' junction,? How can we compel the'Leg islature" xcept by using -the mandiate ',shall:'"?' Can- the gentleman contrive -'ny method in the' Constitution to im — -peach' anapunish the Legislature? I says when we have uttered-in the Constitu tion the mandate "shall," we have uttered the most -potent- word we can: use'. -.'We may declare in'regard to the' Legislature:.that certain- persons shall nt —be members of:that body; that L'egislature is the only authority in the I Jttly 27, 1867. .411i 412 OOSTITUTIOAL GOVETIO. Saturday, world who can regard that command. If penalties are imposed by this -Constitution, the Legislature is the only body that can impose those penalties. I say that when we have uttered the word' shall" to the Legislature, we have gone to the farthest limits that we can go. The Legislature may disobey, disregard, neglect the command; that is beyond our control. When we say to the Legislature-" you shall constitute and administer such a system of free schools "'they may evade the command. It may be corrected in certain cases by the courts, when it bears upon the individual property of the taxpayer. But no' court can by mandamus, or order, compel the Legislature to pass a law. The court can intervene only after the law is passed, and goes into operation upon the taxpayer. My learned friend from Grand Traverse would have the Legislature enjoined to establish a system of free schools; I agree to that. But suppose the Legislature should provide that the supervisors shall levy-as the law now requires, I think a two-mill, three-mill, or any other rnill tax. If the supervisor refuses to levy that tax, or evadesit, you can undoubtedly, by mandamus, compel him to levy that tax. But I conceive that my friend would consider that an inadequate remedy. I suppose no occasion has ever arisen when it has been necessary to apply to a court to force a supervisor to perform that- duty. But the difficulty lies beyond that; even if it did lay there, that would not be an adequate remedy, because, as the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) says, the evil would be upon the children. The evil is felt in the districts after all. The committee have been assailed for not providing that a school should be kept a very much 19nger time than four months in each year. —.The gentleman from St. Clair,' (Mr. CONGER,) in his philippic against this section, intimated that this was an attempt on the part of the older counties of the State, of the wealthier communities'of the State, to evade their obligations in this matter, and shift their burdens off on the newer counties of the State. Now, it so happened-and this is an illustration of the fairness we expected-that every member of the committee on education who came fromh one of the older counties of the State was in favor of a longer term for the school; and the period of four months was conceded by them, because it was said that a longer term might bear too heavily on the sparsely settled portions of the State. There is no reluctance on the part of any of the older coun ties of the State to bear their proportion of the burdens for the support and maintenance of schools. He who gives for the maintenance of a school in any district makes not a contribution to others, but an enlightened investment in his own behalf. Sir, the older counties of the State are in favor of having their schools kept for the longest possible period. We do not limit the school by this section; we only say to the Legislature that they shall provide for maintaining these schools for at least four months in the year. And when the people of the newer districts shall say to the Legislature that their means, opportunities and necessities demand that these schools shall bekept for a longer period, I have no sort of doubt they will find the Legislature ready to grant them their request. As to the penalty provided by this section, I have no sort of objection to leaving that to the Legislature. The committee reported it, because we found it in the present Constitution; that is, if you call it a penalty. It has been already pointed out that it hardly bears any analogy to ordinary penalties. We found it in the Constitution; we heard no complaint against it, and we reported it to the Convention. The objection made to it is that it is rather a punishment of the scholar. I say that objection is specious rather than sound. The scholar already has had inflicted upon him the evil before this provision begins to operate at all. The officers of the district have neglected to keep the school; the scholar has been deprived of the advantages of a school.-' Because those officers have neglected to keep the school for the scholar, the Legislature says to them: "You have already received the means of keeping your school; as you have not expended it, but have it still on hand with which to keep your school next year, you shall not receive an additional sum to keep your school." Suppose that the Legislature should go to work to provide a remedy against this difficulty in the district. Does any gentleman know any better method of spurring a district into the performance of its duty than to take from it some money, and impose upon it the burden of raising more money? I have said to my very learned and legal friend from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LIEAcH,) that, as he knows, a remedy by mandamus or legal process will not be sufficient to meet this difficulty.' It must be met right there in the district, by imposing upon those people the sense of a greater pecuniary burden to fall upon them. What is this penalty for? It is to spur the district to keep up the school. It is our zeal and interest in behalf of the children of the State. What do we get for it? Suppose a district, in one of the remote counties of the State fails to keep up its school, and the little pittance, that would otherwise go to that district, becomes distributed over the State; we do not feel it; it is as the smallest dust in the balance. The sole object of imposing this penalty is to apply the spur to that district. My own impression is that it will work well; that we can contrive no better method, and we. might just as well leave it alone. Mr. CONGER. -One word, in addition to what I have already said. The proposition I made was correct, or it was not, that this section reported by the committee on education was liable to the construction that it was proposed by the Constitution to require each school district to maintain a school itself. If my' proposition is correct, then, by the agreement of all gentlemen who have spoken,- this -section should be changed. If it is not, or if it is at least so doubtful that gentlemen of less acute penetration than the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) may be led into a mistake about it, then I submit it had better be changed. But I do say although the gentleman says that that is an extraordinary construction of this section, and but for that extraordinary construction he would not have spoken I say that his argument, and the argument of every other gentleman of this committee, and I venture to say the feeling of every other member of this committee, is that the language here used is at least of doubtful meaning. I submit, with all becoming modesty, to the criticisms of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) I have become used. to them; I have become used to the assumption that he sees A thing so clearly that he presumes that men of inferior intellect are to blame if they cannot see it as clearly as he does. It is the continued reiteration made by the gen%leman that I am tired of. I made the remarks I did a short time ago reluctantly, from a sense of duty, not from any desire to occupy the time of the Convention, but because I thought the principle of the section was wrong; that the Legislature would construe it as I construed it, and as some members of the comaittee admit it is capable of being construed. If we do agree that the State shall maintain these schools, and that each district should not be compelled as a district organization to maintain its own schools, and if the words used here were of doubtful meaning, then they had better be changed. - CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Saturday, 412 Jul _75 1867. _EAE A DPOED GS The gentleman speaks as if what I said were a philippic upon the honorable committee that reported this article. For the zeal of that committee and for their devotion to the cause of education, no gentleman here has ever raised any question. I submit that there was not in anything I said, any thought or reflection against the committee. Far from being a philippic, it was prompted by a desire on my part to join with them for the benefit of the whole State, by means of what little advice or counsel I might be able to give in perfecting an article which should benefit all the children of all the people of the State of Michigan. It was with no other motive or thought that I spoke. There have been times when I have made remarkshere which were perhaps personal, perhaps philippics, perhaps not very appropriate to the occasion. But upon this sub ject I had no thought of philippics, or of reproach, or of attacking any person or any committee. I say that in justice to myself after the remarks of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) I say those remarks were undeserved, that there was no ground for them in anything I said. Mr. WITHEY. I desire to say one word in reference to the position taken by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) with reference to the lan guage used here —" By which each dis trict in the State shall maintain a school." When the gentleman referred to the language, the inclination of my mind at once was, upon examining it, that over and above' the aid the school district was to obtain from the primary school fund, these words impose upon the district the obligation of maintain ing the school, and supporting'it by furnishing the necessary meanse I dislike very much to seem even to differ in opinion with a gentleman standing so high in the ranks of his profession as does the gentleman from Wayne. Nevertheless, I am constrained to think there is very much doubt in-reference to the views he expresses in regard to the construction to be given to these words. - "The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools, by which each district in the State shall maintain a school, free of charge for tuition," etc. "Shall maintain;" what does "maintain" mean? Does it mean shall employ a teacher and send chil dren'to school? Is that what it means, and all it means, the means being pro vided by the State, county or town ship? Or does it mean that the.dis trict shall furnish the requisite means, as well as that the officers and people of the district shall be active in caus inga school to be kept? I take it that to " maintain a school free of charge," has reference to the expense of the school, as well as to keeping the school in operation at all. Then the inhabitants of the district are required to see that the school is kept; they are also required to raise the necessary means to sustain the school free of charge for tuition. This language I think, points directly to the support of the school, to the means by which it is to be sustained. I am inclined to believe that it would be incumbent on the district to provide the means necessary to sustain the school. Mr. LOTHROP. Will the gentleman permit me to- ask him one' question? Mr. WITHIE,Y. Yes, sir. Mr. LOTHROP. Does the gentle man hold that it is not competent, un der this provision, for the State to levy a general tax, to be administered in the district for the maintenance of the school? Mr. WITHEY. No, sir; I have no doubt that there might be a general law whereby the means would be pro vided by tax within the district. Mr. LOTHROP.: If the gentleman holds that the word " maintain" sig nifies the raising of the means in the district, then it would not be comlpe tent for the Legislature to do it. Mr. WITH EY. I mean this: what ever the expense of the school in the particular district is, that expense may be met by a tax upon the property within the district. If it should cost more to maintain a school in one dis trict than in another, you cannot tax a district where the,expense is less, in order to equalize the expense. Ac cording to this, each district would have the tax, whether raised under a general tax law or otherwise. It must be so that when the tax is applied, it shall be applied in each school district, pro rata, according to the tax raised in the district. That would seem to be the meaning of the language of this section. Mr. WILLARD. Will the gentle man allow me to ask him a question? Mr. WITIHEY. Certainly. Mr. WILL/ARD. I would inquire of the gentleman whether the con struction he puts upon the-word "main tain," would not exclude the district from receiving the benefit of the pri:nary school fund? Mr. WITHEY. I think not, because the section must be construed as a whole. The clause imposing the pen alty, referring to the primary school fund, must necessarily be construed with the other portions of the section, so that there would be no doubt that the district would be entitled to the benefit of that fund. However, Ithink that is unimportant. This section is certainly open to some little doubt, and I apprehend the Legislature might be likely to take the view suggested by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. COSNGER,) and myself. I think therefore, it would be better to avoid any question by changing the phraseology in that respect. Mr. LOTHROP. I have no disposition to retain the word "maintain," if that is what gentlemen are stumbling over. I say without hesitation-and with very great deference to any gentleman who takes a different viewthat I do not think the word" maintain" as used here, means anything more than a system by means of which a district may maintain. It is true the word "maintain" may be used so as to include within its meaning the raising of the means of maintaining. But it also can be used so as to mean the ad ministering the means of maintaining. But iff gentlemen consider it objec tionable, then strike out "maintain," and put in keep." It is not so ap propriate a word as "maintain;';" but if gentlemen prefer it, then put it in. Mr. BLACKMAN. If this word "maintain" is to be construed as some gentlemen seem to think it should be, then I would be as much opposed to it, as any gentleman in this Conven tion. I do not wish to enter any further into the discussion of the question be fore the Convention. If I have failed to give any light or information upon this matter, I certainly do not wish to lay the gentleman from from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) or any one else, under any excessive weight of gratitude for any I may be able to afford. I will say further, that I am as much in favor of having those schools maintained by the property of the State, as he or any other gentleman can be, and to show I was of that opinion, and have not been converted to it by any remarks: that have been made here, I will re fer gentlemen to pages 72 and 73 of the first volume of our debates, where will be found a resolution introduced by me, calling upon the committee on education to inquire into the matter of free schools to. be supported by the State, for the benefit of all the children of the State. The pending amendment I under stand is to strike out a portion of this section. I propose to amend the por tion of the section proposed to be stricken out, which I understand will be in order, before the question is put upon striking out. I move to amend by striking out the words "shall main tain a school," and inserting before the words" each district in the State," the the words "a school shall be main DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. '413 Ju 27, 1867.. .1y I i I CONS TITUTION A Tl, CONVEENTION. I, tained in." The clause if so amended would read-" The Legislattire. shall provide for a system of primary schools by which a school shall be. maMntained in each district in the State, free of charge for tuition, at.least four.months in the year." Mr. WILLARD. I thinkl there will be no objection to that change.in the phraseology. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) is not now.in order, for there.is an amendment pending to another portion of the section. Mr. BLACKMAN. I offered the amendment to correct the first part of the section, with the expectation' that when we come to the next sentence it would be corrected in: a similar manner. The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL,) to strike out-the words "and of all funds arising from taxes for the support of schools." Mr. ALEXANDER. I offered some time since a substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. STOCKWELL,) to strike out all of the section after the words' free of charge for tuition." The CHAIRMAN. That is not strictly an amendment to the amendment, and is therefore not in order. The amendment of Mr. STOCKWELL was then agreed tQ. The question recurred on the amendment: of Mr. WrrITHEY to the substitute offered by Mr. HUSTON. lIr. FAIMER. I move to amend this section, before the vote is taken upon the substitute, by' striking out the words, "Any school district neglecting to maintain such school shal be deprived, during the ensuing year, of its proportion for that year of the income of the primary school fund." -Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I de-sire to ask the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTHROP) one question. The first clause of this sectidn reads: 'The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools, by which each district in the State shall man-i tain a school, free of charge for tuition, at least four months in the year." Suppose the Legislature convene to carry out the provisions of this section, and pass a law that the supervisors of the several towns shall raise a sufficient fund to maintain a school in each of the districts of those towns, would not that answer the requirements of this section? - < Mr. LOTHROP. In answer to the inquiry propounded \by my venerable friend from Oakland, (Mrh. VA VALKENBVRGH,) all I can- say is that such a iawwould simplybe inadequate. The Legislature would not perform their duty by passing such a.law. A law ^simply declaring that the supervisors should raise.. the money, and nothing more, I suppose-would be entirely inadequate. The question was upon the amendment of ]ir. FARMER. Mr. LOVTELLI. I do not rise to discuss this': question, but.to suggest to the friends' of education-here- and that embraces us all, I apprehend-that we can harmonize our views a little more readily off this floor than we can here. The hour for our usual recess. has arrived; and during the recess the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGR,) the gentleman from -Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH,) the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) and all the genl tlemen who choose, can get together and draw up a substitute which will be satisfactory.' I therefore move that the committeb now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion of Mr. LOVELLi was not agreed to. The question was on the motion of Mr. FARMER, to strike out the second sentence of the section as amended. -Mr. BLACKMAN.. I move to amend that portion of the section- by striking out- the word " neglecting," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "failing by its own neglect;" so that it will read-" Any school district failing by its own neglect to maintain such school," etc. The amendment of Mr. LBLACEKMAN was not agreed to. The question again recurred upon the amendment of Mr. FARMER, to strike out the second sentence 6f the section as amended. Mr. MUSSEY. It seems to me that proposition is just exactly like the one made' by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) in the first instance. .Mr. FARMER. Before the vote is taken on my amendment, I desire to say that I consider it an important one, and that we should spend sufficient time upon it to be able to understand it in its true light. We should treat this as a practical question; -it is not a matter of mere theory, but one of practical-importance. If we adopt this section as reported by the committee on education, I think we will be taking from the weak and feeble what little they have, and giving to the strong and prosperous. Now, I do not suppose that any gentleman of this committee, if he should understand that. such would be the real effect and operation of this section, would be disposed to vote to incorporate it in our Constitution. But'inmy judgment such would be theeffect of the section if adopted. We have scattered all over our State a large number of feeble. school districts, with but a small number of scholars in each of them. Take for example, a district with onlv fifteen or twenty scholars, and there are some which have no more than that number of scholars. The primary school money for such districts, according to the present ratio per scholar, would amount to about nine dollars for each district. Suppose there is twenty thousand dollars of taxable property in the. district; the two mill tax would give the district about forty dollars -more. That would make forty-nine dollars to maintain a school for four months. I ask gentlemen of this Convetion if they believe a school can be maintained for four months with that amount of money? Then bear in mind that the inhabitants of these districts are unable.to bear much taxation. If they impose a tax upon themselves of one dollar -per scholar, and that would be a burden upon them, they- would then have only the small pittance of sixty-nine dollars. Can a district maintain a school, with that small amount of money, for four months? And if they do not, then what do you propose to do according to this section? You propose to take" away from them what little they have, and give it to the other districts of the township. This primary school fund does not come back to the State at large. It is first given to the county, according to the number of children; then it is distributed to the townships, and from the townships it is distributed to the districts. If the district forfeits its primary school money, and the two mill tax which it has -raised, what is done with it? It is divided among the other districts of the town; the strong districts of the town, which do not -need the money, take it from the weak. Is that right? Is that the true principle to guide us in our action here? If you strike out the portion of the section which I propose to strike out, you will leave to the Legislature to provide in what mauner these schools shall be kept up. I do not for a moment suppose that the Legislature, coming here direct from the people, will be inclined to rob the weak of the little pittance they have, and give it to those who have an abundance. Then again, in regard to the primary school money of the State, it is hardly necessary to touch upon it here, because it is perfectly understood generally by the people of this- State, although it does not seem to be understood by -some members of this Convention.This- primary school money is not the property of the State as a State, but it is the property of the children of the 41- - Saturdhv, J i' - I - I.. DB E - A - - - State. There is no tax upon theipeople of the State to educate the children of the State; but the tax is imposed to pay the interest on the indebtedness of the State to these children.' The State is merely a trustee, to hold this money as a sacred trust for the education of the children of the State. And when gentlemen get up here and say that the people of -.the State are taxed to provide the primary school money, that is not correct in fact. The people of the State are taxed'to pay the interest on the indebtedness of the State accruing from its use of this'money. I might say here that I am in favor of free schools. I am in favor of a provision in the Constitution which will make it obligatory upon the Legislature to establish those free schoolsa provision which will compel them to do it. I am also in favor-and at the proper time I propose to introduce such a provision-of making it the duty of the Legisl.ture to provide for the compulsory attendance of scholars in these schools; so that our schools nwill not only be free, but the children of the State will be compelled to attend those schools. My theory is that the property of the State should educate the children of the State. It is the province of the Legislature to say'in what manner it shall be done, when we say to them that they shall provide for asystem of free. schools. Mr. CONGER. I prefer the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) for it expresses something more than the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER.) I shall, therefore, vote against this amendment for the purpose of voting in favor of- the amendment of the gentleman from Kent. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. FAItMER, and it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. WITHEY to the substitute offered by Mr. HUSTON. Mr. MILES. I move that the committee now rise, repot progress; and ask leave, to sit again. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the _chair, Mr. WINSOR reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "-Education;" had made some progress therein, and had directed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. ALEXANDER. I move that the Convention now take a recess. Mr. HIXSON. I move..that the Convention now adjourn. The motion to, adjourn was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the motion of Me. ALEXANDER for a recess. Mr. H EINDERSON. I move to amend that motion, so as to take a recess until three o'clock this afternoon. The amendment was agreed to; and then'the - motion, as amended, was agreed to. Accordingly, (at twenty minutes past twelve o'clock p. m.,) the Convention took a recess until three o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at three o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. EDUCATION. Mr. LAWRENCE. I move that the Convention now resolve itself — into committee of the-whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. WINSOR in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled ,"Education." PRIMARY SCHOOLS. The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose this forenoon, it had under consideration section three of this article, which had been amended to read as follows: " The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools by which each district in the State shall maintain a school, tree of charge for tuition, at least iour'months in the year. Any school district neglecting to maintain such school shall be deprived, during the ensuing year,.of its proportion obr .that year of the income of the primary school fund. The instruction shall in all cases be conducted in the English language." 'The gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr, HUSTON,) hadaoffered the following as a substitute for the section: "The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools, by which each districtin the State shall maintain a school, free of charge for tuition, at least eight months in the year. The instruction shall, in all cases, be in the English language." The gentleman from K ent (Kr. WITHEY) moved to amend the substitute, so that it would read as follows: "The Legislature-shall provide for a system of primary schools, by'which a school shall be maintained in each school district in the State, free of charge for tuition, at least four months in the year." The question is upon the amendment to the substitute. Mr. WITHEY. I Will modify my -amendment'by adding to it the words: ' The'instruction shall' in all cases be in the English language." . The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. WITHEr, but before the result of the vote was announced, a division was called. Mr. P. D. WARNER. When this article was first laid upon our tables, it received my attention, and I decided upon the amendment that I conceived to be essential, in order to make it satisfactory to my own mind. I underscored in the third' section the words commencing with "any district neglecting to maintain such school," and extending to' and including the words "funds arising from taxes for the support of schools." I prepared an amendment which I proposed to offer to this section, if no one else offered it. A portion of what I conceived-detrimental to the interests of education in our State has already been stricken from the section. I voted to strike out the balance which was included in the amendment which I expected to offer. But that was rejected by the committee.' I infer that the committee, in rejecting that amendment, expected to adopt the substitute offered by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEa,) or I would not have arise n in my place at this time. I conceive that'the principles adopted in this section of attaching a penalty to those districts which on any account, either from neglect or extreme poverty, are unable to provide a school for four months for ther children withinh their limits -that shall be' absolutely free, is unjust and unreasonable'in the extreme. I do not consider that it will work:any great injury in its results in the older sections of our State, where wealth and affluence p predominate. But it is in the newer sections of our "'State, where the few settlers and frontiersmen have just located with their log cabins and large families, dependent' upon their own exertions and labors for the working out of their own destinies-there is where the injury is to result by the operations of this section as it now stands, and those are the individuals who are to receive the punishment which it is- proposed by this section to inflict upon them, in consequence, of their penury or their poverty. -There is no member of ths committee more deeply interested in our system of common. schools than myself. I have experienced the disadvantages that: were experienced by the early settlers- f our State. I conceive that if we adopt this provision in our Constitution it will tend only to the injury of those who0:are upon our frontier. It was intimated by the gentleman from ]Macomb, (Mr. M!USSEY,) I think, that this provision as it was reported by the committee on education, reflected only the provisions embraced in the present Constitution upon the same 415 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 1. J.UIY-' 27, 1867., 41 wOSIUI~LCNVNIX audy subject. I come to a different conclusion in my interpretation of the provisions of that Constitution, as they were understood and interpreted by the Legislature. That Constitution, it is true, provides that the State shall inaugurate a system of free schools. But the Legislature in its wisdom provided a tax of two mills upon the dollar of the assessed valuation of the real estate in the State. And they provided beyond that, that a certain amount might be raised in a district to support primary schools. There was nothing obligatory upon the districts requiring them absolutely to establish a system of free schools. But the fifth section of the article on education in the present Constitution, provided that, in case a school was not kept three months in each year, then the district failing to keep such school, should not derive any benefit from'the interest on the primary school fund, nor from any other fund raised by tajes f6r educational purposes. The Legislature interpreted that to mean that a school should be kept by a qualified teacher, and that is the law. But the section now under consideration, reported by the committee on education, makes it obligatory upon the Legislature,,to provide a system of primary schools, by which each district in the State shall maintain a school free of charge for tuition for four months in a year; and in case, through negligence or penury, any district shall fail to do so, it is proposed by this section to visit upon the district the condemnation of the Constitution, as well as of the statute law, and say that it shall not receive the advantage it would oth erwise be entitled to receive from the primary school interest fund. I regard this fund in a different light from what many members of this Convention do, judging from the re marks which have been made upon this question. I do not consider it a fund coming from the tax-payers of the State of Michigan, as has been inferred here. I consider it a fund held sacred by the State. The principal of that . fund is being used by the State, and the interest goes to the support of schools. Every child in the'State of Michigan, between the ages of five and twenty years, is entitled to his propor tiontof.that fund. I d6 not believe it is the policy of this Convention, or of the Legislature, to enact zany law by which any child, under any circumstan ces, shall be deprived of the benefit to be derived from that fund. iI consider that the substitute pro posed by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) will cover every interest which id involved here, and which is cherished byany member of this Con vention. I believe that it is certainly comprehensive, that it is certainly explicit, and that no penalty is needed to make it effectual. I believe it should be the policy of this Convention, by the adoption of this Constitution, to provide such measpres for the education of the youth of our State as shall be calculated to promote most effectually that object. But I do not believe it would be policy for us to adopt in the Constitution any provision which shall or may be construed to interfere in any manner with that object. Therefore I am opposed to attaching this penalty in any form to the provision. I am opposed to legislating in such a manner as will interfere with the great object of education in our State. And I hope this committee, as a division upon the question has been called-for, will adopt the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Kent for the section under considerations'. ...Mr. WILLARD. As. the sense in which tour committee view the language which is contained in the first claifse of this section, I move to insert after the words "by which each district in the State shall," the words "be enabled to;" so that that clause will read: "The Legislatire shall provide for a system of primary' schools, by which each dis trict in the; State shall be enabled to maintain a school, free of charge for tution, at least four months in the year." Mr. CONGER. I desire to offer a substitute for the amendment proposed by the-chairman of the committee on education, (Mr. WiLLARD.) Mr. WILLIAMS. ~I,rise to a ques tion of 6rder. A division has been called for on the substitUte of the gen tleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) and we are engaged in voting upon that question. Iwould inquire if an amend ment to the original section is now in order? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thin-ks amendmeats to the original section will be in. order, until the result of the vote upon the substitute for the section shall have been declared.''i Mr. BL~ACKMAN. If there is any doubt on that subject, I will say that there is an amendment pending to this section which I offered.:I will accep't the amendment of the gentleman from: Calhoun, (Mr. W~LARn,) in place of my amendment. Mr. LOTHROP. Tthe.object of the amendment proposed by the chairman of the committee on education, (Mr. WILLARD,) is to remove any difficulty, if there be any, which has been raised by the criticism of the gentleman rom St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER.) He supposed that this section might be construed to mean that the district should- -:itself raise the means to carry on this school. This amendment is to make it obligatory upon the Legislature to provide the means by which a district shall be enabled to maintain a school. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. WILLARD, and it was agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment offered by Mr. WITHEY for the substitute offered by Mr. HUSTON. Mr. H6LT. I desire to-offer a verbal,amendment to the original section. I move to amend the last sentence of the section by inserting before the words "in the English language," the word conducted." Of course there can be no misunderstanding about the meaning of that clause; still it seems to me-that the phraseology is not ex — actly as it should be. It now reads The instruction shall in all cases be in the English language." The questiom might arise whether any other language can be taught in primary schools, except the English language; whether the Latin, French or German language could be- taught in such schools. Of course we understand the meaning of the clause as it now reads; but I think we should make it read as it should read. The language of the present Constitution in this respect is the same that I now propose here; and I think it is better than that reported by the committee on education. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. HOLT; and upon a division, ayes 26, noes 9, no quorum voted. The question was again taken upon the amendment; and upon a division, ayes 42, nays 12, it was agreed to. Mr. LEACH. I would inquire if there is any question pending now, except the amendment to the substi tute, offered by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY?). The CHIAIRMAN. There is not. Mr. LEACH. Then I desire to have ,a vote on the substitute which I read this morning. The CHAIRMAN.' The amendment of the gentleman from'Kent~ (Mr. WITHEY) is to a substitute offered by the gentleman from Tuscola (Mr. Hus TON.) Therefore, no other substitute would now bW'in order. -.Mr. SUTHI:B'LAND. I move to amend the original section by striking out: the words-" The!Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools by which each district in- the State shallibe enabled to maintain a:school free of'charge for'tuition, at leastbbpr months in-the year;" and inserting. in lieu thereof, the following: " The Legislature shall provide by general laws for organizing primary school districts, and shall establish a system by which such district of like grades,. hether now existing I CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. -416 , Saturday,,' Ju1- 27 87 EAE -DPOEDXS or hereafter created Shall possess uniform powers, and be governed by uniform regula tions. The Legislature shall also provide for the levy of such taxes annually, on the taxable property of each township and city in the State, as shall enable each district to maintain a school free of charge tor tuition, at least four months in the year." I desire to say in support of my amendment, that the first clause of it is in addition to anything that therb is in the article as reported; there is no similar provision in that article. The clause is intended to promote uniformity in the law applying to school districts throughout the State. The wants of those districts are so similar and so uniform, that similar laws can properly govern districts of like character. That is sufficiently obvious to require no argument. Those districts that are already organized are uniform in their general features, and by a slight modification of the laws which govern them, can be brought under some general law, without detriment to those school districts organized under special charter. The last part of my amendment re quires the Legislature to provide for levying a tax in each township and city sufficient to maintain a school in the district for at least four months in the year, free of charge for tuition to those who patronize the school. I think one fault of the present Constitution is that it does not specifically point out the method by which these schools shall be made free. It evidently aims to ac complish that desirable object, but it does not, in a sufficiently defininite manner, indicate the method of doing so, and the Legislature have never carried out that provision. Districts situated in villages and cities, and in other populous sections, have to a large extent carried out the purpose of the Constitution. But those districts organized in the sparsely populated portions of the State have not done so. There is a reluctance among the inhab itants to avail themselves of the means of doing so. I think it is the object, and it should be the true policy of the State-I think that has been plainly shown in the present Constitution, and I think it is also the sense of this Con vention-to require all school districts, whether in the newer portions of the State, or in the older portions, to main tain for at least four months in the year, a free school. The provision which I have submitted comes nearer to accomplishing that object, by indi cating the means and method of doing it, than any other which has been pre sented. Mr. BILLS. For the purpose of being better informed, I desire:to make an inquiry. If I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Hr. SUTIEnILAND,) one of the Vol. 2-No. 53. provisions of that amendment is intended to produce a uniform mode of organizing school districts. The inquiry I desire to make is this: would not that provision conflict with- the present organization of primnary schools? It will be recollected that we have two-modes of organizing primary schools. In districts containing less than one hundred pupils the school board consists of a moderator, director and assessor. In union schools we have a different board, consisting of trustees; and in cities we have schools organized under special charters. I desire to make the inquiry, whether the provision submitted by the gentleman from Saginaw would not conflict with those organizations? Mr. SUTHERLAND. It is not designed to do so, but only to require uniformity in the laws governing school districts of like grades. For instance, in reference to those districts having the number of pupils necessary to en title them to elect trustees, the laws are to provide for a uniform mode of action among them. We have unifor mity as to the other kinds of schools which are managed by a director, moderator, and assessor, under the general laws which have always been in force. The aim of my amendment is to produce a like uniformity in the graded schools now existing under special law. Mr. LEA_CH. I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTH ERLAND.) His amendment contem plates the support of our schools by township andccity tax; to that I am decidedly opposed. I apprehend if we are to have free schools, they must be mainly supported by a State tax. I therefore move to amend the amend ment by striking out the words "each township and city in," after the words "or the taxable property of;" so that that portion of the amendment will read-( The Legislature shall also pro vide for the levying of such taxes annu ally on the taxable property of the State, as shall enable each district to maintain a school, free of charge for tuition, at least four months in the year." Mrr. SUTHERLAND. I desire to' say in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEAcH,) that by allowing the tax to be voted in townships and cities, the Legislature may discriminate between the more populous township and those which are less populous. They may, by this provision, require all townships without exception to raise money by a tax throughout the township to sup port a free school, for at least four months in a year. Then they can adapt the provisions of the law in other re spects with reference to the wishes of the population in the township; that is, they can provide whether the school shall be free for a longer period or not; and not compel all the townships to conform to one particular standard in the amount they shall contribute to this general object. I think an act of the Legislature can be framed with reference to the peculiar wants of each locality, much better under a provision of the Constitution requiring atownship ttan it can under a provision requiring the levy of a State tax. In the collection of'taxes there is a preference given to this class of taxes. Those that are raised under the denomination of "State taxes," are said to be realized in money, but they are realized circuitously, by passing through all the fiscal offices in the State. But those raised in the townships are raised in money, and are deducted from the first money collected by the collecting officers. They are thus realized at once, and may be applied the same season, and indeed during the same months that the roll is in the hands of the collector. But if the taxes are raised as State taxes, they cannot be expected to be realized until some months, and in some cases until a year afterward. The-question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. LrAcH to the amendment of Mr. SUTHERLAND; and upon a division, ayes 24, noes 16, no quorum voted. The question was again taken upon the amendment to the amendment; and upon a division, ayes 27, noes 20, there was still no quorum voting. The question was again taken upon the amendment to the amendment; and upon a division, ayes 31, noes 25, it was agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. SUTHERLAND as amended. Mr. LOTHROP. I really hope' this amendment will not be adopted. I think we will soon find ourselves very much at sea and in great difficulty, if we adopt this sort of legislation. if it means that these schools shall be sup ported entirely by State tax, so as not to make the tax-payers in thptdistrict directly interested in the school, then I think it would be a great error. C[ it means further, that the taxeslevied in Detroit, Jackson and Flint, a>- not t(' be expended there, but elsewhere, then it will lead to great di,~culty. I think the better way is m6 enjoin upon the Legislature the duty of providin,g the means to enable each district to main tain a free school No' body of men in the world is better able to devise such a system, and change fit as neces sary from time to time, than the Leg July.2 69 186T. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 4-17 CONSTlTUTIONAL CONVENTION. islature. I think they will give us the wisest legislation. I think we cannot, with propriety, do more than to im-'nnpose an injunction upon the -Legisla-' ture for establishing and maintaining free scoools.. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. SUTHERLAND, as. amended;- and it was not agreed to. The question then-recurred upon the amendment of'Mr. WVITHEY to the substituts offered. by Mr. H-TSTON.'-The -sutlute of'-Mr. - HusT'ON was -as follows: " The Legislature shall provide for' a system of primary schools by which each district:in the-State shall maintain a school free of charge fbr tuition, at least eight months in the year. The instruction shall in all-casesbe in the English language." The amendment of Mr. WVIXTHEY -was to make the substitute of' Mr.HUSTON read as follows: "The Legislature shall provide for a- system of primary schools, by which a sch6ol shall be maintained in each school district inr' the State, free of charge- for tuition, att leastfour months in the year. -The instructionshliall in all cases be fin the English'language." The question was taken upon: the amendment of Mr. WITHEY,''and it was', agreed to.... T- he question then was on the:'substitute offered by Mr. HUS'-TON,'' aS amended.. - Mr. LEACH. I move to- amend the 'substitute- so that it w'ill read': "After the first day of January, - eighteen hundred and seventy,- no charge for tuition, except in the higher departments of graded schools, shall ever be made in:the primary schools of this. State. All bona fide residents of school districts, over five years of age, shall be permitted to attend the primary'schools therein. The- instruction shall in all cases be conducted in the English language."' Mr. - HOLT. I have but one word .to say. It seems to me -that there', is this objection to the amendment of, the gentleman:from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH.) It is found necessary som,metimes to expel pupils from:,schools. 'Under his amendment, no s matter what objection there might be to'any scholar entitled to attend the scho6ls, there would be no power to expel him. The question was then taken -.upon the amendment of Mr. LEaH to-othe substitute of Mr.-HusToN; and it was not agreed to. The question again recurred on the substitute as amended.... '3r. CASE. -I move -to amend t.he substitute'by adding thereto the'f:-ol-. lowing: —- " The Legislature shall also provide for the' regular attendance at a, public or pravate school, for at least three months-of every year, of every scholar between the -ages of' seven and lourteen years, whose'health will :permit-such attendance." :The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. CASE,- and it was not agreed to. - -The question again recurred upon the substitute as amended. :Mr. BILLS. A vote has.just been taken upon an amendment, by which the Legislature was to be required to provide that scholars between the ages of seven and fourteen years should be required.'.to attend some' school. I li-heard nothing said in vindication of that proposition. I was not aware until :the'-question was being put that any such proposition was before this commifttee.:When this matter was before the committee of the w-vhole some days since, I penciled the following: " A/nd every' child between the ages of six and sixteen, within said district, shall be reqiuired to attend such schools at least three I'onths in the year." .I desire now to say a single word in regard to. that proposition. Perhaps it'may be a little presumptuous in me to say anythingm upon the subject, after the expression of opinion given by the ,Committee. I say it with a great deal of hesitation; yet I desire to call the attention of this Convention to the 'design of the amendment. For the purpose of doing so, I propose to present.this amendment, not because it ,embodies the most practicable provision upon the subject, but if the idea :meets" favor with' this Convention,' it may perhaps result-in some practicable :provision-. It-must be a matter within the observation of every member of this Convention that.in all our cities, and in all our. villages, :there...are -a large number of scholars that attend..no school at any -season of the year. Now, the question is. whether it is practicable, or.possible, to inaugurate any system whi-ch will require them to attend school some :por0tion of the year. I make thfi suggestion, because if the thing can be reduced' to a practicable form and car-ried- out, I believe it will cost.the State 'less to, educate those children in our primary schools, than it'will to allow them itobe: educated in. the school which they now- attend in- ou'r' streets, ;especially in our large villages:.'and cities. With a view, therefore,'to elicit some discussion on this question, I nmove the amendment I have read. Mr. RAFTER. I do not lmow how the proposition of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,-) can be made' :practicable. We know that it is a fact that the parents of many children in our State, particularly in some of our :cities':and villages, are too poor.. to -'clothe' their children'in- such: a manner ''as to: be enabled to send them to school. ':In.order'to canry out the proposition ~.of.the gentleman, I think it will be :necessary -to make' a provision, not only to compel the attendance of these children, but' also to clothe them, in . order that'they may attend the schools. Mr. CASE. I certainly hope that some provision of:this kind will prevail. In the amendment which I offered, I fixed the ages alittle differently from what they are fixed in the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLs.) But I am not particular about that'matter. As regards the suggestion made by the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. RAFTER,) I desire to say, that I wish to see the time when the property -of the State of Michigan shall not only educate the children of the State, but if need be shall clothe them, in order that they mnay be sent to school. I think when the Legislature shall make provision for carrying a law of this kind into effect, they would provide for such an emergency. There is probably not a member in this Con.vention who will not say outside of this Convention:that the principle of this amendment is correct. I have conversed. on this point with a great many members-of this — Convention, and they have. universally admitted that such a provision ought to be in our Constitution. The -only question is the expediency of such a provision. Are we prepared to take a step so far in advane of anything heretofore done? Whenever I admit that a proposition ought to prevail, then most assuredly I am ready to give my vote for that proposition. We hear. continually the idea advanced, ..that.we must not go ahead too, far; that it is, not advisable togo'forward too fast. I believe in making. progress; and if it- is right, which I contend it' is, to compel the. attendance of scholars in our schools, then let us adopt such ~ a provision in this. Constitution. I hold that it is not only right but that -it- is a duty which we. owe to.the chil dren of this State, and to.the future welfare and interests of the State. All'of us probably, who have had any experience in school matters, know that-the crying'evil is thenon,-atten': dance of some: children, and the irreg'i,ar'attendance of those who go to school.' Wecannot go into any.of our smallvillages, on any day of the week, withoutfinding.the streets full of boys who should be at school. We cannot obtain any satisfactory reason for their not being at school, -The schools are now virtually free a large portion of the year; they are so nearly free that there is no excuse for the non-atten dance of scholars. Take, for instance, the school district in which I live; we are expending a great deal for educa tional purposes. We probably have in the district one hundred and fifty chil dren.of the proper age to attend schooL Yet our school will not'average more than sixty to seventy-five scholars. SafudaY) 418 July 27, 1867. DEBATES AXD PROCEEDINGS. 419 .... Why is it so? It is not because our' children are employed in useful occupations; it is merely because they are running in the streets. I can point out large families of children where there is no excuse whatever for their non-attendance in our public schools; no ex- t cuse except a lack of interest on the part of the parents in their education. Now I claim that if a parent has a child in whom he does not take sufficient interest to see that he enjoys the advantages of education afforded him, it is right for the State to take that t child from him, if the object can be secured in no other way, and put him in school, and give him an education. I claim it is a duty which the State owes to the children of the State. I certainly hope that some provision of t this kind will be adopted. I am not i particular as to the precise form of it, but let us have the principle in some shape put in here, so that the Legislature can compel the attendance of scholars at school during some portion of the year. If we are going to pro- vide for free schools, we certainly ought to require the attendance of pupils of school age. Mr. GIDDINGS. I presume the proposition is a good one, but it seems to me that we make a little mistake in terms when we speak df children from six to sixteen years of age. It seems to me that the denomination " children" is not quite right. We do not call girls sixteen years old children; they are plump, marriageable women; we do not denominate them children at all. We had some discussion here the other day about the word "denomnination." I think we should be careful and use proper terms in the provisions we may adopt. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. The objection to this proposition is not that our children should not be educated, but that it is not practicable to carry such a provision.as this into operation. We do not, in this country usually make laws and enforce them at the point of the bayonet. In regard to taking children from a parent who will not send them to school, I do not know whether we are prepared to go into a system like that; because if it is done the State must feed and clothe the chil dren. It is true there are some cases of parents who do not send their chil dren to school, but they are generally shiftless, worthless people, usually those who are intemperate; and if we could remove the cause of their intemperance, then we could have those children sent to school. I think it would be imprac ticable to enforce a provision of this kind. Mr. BILLS. With a view, perhaps, of introducing my amendment at some future time, probably in Convention, and in order to have time more thor-' oughly to mature it, I will now with — draw it, so that no further time may be occupied upon it. The question again recurred upon the substitute of Mr. HUSTON, as amended; and being taken, upon a division, ayes 27, noes 26, it was agreed to. TOWNSHIP AND CITY LIBRARIES. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 4. The Legislature shall also provide for the establishment of a library in each township and city; and all fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities for any breach of the penal l1ws, shall be exclusively applied to the support of such libraries. Mr. SHTELDON. I move to amend this section by striking out at the close, the words "such libraries," and insert m lieu thereof, the words "primary schools;" so that that portion of the section will read, "all fines assessed: and collected in the several counties,: townships, and cities, for any breach of the penal laws, shall be exclusively applied to the support of primary schools." Mr. HOLT. I desire to move to amend this section by striking out all after the words "library in each township and city." The CHAIRMAN. There is already an amendment to the section pending; no amendment is therefore in order except to the amendment. .Mr. W. E. WARNER. I desire to offer an amendnment to this section. I desire to move.to strike out the word exclusively," and to add certain words. The CHAIRMAN. That would not be an amendment to the amendment, but an amendment to the section. The question was upon-the amendment of Mr. SHELDON, to strike out the words "such libraries," and to insert in lieu thereof the words "primary schools." Mr. BLA_CKMAN. I call for a division of the question, and ask that the vote be first taken upon striking out. The CHAIRMAN. A division of the question having been called for, the vote will be first taken upon striking out the words "such libraries." Mr. SHELDON. I am not so very anxious that my proposition should be carried in the precise form in which I have moved it. I offered the amend ment because I believed the system of township libraries, as now conducted, is almost useless. Frequently a large amount of books are collected together in:a township library, but the library is so improperly conducted that: the money spent for the books is very nearly lost. I do not know that in-the township where I reside we are any more careless than townships usually are. - But we have a large amount of books belonging to the library which ;are taken out by small children, who keep them for a-few days, look over the' pictures, and then return them; and they are very soon worn out. I think the people of Michigan owe it to the rising generation to establish such- a system of primary schools, that when our children shall grow up to be men and women, they will be sufficiently instructed to take their places in the world, and perform the ordinary dutiesl of'citizens. A young man. should be sufficiently educated in all 'the ordinary branches of learning, to be able to take his place in a store or .a manufactory. We owe to the children of the thirty thousand soldiers who have fallen in battle, that there shall be established a good system of - free- schools; we owe it to ourselves, upon the same principle, that we would insure our property in a -good insurance company.: If you educate the boys of the State in good primary schools, and train them up.as- they should be trained, you would rob this brick building over here of the most, if not all, of its tenants. There are now in that brick building some two hundred and seventy-five scholars, who have been taken by the operation of the-law from their parents, dressed in gray, -and placed there until they shall be twenty-one years of age. I thinkt the people of the State have it in their power, and that it is their bounden duty, to' inagurate some sys tem by which the jails and State prison may be cheated of their prey. Mr. MUSSEY. I hope that the mo ~ tion to strike out the- words "such libraries," will prevail; and I hope further that the Convention will strike out this entire section. i SEVERAL 1MEMBERS. That is right; ' that is what we want. Mr. M USSEY. The latter portion * of this section reads-'.' and all fines assessed-and collected in the several counties, townships and cities, for any breach of the penal laws shall be exclu sively applied to the support of such L ibraries;" that is, the libraries ' named in the first clause of this I section. I take it that this section Dcan be construed to mean only this: E that all fines collected for a breach of the penal laws are to be appropriated i for city and township libraries. Now, , I do not wish to provide in the Cone stitution that every township shall r:-have a library. I admit that it is very y well;to have libraries in all large towns, e and in all cities. I think as; a general y rule.they will prove satisfactory to the e people of such localities. While I adymit this much,. I feel just as confident that in a great many totwns this system e a e s i s 419 DEBATES AND PROCEF,-DINGS. .July- 27,,1867.. 42 COSIUTOA: OV~'IN:aud is not working well, and to say the least, has been of no benefit at all, and has produced general dissatisfaction. I know that we had a law upon the statute book at a certain time, (and it seems to me that we should learn a lesson from that,) that twenty-five dollars should be appropriated annually for township libraries. The Legislature was importuned, and I know I was importuned very strongly, from a great many different sources, to have that law changed; and it was changed. It was changed at the request of the people, because the people desired it; not because the Legislature had come to the conclusion that that law might be improved, but because the people urged the change upon the Legislature. In lieu of that law I believe we have tried two experiments, and I am not sure that they have work ed better. One is to provide for school district libraries; the other is to leave it to the town to decide whether there should be an appropriation made to the township libraries. My wish in the matter would be, that this subject should be left so that the Legislature might provide for township libraries, city libraries, or school district libraries, in any form or shape they may see fit. I think the Legislature would represent the wishes of the people in that matter, and make such provisions in regard to it as the people might ask. If any provision they might make should not work well, then they could change or amend it so as to remedy the evil. But when we say in the Constitution that every town and city shall have a library, and that the Legislature must provide the means for it, whether the township or city wishes it or not, I think we go too far. I will instance a single town in the county which I have the honor in part to represent. There is an unsettled strip or portion of land running through that township; the settlements are in two portions, or on two sides of the town. At some seasons of the year it is quite difficult to cross the swamp; at all events the people are not in very close intercourse. A library in that township must necessarily be kept on one side or the other of that swamp; on whatever side it should be kept, those on the other side of the swamp would be deprived of its use to a very great extent. I could give several instances of a similar character. While I would favor the furnishing of suitable reading matter, not only to the children but to the adults, to the old and to the young, I would be glad to have some provision made by which proper reading matter could be carried into every family, for I think there is a great want of it.' I do not think that it is best to establish an arbitrary system in the Constitution, which cannot be changed. There are difficulties i4 the last clause of the section, which provides that all fines for any breach of the penal laws shall be appropriated for the use of libraries. We have had very much difficulty under the prohibitory liquor law in regard to this very matter. Some towns if they enforced that law, would be enabled to maintain a most excellent library, perhaps as good as the library at the University. Mr. HENDERSON. Is it the law that all fines resulting from liquor suits shall go to the libraries? Mr..MUSSEY. I am coming to that; this section says that all fines collected for breach of the penal laws shall be applied exclusively to the use of libraries. The gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HENDERSON,) asked whether the fines collected for breach of the prohibitory liquor law would go to these libraries. I think it would. Is not that fine the penalty for the sale of spirits as a beverage, and is it not a fine for the breach of the prohibitory liquor law? Mr. HENDERSON. Is not there a statute which expressly says that those fines shall go to the poor fund? Mr. MUSSEY. I admit that. And now I ask the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HENDERsoN,) if that statute is superior to the Constitution? The stat ute says all fines shall go to the poor fund; the Constitution says that all fines for a breach of the penal laws shall go to the library fund. Is not the prohibitory liquor law a penal law, and does it not impose a penalty of ten dollars for a breach of that penal law? Mr. HENDERSON. I would ask if the school inspectors of Macomb county have assumed the prerogative of the supreme court of the State to decide that matter? Mr. MUSSEY. I will come to that point, if the gentleman will not be quite so impatient. It has been as serted, as the gentleman from Calhoun intimates, that the fines collected un der the prohibitory liquor law, are out side of this rule; and that it is per fectly competent for the Legislature to appropriate those fines for other pur poses. It is said that doctors some times disagree; and I believe that legal men disagree in regard to this matter. There is another thing, as to whether the Legislature had a right to appro priate any funds arising from that source to pay the costs of prosecution, and of collecting the fines. They stretch the Constitution and the law both, in some places that I know of, so as to have it mean the net amount, after paying the expenses. And to avoid any quarrel about where it should go, under the Constitution or the law, they use up the amount in expenses, when they come to balance the account at the end of the year. I do not think it is best for us to say in the Constitution that all fines for breach of the penal laws shall go to these libraries. This matter of selling intoxicating spirits as a beverage, is not the only crime committed in this State. It is a very general crime; it exists almost universally throughout the State, from what I have learned since I have been here, without let or hindrance. Though the gentleman from Calhoun (Mr. HENDERSON,) may be correct in his views that that is outside the Constitution, and that the fines should be applied in some other direction, still there are a great many other crimes committed; and I think the fines collected from those sources can be better appropriated than to libraries. I would have no objection to appropriating these fines to the primary schools, if the Convention shall desire it. But I think in many localities it would be money poorly invested in libraries. So far as my immediate locality is concerned, we have the advantage of a town library; and the people of the town, and of the two towns in which the village is located where I reside, have no difficulty in getting to the library. But I know that it is useless in many other towns of the county. I-.have been told by those who are best informed about the matter, by those most interested in it, that it is money poorly invested; that a very small part in proportion to the whole number of inhabitants derive any benefit from the library. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. Why can they not have the benefit of the li brary? Mr. MUSSEY. Because the libra rian is not easy of access. Very many towns are so situated that it would be difficult for the people to get from one part of the town to the other part. Take the town of Berlin; the west and east parts of that town have very little intercourse; though there is not so much difficulty at present as there was formerly. And there are other towns situated similarly to that one. Mr. HIENDERSON. The interroga tories to which I subjected the gentle ~aan from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) per haps rather unbecomingly, were not because I disagreed with him, but be cause he suggested a rather novel state of things, and my curiosity was exci ted to know how the board of school inspectors, after-claiming what he said, got out of it. Mr. MUSSEY. Allow me to inter CONSTITUTIONAT, CONVENTION. 420 Saturclay, -J 7.................. rupt the gentleman right there, in return for M- kindness in interrupting me. I would like to know what school inspectors have to do with fines at all, until they get the money? Mr. HENDERSON. I will come to that; I do not agree with the gentleman in saying that school district libraries are to be preferred to township libraries. Mr. MUSSEY. I did not say so; I think the township libraries are best. ' Mr. HlENDERSON. I will go back, and say that it was because township libraries had not given satisfaction, that the cry came up from the people to be allowed to vote at the ballot box to divide the township libraries into libraries for the school districts. To my surprise, in my township there were but two votes cast against a division. I predicted then that it would result in the destruction of the library. Out of six hundred volumes I understand that there are now many lost. I think the reasons which induced the Convention of 185() to put such a provision as this into the Constitution, do not now exist. The means provi ded for the information of the common people through newspapers are multi plied so much, and the public obtain so cheaply the other literature of the day, that, with other causes I might men tion, we are not now under such neces sity for adopting this provision. Then again, when we take into consideration the manner in which this clause has been regarded by the people, it seems to me it would be unwise for us to in corporate it here. I will instance this fact; I have heard it not in discussion, but I have heard individual members here say that it was a very common thing throughout the State, to ignore the provision entirely which provided that these fines should be used for li brary purposes exclusively. As a mat ter of course, it would follow that any officer using them for any other pur pose would be subject to a fine. Yet so largely are the people in favor of this disregard of the law, that they do not take any notice of it; and in different counties throughout the State it has become a common thing for the treas urer to put this fine money into the county general fund, notwithstanding they had a suit in the county of Wayne against the county treasurer, and he was compelled to restore the money to the proper fund. Yet in defiance of the law under which that suit was brought, the counties all over the State disregarded it. Hence, I am led to infer, and I think we have good ground for inferring, that the people do not ask that these fines shall take this course. If any express declaration should be made in the Constitution, or the law, I would prefer it in the law, about fines accruing from prosecutions for traffic in intoxicating liquors; I would be willing to vote for it. The law provides that the electors may say at their spring elections, whether they will have a certain per cent. of this fund devoted to the purposes of primary schools. I have not known the instance where they have not voted three to one, to put every cent of this fine fund into the school fund. I take it, that that is an indication that the people do not want such a clause as this in the Constitution. Mr. ROOT. It has been well stated by the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HiPNDERSON,) that the libraries of townships or districts amount to very little. In the township in which I reside, we had at one time a township library. The people were very much dissatisfied with that library. A law was passed which enabled us to have district libraries, and to divide the township libraries among the the school districts. The library now amounts to much less than it did before. The general opinion in the district where I reside is that the township or district library amounts to but very little, and that the money expended for those libraries had better go for the support of primary schools. I should be very much in favor of stri king out this section, and I hope it will be stricken out. Mr. BRADLEY. This is a very small question; perhaps we do not want any larger question for the Con vention, owing to the great heat. There is nothing to wake up the lions' of this Convention, so that those of us who talk in a small way may now have an opportunity to say something. I am sorry that the experience of mem bers has been such as that stated by the two or three gentlemen last upon the floor, in regard to this district library system. I should be sorry to be obliged to come to the conclusion that it is owing to the want of suffi cient intelligence on the part of the people of our State to appreciate the kind of reading which would be fur. nished by such libraries. I am glad that I do not live in any part of the State where the library system. has been such an entire failure. I believe that the Legislature, unadvisedly and without a sufficient call from the people of the State, authorized the district library system instead of the township library system. I believe that that act of the Legisla ture was just what killed the common school libraries in this State, before there had been a thorough trial of the system of township libraries. It is very natural for people to desire to bring these privileges to their own doors; and when the act of the Legislature was passed enabling them to have district libraries instead of town libraries, they at once voted in favor of district libraries. In so doing, they broke the township library up into little fragments, a basket of books or so to each district, and of course the whole thing died outin many places. Now let me say a word about the several townships with which I am acquainted. I know something about this.matter. I have had something to do with it ever since the first act of the Legislature upon the subject. In several townships where I was acquainted, good libraries were being collected; people became interested in the sort of reading furnished by standard historical works, and were being educated under the influence of these township libraries. If we had been allowed to go on for the next ten years in the same way, there would have been col lected in various parts of the State-not in every place, not where marshes and swamps intervene-but in miany parts of the State there would have been col lected valuable libraries for the instruc tion of the people. I believe this library system should be a part and parcel of the common school system. The common school goes into each district; children are educated, and the parents are educated under that system of training, and are prepared to take up reading which was ten years ago furnished to these sev eral townships. I know that the libraries in most of the large towns and cities of the State have been a success. I contend' that they might have been an equal success in every part of the State, if there had been time given for the development of the plan. In this matter it is just the same as it is in other matters; if we are not permitted to go on and develop in a certain direction, and have time to se cure the result of that development, we can never reach anything valuable.' So it is in all aepartments of our edu cational system, and so it will be in reference to founding libraries in the State. I should be very sorry to have this library system broken up. Members' will observe that the re port of the committee on this subject changes the phraseology which is used in the article on education in the pres ent Constitution, so as to bring back again the township libraries, so as to have only one library in the township. The gentleman from Calhoun (Mr. HENDERSoN) just now remarked that ~e have now a cheap literature, that the daily paper goes now l~tto almos every family, and that the people can I e 8 c s 0 I e 8 t 8 t DEBATES ANIJ PROCEPT)INGS-. .July 27, 1867. 421 \1 I 4iT. easily secure the periodical literature of the day. I thank the gentleman for that argument on my side of the-question. Simply because we have this ready access to the daily papers; simply because we may have access to this cheap literature, we need the other kind of literature all the more. We do not desire to feed the minds of our families and the inhabitants of our State simply upon these periodical issues. We want the standard historical works, and works of science, in order that our families may have access to a kind and style of reading that is never furnished by the daily press. And instead of that being an argument against this section, to my mind it is decidedly an argument in favor of retaining the section as reported by the committee. In regard to the last clause of this section relating to fines collected for breach of the penal laws, I am not particular whether it is retained or not. It is in my view a very just provision; it will add so much to our library fund, if we retain a library in the township. But I should regret very much to find that this committee or the Convention will as a final result strike out this section, so that no libraries hereafter shall be established by Constitutional law in the State of Michigan. I believe that by so doing we would strike at the intelligence of our people. Let me tell you that from my position in the world-no matter where I reside or where I came from from my position in the world, I claim to know something about this matter. It is very difficult for those families who have been reading families, families of considerable education, to find access to a single volume in some of the townships which meets their wants. They may go from one little private library to another, but their wants'are not met. They were formerly inhabitants of other States or communities, where they had access to large libraries. They come here to these wilds, and locate on farms, perhaps because they have lost their property elsewhere. But they do not desire to be deprived of their old style of reading; and a township library of a hundred or a thousand volumes, comes in and exactly meets their wants. Not only does it meet their wants, but the influence of that reading passes ultimately over to the families of the neighborhood, and to the families of the entire township. If we strike out this township library system, I apprehend we will be striking at the very root of the educational privileges oft the people of Michigan. I hope the: section will not be stricken out. Mr. ALEXANDER. I have no re marks to make in favor-of striking out, further than to express a desire to submit to the committee a motion to stiqke out the entire section, -so that: the arguments can be addressed to that motion also. I confess that I have no anxiety to engage inmere loose talking. It seems- to me that there is more time consumed over this question than there is any demand for. I would like to come to a vote upon it some time or other. I feel extremely anxious.to get through the labors of this Convention, and to go home about my business. It seems to me that we have spent time enough over this question. I differ with the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) very much, in relation to these township libraries. The people of my locality have settled the question at their township meetings, and have voted to appropriate these fines to the common school fund. They do not want any library; it is simply squandering the money, and eight-tenths of all the books that are put into the library, are carried off. Mr. MUSSEY. I would ask the gentleman if the dictionaries have been left in the libraries? Mr. ALEXANDER. If they have been, it is pretty nearly all that are left. Mir. MUSSEY. I suppose the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) can tell about that. There was a provision made in regard to these libraries that each district should be furnished with one of Webster's unabridged dictionaries. I would inquire of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, if these dictionaries are all there and in good order? Mr. BRADLEY. I think they are, so far as I know. Mr. MUSSEY. Ours are not; they have stepped out. Mr. GERMAIN. I have a word or two which I desire to say upon this question. I believe the motion is to strike out the entire section. The CHAIRMAN. The first question is upon striking out the last two words of the section, after which the' question will be upon inserting certain words if that motion is agreed to. Mr. GERMAIN. I infer from the action of the Convention here, if we are to provide for a free school for six or seven months in the year in each district, we are to provide means for schools scattered around our State, which will be made free to the children of the people, to those of indigent pa, rents, as well as those of wealthy parents. I am aware that our law at present provides that the district board shall:furnish for the use of children of indigent parents such text books as they may need at school. We have had a suggestion here which squints strongly to the incorporation of a provision which shall require the compulsory attendance of children, between the ages of seven and fourteen years. Now, if we are to adopt such measures as those, will we be consistent by striking out such a provision as this?.. By the provision we have adopted here, we will be furnishing the children with the means of securing merely the A,_B, C, of education. If we furnish each township with a library, then the children, after having drank at the fountain of knowledge, will have access to the standard authors of English literature, and other classic works of olden time, the perusal of which will be beneficial to them, and will serve them in after life. When gentleman rise up here and declare that township libraries are a failure, I say they have not the data to prove it. How many children who have drank from these founts, yet remain undeveloped, bu-twho may in consequence of the opportunities they have enjoyed by having access to these libraries, be yet a benefit to their race? Mr. ROOT. May I ask the gentleman a question? Mr. GERMAI R. Yes, sir. Mr. ROOT.'I would inquire if the gentleman was librarian in any town where a township library was established? Mr. GERMAIN. I have been librarian. The township library in our township has from three to four hundred volumes. It was drawn according to the rules furnished by the superintendent of public instruction, and the people of every school district had access-to the library. I do not say that these privileges were appreciated by all the peopl1e; but I say that the institution was beneficial. And even if the volumes have been frittered away, and been picked up here and there by the people, the result will still be beneficial eventually. A good book well read by an individual desiring and seeking knowledge is worth its price. For one, if we are going to take such action as is proposed here in regard to free schools, I say that we should maintain a system of township libraries. Let us give these opportunities of information to indigent children whose parents are not able to furnish them access to the standards of literature and science, without which they must go groping in darkness, or dbpend upon the papers of the day, which are but darkness, including every kind of crime and wrong and wickedness, and not at all calculated to foster correct 422 CONSTITUTIONAT, CONVENTION. Saturday,, J11l 27, 187 DEAE - ROEDNS principles in the young. This yellowcovered literature should have no place in the library. But if standard works are selected for the library,- they cannot but be beneficial to the community generally. Mr. W. E. WARNER., I hope there will be no disposition on the part -of this committee to strike out this section. There may be complaints in particular localities that these township libraries do not work well. It is so in portions of Wayne county, while in the city of Detroit, the library is very highly prized. I have sent up an amendment which I design as an amendment to the amendment, or rather an amendment to the section. I believe it will meet the design and wishes of a majority of this committee, and perhaps will be accepted by the mover of the amendment now pending, (Mr. SHELDON.) My amendment is to strike out the word "exclusively," and to add to the section the words except in cases wherein the electors of any such township or city voting thereon shall otherwise determine." If so amended, that portion of the section will read-" All fines assessed and col lected in the several counties, town ships or cities, for any breach of the penal laws, shall be applied to the sup port of such libraries, except in cases wherein the electors of any such town,ship or city voting thereon shall other wise determine." That will leave the matter with the people of the towns and cities. If they see fit to turn the means which may be derived from this source into any other channel than the library, they can have that privilege. I think that amendmeit will meet the approbation of those who desire to take this fund fromthe libraries and appropriate it to.the primiary schools, or to any other purpose for which-the people may determine by vote. Mr. ALDRICH. I will not detain the committee very long. I desire to say that this system in the rural dis tricts of the country has always worked badly, and I think it will continue to work badly. My opinion is, that the whole section had much better be stricken out, and the Legislature left to provide such means as they may see fit in regard to these matters. Mr. HENDERSON. I have-just one word to say. I am- unwilling to be placed where the remarks of: the gen tleman from Kalamazoo, (Hr. BRAD LEY,) would naturally place me, as op posed to anything which might seek to establish good- and valuable town ship libraries. I am unwilling to ad mit the amendment of -the gentleman from Ionia, (Mr. XERMAIN,) to my term "literature;" he uses the term ",yellow covered literature." I did not use any such language, and did not mean to. The motion of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. W. E. WARNERF,) is just exactly as' the law now stands. I have never known a case, where the people did not vote three to one, to put these fines in' the primary school fund. Mr. LAWVRENCE.' I feel too deep an interest in the question under discussiop to forbear submitting a few remarks. I have had some experience in regard to this matter. It was enentirely due to the destructive act passed by the Legislature in reference to this matter, that these township libraries have not been of great good to the townships; I have no doubt of it. That act has destroyed almost every valuable collection of books that has been made. As was truthfully remarked by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (M r. BRADLEY,) if it had not been for that act there would now have been ex isting in the townships valuable libra ries that would have afforded intellec tual food for the rising generation. I believe it would be one of the most suicidal acts in reference to the cause of education, to destroy this township library system, that this Con vention could possibly commit. If we are going to create in the minds of the .young, as we all;desire to do, an appe tite for the acquisition of learning, when we have created that appetite, shall we forbear furnishing them means for gratifying that appetite? I hope the motion to strike out this sec tion will not prevail. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. I am very sorry to see so much opposition to these libraries. It is perhaps true that in most of the towns, or very many of them, in this State, there are no town ship libraries. The result is -what I expected it would be'when the law was changed, which I think was in 1859, L permitting these township libraries to i be divided among the several school districts in the towns. In most of the L towns the libraries were so divided, and , they have been frittered away, until now >they amount to very little or nothing. A At that time the township library sys; tem had not been in existence many X years, and it had not existed a suf ficient length of time to determine its ; excellence or otherwise. ; It has been said by many members on this floor, that the township library system has been a failure; yet the only reason given by any member who has : -spoken upon this subject, was given ~ bythe gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. * MUSsEY.) His reason is,'the cases of L one or two towns in the State, which L have swamps running through the ceentral?'portions of the towns, so that r the library caunot be located in the geographical centres Qf the towns. That, perhaps, is a very good reason. But I suppose that the most of our towns are not afflicted with swamps in the centre of them; and even in the cases of those which are so afflicted, I suppose the library might be located in the business part of the town, and the people, with very little inconvenience, could have access to it. It strikes me that this is a matter of some importance, that we should provide reading for the young and the old. If it is a fact that but few of the townships contain such a library as they would desire to have, the question arises here, what shall we do? Shall we make any provision for libraries, or shall we let the matter rest? I take it that the school district libraries are about played out; they are to a great extent worthless. But I deny that the township libraries have proved a failure, where the people have paid any attention to them. I see no reason why under the old law, they should not have proved a success; and if the directors of school districts had done their duty, they would have proved a success. I think if we provide in this Constitution for a system ,of township libraries, instead of its proving a failure it will prove a benefit to our people. Mr. RAFTER. I am as much in fa vor of the diffusion of knowledge through the means of primary schools and libraries as perhaps any other member of this Convention. But I have not in my experience learned that the advantages of libraries have been appreciated, or that the people of. many localities avail themselves of the ad vantages of libraries. Within a recent period there has been a change to a certain extent in our school system. Instead of township school inspectors, we now have county superintendents of schools. And it may be necessay to make various other changes during the existence of the Constitution we now propose- to lay before the peo ple for their adoption. If necessary to have these libraries, it may seem wise to take-them from the townships. I am opposed to embodying anything in the Constitution which will make it the absolute duty of our Legislature to provide each township with a library. I think this whole section might prop erly be struck out, and the whole mat ter be left to the Legislature, who I think are competent and able to'make such regulations and laws as may be for the best interests of our State, and 'such as circumstances may suggest. I do not believe in:the propriety of ty'ing this matter up by a constitutional provision. It has been suggested here from time 'I DEB-ATF,S AWD PROCEEDINGS. . 7- - '.Tiril - 27, 1867. 1. .-423 424 OOSrTTOA OV-'O audy to time that there is too much disposition on the part of this Convention to legislate. I do not think that at any time has there been a stronger disposition in that direction than at the present time. I have been absent from this hall for a short time; if there is no motion to that effect pending, I will move to strike out this entire section. Mr. WILLARD. Inasmuch asI am honored with the position of chairman of the committee that reported this section, I desire to submit a very few remarks in relation to it. At the time when we propose to make every man in this State who has arrived at the age of twenty-one years a voter, it seems to me that we should not take a backward step in the work of the uni*versal dissemination of knowledge. I believe that the Constitution which provides that the government shall rest upon the votes of the whole people, hould also contain provisions by which intelligence may be disseminated among the whole people. I believe that free schools should be fostered, and nourished, and encouraged, and supported, and maintained. I believe that libraries should be established in every part of the State; at least, in every township and city in the State. The arguments which have beenurged here, founded on the experience of the past, I must say do not weigh with me, nor do they incline me at all to the opinion that this section should be stricken out. It would seem, from the remarks which gentlemen have made here, that the provisions of;the existing Constitution in this respect have not been faithfully carried out; that there has not been at least one library in each township established by legislative provisions; that the most of those which have been established have been frittered away by being divided up among the different school districts of the townships; and also that these fines, which the Constitution designed should go into the fund foe the support of those libraries, have been diverted from that purpose. It is not strange, under the circumstances, that men appeal to the experience of the past, and ask of what use are these libraries. But I believe-if the people of this State will take hold of the matter in good earnest, and carry out the provisions we have reported in this section, they will prove the means of immense good to the State. I think we should by all means retain the provisions of this section. If it be said that in any part of the State the people are not sufficiently awake to the importance of these libraries, that is the very reason why the State should take hold in good earnest and establish them. We know that intellectual tastes need to be adihinistered unto; we know that there is not a craving for intellectual food, until the food is prepared and supplied. Communities have little taste for reading, until they have been supplied for a time with the means of reading. There is not a call for libraries, until men have had some acquaintance with libraries. In my town where we have three libraries, if you should take away those libraries, the people would feel that a great blank had been made in that town. Our old men and young men, our women and children are using all those libraries. We have three libraries there; one established by a ladies' library association, another by a young men's library association, and another established by the' State; and we' feel that they are all useful. I hope that the time will soon come when in every town in our State these libraries shall be established. We will soon have a thousand or more townships, and with a thousand or more libraries in the State of Michigan, nothing but the fiat of the Almighty can bring our liberties to the dust. I think that when we are establishing the principles of universal suffrage, we should above all means provide for universal education. Mr. LUCE. I have not risen to make a speech, but to beg the committee to come to a vote. If we go wrong now, we can right it when we get this article in the Convention. I do not see the necessity ot contesting and discussing every line and word of this section. I hope we will come to a vote. Mr. RAFTER. In opposing this section, I do not wish to be understood as opposing libraries, or as manifesting any lack of interest in libraries. I feel as much interest in libraries as perhaps any man upon this floor. The gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WILLARD,) seems to highly appreciate the libraries of his city. The great objection I have to this section is that it prevents the Legislature from enacting a law relative to libraries, which might perhaps be highly beneficial to the people of our State. It is a very easy mats ter for those who reside within a city to make a library-in a city accessible to all. But such is not the case in many of our townships. As we are all aware, many of our townships are quite extensive, some of them embracing a territory of fifty, sixty, and some of them seventy sections. That would not unfrequently remove the township library to a distance-of seven or eight miles from some of the inhabitants of the town. I know one township in my county where the library is seven or eight miles from some of the readers of that town. If this- matter is left to the Legislature they might not only establish township libraries, but they might see proper to divide the State up into sections or divisions, for the purpose of locating libraries in those divisions, instead of locating libraries merely in townships. They might make those divisions much smaller than townships, make them so as to accommodate the interests of the readers, and not oblige them to travel five, six and seven miles to get books from the township library. There are many inconveniences attending township libraries. I think as our populq,tion increases, the Legislature should be left free to make such provision relative to libraries as will be beneficial to the people. Therefore, I am in favor of leaving this whole matter out of the Constitution. The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from. Lenawee, (Mr. SHELDON,) to strike out the last words of the section, "such libraries"'-' and to insert in lieu thereof the words " primary schools," so that that portion of the section will read, "and all fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities for any breach of the penal laws, shall be exclusively applied to the support of primary schools." A division of the amendment having been called for, the first question will be upon striking out the words "such libraries." The question was then taken upon striking out the words "such libraries;" and upon a division, ayes 23, noes 26, no quorum voted. The question was again taken, and upon a division, ayes 25, noes 26, it was not'agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The motion to strike out having failed, the motion to insert consequently falls. Mr. UTLEY. I move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave-to sit again. . The motion was agreed to, upon a division; ayes 26, noes 25. The committee accordingly rose; and the PREsIDENT having resumed the chair, Mr. WINSOR reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention, had had under consideration the article entitled "Education;" had made some progress therein, and had directed him to ask leave for the committee to sit again. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. HENDERSON. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at fifteen minutes past five o'clock p. m.,) the Convention adjourned. CONSTITUTIONAT., CONV'ENTION. aturd'ay, 424 July 27, 1867. DEBATES AD rROCEEDIGS. 425 FIFTY-THIRD DAY. MONDAY, July 29, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a, m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mr. MCINTIrE. The roll was called, and-a quorum of members answered to their names.' LEAVE OF ABSENCE. MI.r B-URTENSHAW asked and obtained leave of absence for"Mr. Mc-. KE'RNAN, during the day. - Mr. BURTENSHAW also asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for himself, on account of sickness in his family. Ml-. m. C. WATKINS asked -and obtained indefinite leave of absence for himself after to-day. Mr. WILLIIAMS asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. WALKEa during the day. GRlANT FOR RAILROAD FROMI DETROIT TO LAKE SUPERIOR, ETC. .Mr..INCTALLS...I move t:q tke .from thtable,:,: _s.' by me on ~a!ktVFxid~y,,, skxig/'rs. and".. Rep~re se.n{t~a-/ t' e~sT' iu C,Qn-: gr~s"~'". {5:~'se ? Wtheir'a, Tnhl enep to bt'"en iT.,i~Q,i~[i[7a~i' oa"io.r)ietr th iear f ~'~ i c T ~ ~ ~ t i o n w a s p a g r e d t o a d t k ~~~~f ~~~~~~ t h e!i l o i g e s' l t o n i ~ Repr re~ n as,t es < i Th g e s top us -pp~~ ati ~ ~ r g r t to ai ~ t 4e o n 4,qrtgon io A railoIf o )~ i l $h~ ta e o f i ~ ig.~ b y w a y:f-th stra; its~ of nii'e~ thr.ug thei .U'p e-i m i ni ns'.,~t,'the,:.ae ad o ae n k ful t d m~a n a d it Is e t ~ ~ t p n a v -~ nue.:.?ric f~x.7 tshe;i:r. c_ aneh a tpn..t: tion :-St.t~,b,,y ways~thelL. rals o {9.,mn {w an ~n'ce thro'ugh the in~r i~~ ot...e.sa...Upper .a~ r,.t., sF-%n~ a'o: etlie' Ep~6 tiOi"of t heffa/a tli:' te,tri tta O "orther,,u%e' f the,lo:."oiil a such connection-the wants of the separate localities will within a few years eventuate in a dismemberment of the State and, the erection of a new State, a necessity for'which would, by the construction of a railroad through the State by way of the Straits of Mackinaw, be greatly lessened; And whereas, The construction of a railroad along the route above named and the Northern Pacific Railroad, would -be a work of national importance;:therefore, Besotved, That our' Senators and Representatives in Congress be instructed to- use their utmost lawful endeavors, at the next and succeeding sessions of Congress, to procure a: suitable grant, either in land or'bonds, or both, as the case may be, from the United States, to aid in the construction of a railroad from Detroit as aforesaid, by way of the Straits of Mackinaw to the head of Lake Superior; and that the Secretary of State be re.quested to forward copies of this resolution to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress before the next session thereof. Mr. LEACH. I move to amend the resolution by inserting after the word "Superior," in the sevepth line, as published in the journal, the following: Provided, That if a grant of'land be obtained, said land shall not be withdrawn from market, but shall:remain subject to sale, the avails to be appropriated to the purpose for which he grant is made."""'-". Also, by stri/kin:bt the word cand' :mn:i~h"':se~v.nth,,ne and'sertmg t.he. wordn'~'J"s&i:~,-d,o's":to"m" to~: makp'i.:~5he the original resolution. I suppos&;Mr P-r'efident, that s~ o f t h m e n b e ~ 9 - i e o ~ n t n'i t~ y perhaps think that this is" "iter 'so. m ew,hat, i~..e.ig..a,..to'he: da.tie~o~f.f tflh2 :,ex' re~s:sive o".Lt.... e-,o o:~b,:;:.,th:::C8 a [""n" ve~ion C ifu vesifr o Ag,i promises to be of beneqfftoi'5!hiifte ,~tic;ke;-it-.to b.L,t hdty u b'e:-:a -,pa~t of."he'?contitt~t~io~l p~%:-, That ~ aTh to!ir s - ano%%ae''o the "'f;.,'tw il-l_..i,~,. we shall put ourselves in direct comiunication with the Northern Pacific Railroad, thus taking through our State a large proportion of the business which must come over that route, embracing not only our own American ;ade but the Asiatic trade. That the States west of Lake Michigan will )btain their share of this business, there s no doubt; but unless something be tone by the people of Michigan to contruct a road through this State we shall derive but little or no proportionable benefit from the construction of the Northern Pacific railroad. The road proposed -in this resolution, while it will continue that great trunk through our State, will also open up the resources of our own State; and this is a matter of the geatest importance. We now have roads only across the southern part of the State. These roads have already demonstrated their utility and value to the State; but-they are of little utility in comparison with a road running through the Upper and the Lower PeniRsula,.I venture. to.say that if; such lii in" ten ge;itte,a,,.wl a h a ion,e .;v..e.e:.ars.it, will:doublethe aD'e. sanbthe pri.Irty:~o-'the Sta. t,? [ as wTdmr'::e as i [6fble'.'th po6~.latiO'....ln?. n':Td~ien' -ct.'.,',,~:A.,.PL~JLi~' ~[:,~~G~~X,~~2~":'' t which i~''seems of'ems 4$ DEBATES AND PROC'PF,, INGS. 425 July. 27, 1867. 426 ()OITUTIOAL COVETIO. Monday, I do not believe I can support it, if it be amended as proposed by the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH.) I will move, with the gentleman's consent, that the subject be laid on the table. It can be taken up again to-morrow. Mr. INGALLS. I have no objection to allowing the resolution to lie over until to-morrow. But I should like to have the question determined very soon, because I shall be compelled on next Wednesday to ask indefinite leave of absence. M-. GIDDINGS. I only want time to look at the resolution in connection with the amendment. Ma. McCLELLAND. WouLld it not be better to strike out that clause of the resolution where it speaks of the United States Government aiding the construction of this road by an issue of bonds? The United States is not in the habit of doing anything of that kind; and it is well known that there is a large party in the United States opposed to everything of the sort. I am myself in favor of a grant of land for this purpose; but I am opposed to a grant of bonds or money. Mr. GIDDINGS. That question can come up as well to-morrow. Mr. CONGER. I will call the at tention of the gentleman who offered the resolution to another point. The United States has already granted lands to aid in building a road from somewhere in the neighborhood of Saginaw to the straits of Mackinaw. It has also granted land to aid in build ing a road from the straits of Macki naw to Marquette, from Marquette to Ontonagon, and thence t6 some point on the Wisconsin State line. It has also granted lands in Wisconsin for a road from some point on the Wiscon sin State line to Fond du Lac or Supe rior City. What I desire to suggest is whether it would be better to draw this resolution with some reference to the lands already granted. Perhaps it might not be exactly right to ask for a renewal of a grant which has been made to separate companies over almost the entire line in question. I merely speak of this matter to call to it the attention of the gentleman who has offered the resolution. I do not desire to discuss the matter to-day. The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GrDDINGS,) that the resolution as modified be laid on the table. The motion was agreed to. Mr. CONGER. I hope that the gen tleman will withdraw his acceptance of the amendment of the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. L~cH,) so that we may have the two propositions be fore us separately. I am in favor of the resolution in its original shapes with perhaps some slight amendment; but I am opposed to:it in its modified form. The PRESIDENT. The resolution as modified, has been laid on the table by the action of the Convention. Mr. INGALLS. I beg leave to say, in answer to the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) that in my view, this resolution is merely recommendatory to our members of Congress. When they come to act on the subject, we expect of course that they will use their own judgment and discretion in framing such a law as will meet the wants of our people. Hence, I see no risk in adopting the resolution in the form in which it is proposed, because it is not a finality. If it were a finality, the precise form of the resolution might be a matter of importance. But the resolution is simply a recommendation; and it is to be presumed that our members of Congress will do that which, in view of all the facts, may seem to be best. E,DUCATION. On motion of Mr. ALEXANDER, the Convention resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. WINSOR in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Education." TOWNSHIP LIBRARIES. The pending section was the following: SECTION 4. The Legislature shall also provide for the establishment of a library in each township and city; and all fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities for any breach of the penal laws, shall be exclusively applied to the support of such libraries. The pending question was upon an amendment offered by Mr. STOCEKVWELL, to strike out "shall," and insert " may," and also to strike out the word C exclusively," so as to make the section read as follows: The Legislature may also provide for the establishment of a li'rary in each township and city; and all fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities for any breach of the penal laws, shall be applied to the support of such libraries." Mr. STOCKWELL. Mr. Chairman, while I am in favor of the most liberal provisions for placing in the hands of every individual the means of an education, I am unable to see the propriety of fixing in the Constitution a provision compelling the Legislature to establish a library in every township and city, and appropriating to this use all moneys arising from fines collected for breaches of the penal laws. I see no reason why this matter might not be left in the hands of the Legislature. While I would not desire to leave the Constitution silent on this subject, but would recognize the principle, I would leave the whole question of detail to the control of the Legislature. This was the object I had in view in offering this amendment. The section, if amended in the manner which I propose, would leave the whole matter of detail to be controlled by the Legislature as in its wisdom it may deem best. I hope that this amendment, or some other similar in effect, may be adopted. Mr. CROCKER. I move to amend section four, by striking out "a," in the first line, and by inserting in lieu thereof the words, " at least one," and by striking out of the section all after the word "city," where it first occurs in line two; so that the section will read as follows: " The,Legislature shall also provide for the establishment of at least one library in each township and city." I will state briefly my reasons for offering this amendment. I am opposed to the section as it now —stands from the fact that it interferes with the present arrangements of our district libraries. Members of the committee are of course aware that the Legislature last winter made X very important change in our school laws by providing for a county superintendent of common schools. This step will, I apprehend, do much toward making a uniformity and concurrence of action in everything pertaining to our schools, and especially our school libraries. The Legislature, in making sonme years ago the change from the township to the district library system, may or may not have done that which was for the best; but we are all aware that a system of school libraries cannot be built up in one year or in five. The people are too impatient, of great results from a step of this kind. Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to ask the gentleman from Macomb (Mr. CROCIIER,) whether he would not be willing to modify his amendment by inserting after the word "establishment," the words "and maintenance." MIr. CROCKER. I will accept the suggestion of my fiend from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINDS,) and modify my amendment in that way. The section will then read. "The Legislature shall also provide for the establishment and maintenance of at least one library in each township and city." This will leave the matter to the determination of the Legislature; and I apprehend that this will be much the wisest course for this Convention to pursue. If the present system, after it has been tried, under the direction and supervision of our county superintendents with the aid which they can give it, . CONSTITUTIONAL, CONVENTION. Monday, 426 Jul 29s 187 DEAE e~:RCEl~G~ shall be found to be a failure; it can be changed in the manner contemplated by the present section as reported by the committee. But any change of a system of this kind had, I think, better be undertaken with great care. We had better not precipitate a change, but wait until it is recommended by the State superintendent, or the county superintendents, after a fair trial of the present system. The county superintendents, acting in concert with each other, and having the advice and counsel of our State superintendent, can doubtless so arrange the system of township or district libraries that it will be permanent and beneficial. But I apprehend we had better allow the present system a fair trial; and if, after trial and investigation, the county superintendents deem a change advisable, they can recommend it. Mr. W. E. WARNER. I rise to inquire how many amendments are pending to this section. The CHAIRMAN. There is but one amendment pending-that of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL.) Mr. W. E. WARNER. I offered, on Saturday last, an amendment which I thought was pending. The CHAIRMAN. It was not in order at the time it was offered. Mr. W. E. WARNER. Is the amend ment of the gentleman from Macomb (Mr. CROCEER) an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee? The CHAIRMAN. It is not. It is an amendment to the section, and is not now in order. Mr. HOLT. I offered, on Saturday, an amendment which I think has not yet been acted on. The CHAIRMAN. That amend ment was offered while another was pending, and was not in order. The amendment now pending is that of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCK WELL. ) Mr. CONGER. On that, I call for a division of the question so as to take the question first on striking out "shall," and inserting "may." Mr. M1CLELLAND. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the committee will re flect seriously upon this section before making any radical change in it. This system had its origin in the Constitu tution of 1835, and by projecting it, a gentleman from Calhoun county gained ~more credit than from anything else in his whole life. The system has, I think, added more to the reputation of our State abroad than any other por tion of the Constitution of 1835, or the Constitution of 1850; and I regret to hear gentlemen say upon this floor the% the system has been carried out effectually in but few townships of this State. Until I heard this general expression here, I supposed that the system had worked well in most of the townships of the State. I know that it has operated remarkably well in many of our cities and villages. Under the operation of this system, we have in the city of Detroit a library which is, I presume, one of the best in the entire Northwest. It is one of our most creditable institutions; and it is the result almost entirely of the operation of the last clause of this section. The fund, thus created is sufficient to obtain nearly all the important works now issued from the press; and every one knows they are exceedingly numerous. I do hope, for the sake of the character of the State abroad, if other considerations should be deemed insufficient, this section and other sections of this article will be dealt with, to say the least, kindly. Mr. BILLS. From the general expression upon this floor, it would appear that this system has not been effectually carried out, for the reason that when, by the action of the Legislature, the township libraries were divided into district libraries, the subdivisions proved to be too small to be of much use. In this way, the system, I apprehend, has suffered from the action of the Legislature. Take, for instance, a single township-that, in which I reside, containing about twenty-five school - districts. It is easy to see that if, in that township, all the books in those twenty-five small libra ries, controlled by separate school dis tricts, were put together in one library, they would make a library of so much value to the township that it would be well cared for. And a township library would, I think, accommodate the in habitants of the several school districts as well perhaps as the various district libraries, because it would be located at the centre of business, at a place where all the inhabitants of the town more or less frequently congregate; and in a township library they would have access to twenty-five volumes, where if the books were divided among twenty-five district libraries, they would have access to only one. Now, I deem it a matter of immense importance that a provision of this kind should be adopted either by the Legislature or by this Convention. I do not regard it as very essential that the Constitution should impose upon the Legislature the necessity of doing this thing, because I believe that, even without any such provision in the Con stitution, the Legislature will never abandon the purpose of contributing the means of the State, to some extent at least, toward the encouragement of township libraries. If, however, it would serve to correct what I deem to be a misconceived purpose on the part of the Legislature to divide up these libraries, I should not onlybe willing, but should consider it desirable, to insert in the Constitution a provision making it obligatory upon the Legislature to establish and maintain township libraries. The adoption of the amendment now pending would, in my judgment, be almost equivalent to striking out the whole section. It proposes to substitute the word "may," for the word "shall," If this amendment were adopted, the section might as well read: " The Legislature may or may not provide for the establishment of'a library in each township or city." That is what the change would amount to. I think that, if a section upon this subject is to be embraced in the Constitu tion, it should provide that the Legis lature shall establish and maintain township and city libraries. I see no propriety in inserting a section declar ing that the Legislature may or may not do so, which is equivalent to say ing nothing on the subject. I should be in favor of retaining the section in some form which shall be mandatory upon the Legislature. Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, members of this Convention may be di vided into two classes: one comprising those representing villages and cities, that are well satisfied with this provi sion for township libraries; the other class embracing those coming from the rural districts, wlo are dissatisfied with it. The two classes view the question from different standpoints. Now, so far as my knowledge extends, the system, so far as regards the rural districts, is perfectly worthless, while with regard to the villages, it is a good thing. Hence, the different views which dif ferent members take of this question. It seems to me proper that the Legis lature should have absolute control of this matter. The cities and villages desiring libraries under some provision of this kind, should have them; while the system should not be imposed upon the rural districts, conferring no ben efit, but simply operating as an incon venience. Most of the rural townships have no villages in the central portion of them, their market-place or place of business being in many cases away off, upon the lineeof a railroad, outside of the town ship and perhaps distant from it. The people of the township in most cases never go to the center of the township to do any business whatever; they have barely a post-office in one corner. This is the case with many populous and wealthy townships. It is in many cases July 29, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCE'P,'DINGS. 427 v CONSTITUTIONAL, CONVENTION. absolutely impossible to establish a township library that will be interesting, and will attract the people to it to take out books. Besides, sir, in the southern part of the State I know not how the case is in the northern part-almost every family has nearly as many books as are required for its own use. The library system as it exists there is worthless. The books lie scattered in one house or another, no one taking any care of them. In three townships with which I am well acquainted, there could not be gathered together enough books to make a respectable library. Under such circumstances there is no use in in incorporating in the Constitution a provision which experience has shown will not be carried out. I admit that as regards villages and cities, the system is not only practicable, but works well; but it cannot, as I know from my experience of the subject, be carried'out in the rural townships. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, from the year 1848 to 1853, I had more or less to do with the purchase of books for the township library in the township of Spring Arbor, in the county of Jackson. During that time we accumulated a library which I think was really a credit to the township; and I am glad to be able to say that to my certain knowledge that library was read by the citizens of the township. I left the township in 1853; and I do not know what may have been the result of the division of those books among the several districts of the township. I do know, however, that in the township in which I now reside, in Hillsdale county, the library has been divided among the districts; and that portion which has fallen to our district, I can carry in my arms with very little inconvenience. The books may not have been well selected; certainly, judging from those assigned to our district, I should pronounce the selection injudicious. At any rate, those books, so far as I know) are not read by anybody in the district. The best books perhaps have been worn out or lost. The young people of our district and our township are in the habit of read ing; and I speak what I know to my own sorrow, when I say that our dis trict, and I believe our township, is flooded by a lot of trash called " liter ature"-" yellow covered literature," as it is sometimes denolninated. The taste of our young people for reading has been vitiated by this stuff, which has supplanted the township library. So far as regards my own reading, I might perhaps supply myself with reading-matter from other sources; but so far as concerns my family and my neighborhood, I certainly should rejoice to see the township library reinstated. I know what have been the effects, upon. my own neighborhood and my own family, of this "literature" with which the district has been flooded. If I have ever enjoyed any advantages from the cultivation of a taste for reading, that taste was first fostered by having in my youth free access to a township: library in the county of Ontario, in the State of New York, I having access to it by virtue of a quarterage paid by my father, who was a member of the library association. The advantages which I thus enjoyed I shall never forget. I believe that if, in the township in which I reside, the township library could be reinstated in its original position, it might be of great advantage to our young men and young women, as well as persons of maturer years. It is not to be expected that all will avail themselves of the advantages of reading when thus brought to their doors; but I do believe that very many in our township would be vastly benefited by having free access to a good township library. I am very much in favor of the proposition, offered I think on Saturday last, as an amendment to this section, providing that " all fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities, for any breach of the penal laws, shall be applied to the support of such libraries, except in cases where the electors-of the city or township shall otherwise direct." I see no objection to the adoption of this provision, and I trust it will be incorporated in the section, which I think will then stand in about' the mildest form in which I can consent to vote for it. Under this provision, the electors of the township will be at liberty to say whether they will appropriate these fines to this purpose, or direct them in some other channel. Mr. SAW YER. I would like to ask the gentleman one question. Heas he considered the injustice of that provision? Has the gentleman taken into consideration the fact that offenders against the laws in the rural townships are generally brought before some court of another town, so that the rural dis tricts do not get the benefit of the fines? Mr. THOMPSON. I will simply say to the gentleman that in the township in which I now reside, or in any other in which I ever have resided, I would not give a fig for all the fines. They havenever amounted to anything. We have no fines in our township. - r. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to make a speech on this question. We discussed it a great part of the day on Saturday, and the discussion opens prolifically this morning. I desire that we may proceed to vote. It is a clear, wholesome morning; our minds are clear; and I think we can vote advantageously this morning. Besides, I would say to members of the committee, that I just heard one gentleman say that, if this discussion should go on, he would make an hour's speech; and from what I know of him I have no doubt he will do it. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I do not desire to make a speech. I wish to offer a substitute for the entire section. I propose to let the proposition stand oh its own merits without any argument from me. I move to strike out the whole section, and insert in lieu thereof the following: The Legislature shall provide for the establishment of township and city libraries." Mr. LOTHROP. I am in favor of Voting; and I am not going to delay a vote more than a few minutes. I wish, however, to say that: it seems to me that if many of these: amendments prevail, we may just as well vote down the whole section. I listened very attentively on Saturday to the argument of the question, without participating in it, and the only difficulty which appeared to be presented from any quarter was that the towns did not attend to their duties; that they did not fix a place for the library, did not appoint a librarian, did not take take care of the books. It was agreed on all hands that they could get books; the difficulty was that they did not keep them. It is perfectly clear that if we dinide the library of a township among the districts, it will be so scattered and dispersed as to do nobody any- good, It is equally clear on the other hand that books are only valuable to those who desire them; that those who want them will seek them, and will not deem it a hardship to go to some central point in the township, or any. other known place. I was myself reared in a rural town where there were but few books, where the'want of a library was seriously felt. My privation in this re spect I vividly remember until this day. Now, I think we should not depart from the principle of maintaining these libraries; I think we should not depart from the principle of thus appropria ting these fines. I think they can pro ceed in no better direction. I should protest earnestly against any proposi tion to break up this system as estab lished in our city. Anybody who will go over the threshhold of the Old Cap itol building in Detroit, will find a well selected' library, embracing over 11,000 volumes, and not made up of trashy "literature," either. Although that Ii MO-iiday, 428 w July 29,... brary has been open but a.few, years,. about two thousand..people resort there.. to obtain books, in.addition to those who. go there to read. There is no town so small. or poor that it cannot begin.,the work. of build-. ing up and taking care of a library;. and if the undertaking falls through,,it is because of neglect. Those who.con-, structed. the Constitution-'of 1835, and, the Constitution of. 1850,..provided inflexibly for the establishment and maintenance of these libra. ries. Though this design hasg been., imperfectly executed, the work has.been in'some places-well begun. If.it should.now fail, it will.fail in the hands. of those who'are charged. with the duty'of framing the Constitution of 1850. This is.a thought, it seems to me, well entitled to serious.consideration. The system whose.foundations have been laid in our. previous Consftitutions is one which. I think does honor to the State; and I trust we shal1 adhere to it. I do not believe that any better provision on this. subject. can be framed than that embraced.in our present Constitution and. now,.re-. ported to us for re-adoption. A division of the question having been called for by Mr. CoNGiR, the question was first taken on that part of the amendment. of Mr.. STocKwFLL, proposing to strike. out." shall," and insert "may;" which was not agreed. to. The question. then recurred on the second part of the amendment, which was to strike out the word "exclusively." Mr. MUSSEY. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this entire. section will yet, be stricken.out. I'certainly trust that the last clause will not be retained... If I could feel confident.that the substi. tute offored by my colleagu.e. (Mr., C cOOxER) would prevail, I shbould: be satisfied with that. But I do not, think it judicious to insert in our Constitution such a provision as that contained in this section. I thinkt:.he question should be left with the Legislature, and especially that branch of the subject embraced in the last clause. It has been urged by.one or two gentlemen who have spoken that these fines cannot, be better appropriated than in the. manner here proposed. The gentleman from.Lenawee, (Mr. SAWYE,) very properly asked the gen tleman from Hillsd ale, (Mr. THoMPsoN,) whether it was not a-fact that these fines are usually received by the villages, the larger towns and the cities. I think that was a very proper question, one well.worthy of consideration. Take, for instance, the county in which I re-, side. There a re three points.whre most of'the litigation is had, and of course almost all the fines are,.received at those..three points. Those town would,.,under this. proposition, receive almost.the..whole, benefit of the fines. " The last clause is also objectionableo for another reason. It will prevent' the Legislature from appropriating, any portion of these fines in any -other manner than that. specified. The people have not been' and will not be. satisfied with. the appropriation of these moneys to this purpose. The fines as a general thing have not been received by the. counties, but have as a rule reraoined in the hands of the officers collecting them. I'think it is within .the'. knowledge.of. many gentlemen on,this floor that in very many coun.ties the fines. have never been received bythe coun.ties for library purposes or .,any other. There is still another'objection. In order to make more effectual our laws aga'inst the selling of liquors,thekeeping of gambling houses, and other species of crime, it- has frequently been pro posed to provide that a portion'of the penalty when collected, shall go to the informer. This provision prevents the passage of any such law. Mr. LOTHROP. Of course, only the portion of the fine belonging to the public is to be appropriateld, or. can be appropriated under'this provision. The portion belonging to the informer would not of course be interfered with. Mr. MUSSE,Y. That may do as an argument in the consideration of'the question before this Convention. But it always has been urged, -and urged with great tenacity and zeal, that this clause of the Constitution did prohibit the Legislature from making any such provision. I will not, however, stop to argue that. point. At all events, I think it better to leave the question open, so that, while the Legislature may provide, if it pleases, for a library in every town or city, it will not be tied up to any particular system. I know that on this question I am not taking the popular side. It is a very easy'matter to get up.here and .talk.about the benefits and blessing~s of disseminrating knowledge freely, of pro viding every, family and every youth with proper:reading matter."' I know, ~this is very desir able; but itis one thing to talk about a system,' and another to accomplish,-the end. Now, I undertake, to'say, that i-'so far as IT have had any' opportunity to observe, the library, Sys tem, in the rural districts is a failure. Other gentlemen whohave spoken, have told their experience in this matter, and'I may as well tell my experience. 'For quite a number of years, I had charge of our township library; and it .perhaps worked as"well in: our part of "the county as in any other.- But the library was located in the edge of the township, so. that the people of some districts were obliged to come, not merely seven or eight miles, as some gentlemen, have said, but ten andtwelye mi-les, although it was conceded on all hands that the location of the library was the most convenient that could: be selected in the township, We tried different, devices to secure.. the satisfactory. operation of., the system.' We. fixedregilar days on which books were to be drawn. Of. course.those who resided in or near the village would be at the library first and get the best selection of books. Those who resided. farther away:would arrive later, and were compelled to take. what was left; hence they'were dissatisfied. So far as concerned our immediate locality, we liked the system., We should be very glad to have a good library established there now, because we could have the benefit of it. But most of the townships would, I know, if the question were submitted to them to-day, vote against the system.'. Still, I am willing to. leave the question entirely in the hands of the Legislature. I should be gladto see the proposition of mycolleague adopted. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. The com mittee have already refused to strike out the word," shapl," and insert "'may;" so that the provision as-it now stands makes it imperative on the Legislature to provide for township libraries. Now, if the.Legislature must provide for township'libraries, it is necessary that funds should, be somehow. provided; and I know of no better way of doing this than that contemplated in the last clause of this section; that is, by apply ing to this purpose fines collected foi breaches of the penal laws. We have all sorts of stories in regard'to the dis position which is mad-e, of these fines. It is said that in some counties the fines have not been applied i.n this direction. It is said that the officers collecting the fines retain them and do not pay. them over to the counties. Well, sir, I have heard and known of such things be fore, and I should not wonder if such cases should occur, even if the law pro vided for'the application of. thismoney to some other purpose.' It is very possible, I think, that so0.e officers are dishonest enough to r.etam ti;s money when. it comes into.their handis.'instead of paying it over0to the'county.. Such 'things have been.done in the. county in which' I- reside; and measures have been taken"''to' collect' the funds from such: delinquent; officers'. 1- do" not klow why any officer'should retain in -his' hands money"' arising from fines which he has col0lected, simply because' i. ipai over, that money would be ap p' lied to the prehase of.bo'oks. I'd 0 I e - -t I$ I e. I I DEBATE -.AND PROCE'P4DINGS.,-. 429., July-..29- 1.867. e3 CTIUIALG VTI. ody not know that the appropriation of the money by law to this purpose affords any excuse for such defalcation. If this section is retained, and we are to have township libraries, some fund must, as a matter of course, be raised for the purchase of books; and I think it perfectly proper that the money arising from these fines should be thus appropriated. The simple fact of the matter is that in some of the towns the officers. whose duty it was to take care of these libraries, to superintend the drawing and return of books, have neglected their business, and consequently the libraries have gone down. In other towns, these officers have attended to their business; the books -have been drawn and returned regularly. In those towns the people are satisfied-with the township library. The law authorizing the division of these township libraries among the different districts has operated very injuriously. If we return to the old system of township libraries, I can see no good reason why they should not as a general thing succeed. It certainly will be admitted by all, that township libraries are desirable; and their success depends altogether upon whether the township officers, whose business it is to take care of those libraries, properly discharge their duties. Mr. P. D. WARNER. The pending question, as I understand, is upon striking out the word "exclusively," in the last clause of the section, which now provides that the fines assessed and collected for any breach of the penal laws shall be exclusively applied to the support of these libraries. If the word "exclusively" be omitted, I have no doubt the fines will be thus applied at any rate. So that I do not see that it makes any difference whether the amendment be adopted or not. The second division of the amendment of Mr. STOCXwELL, proposing to strike out the word "exclusively," was not agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from MKacomb (Mr. CROCKEn) will now be entertained. Mr. W. E. WARNER. I offer an amendment to that amendment, to make the section read as follows:: " The Legislature shall also provide for the establishment and maintenance of at least one library in each township and city, -and all fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities for any breach of the penal laws, shall be applied to the support of such libraries, except in cases wherein the electors of any such townships voting thereon shall otherwise direct.'' Mr. (Chairman, it is understood by all who have experience in the matter that in cities and villages the library system works well, while in many towns it has been found to work very poorly. I know from experience that, under the present management of libraries in the townships, the system works very,poorly, and is almost a waste of the money applied to the purchase of books. The people in many localities have become satisfied that under the present system of management, township libraries cannot be maintained with advantage. Hence, many of them are in favor of a change. My amendment provides that, wherever the people of any township desire a change-where they wish to turn the fund in another direction, to appropriate it to the payment of teachers or any other purposes connected with the' schools-they may do so. Let those townships that are in favor of supporting their libraries do so. Let other townships, if they choose, apply to other purposes this money arising from fines and penalties. If, after a lapse of time, they become satisfied that they can more advantageously appropriate the money to library purposes, they can return again to that system. I trust that the amendment will receive the approbation of the committee. Mr. CHAPIN. Mr. Chairman, I have not occupied any of the time of this committee upon the subject now pending, nor have I offered any amendment to the section now under discussion. My reason for not doing so is, that I have not as a general thing, had very good luck in offering amendments, and I supposed that if I waited patiently, some individual would offer an amendment embodying my views or something near them, so that I could support it. The gentleman who has just taken his seat, (Mr. W. E. WARNER,) has offered an amendment which I think meets as nearly the.views and wants of my constituents as will any other that will. probably come before this body. I am in favor of the township libraries as a general thing. I believe they ought to be encouraged and supported, wherever it can be done with any hope of success. -But in the newer townships and counties of the State it isalmost impossible to start these enterprises. In the county, for instance, which I represent, there is only from $100 to $150 or $160 annually in the shape of fines, to be distributed among 16 towns. This makes only nine or ten dollars to a township, and dividing this among.the different districts, there is a very small sum indeed for each district to expend for libraries. The sum is so small as not to furnish even the nucleus of a library. Hence. the citizens of my county are opposed to appropriating at present the money accruing from fines for this purpose, until they shall amount to a sum of sufficient importance to make something like a fair commencement in the way of procuring a library. They prefer to use that money as the amendment would permit them to use iteither for. the support of schools or for the increase of the poor fund-:until they shall have obtained such a population that the increased amount-of the fine-money may make it an object to appropriate it to the support of the township libraries. I believe that the same objection which would apply in my county, would apply in several other of the newer counties of the State. We do not oppose these - libraries; we do not fail to appreciate their importance; but the amount which we would receive from the source indicated, would not for years to come make even the commencement of a respectable library. It would be useless to appropriate in this way the small pittance which we receive from that source. It would simply be frittered away. -This is our only objection to the provision of the section. Since I have been here, I have received several letters from intelligent gentlemen in different parts of my county, urging that the matter be left so that in the newer counties this money can be appropriated either to the poor fund or to the primary school fund, until, with the increase of population, the fine money shall be so increased as to make it an object to appropriate it to the libraries. This is my reason for supporting the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. W. E. WARNER.) Mr. CONGER.- Mr. Chairman, if in any county the amount raised from fines is so small that it could be no benefit to the township library, I cannot see how it could go very far toward. supporting the poor, or how it could do very much toward supporting schools. Mr. CWAPIN. Li the one way it would be lost; by the other method, what there was would be of some use. Mr. CONGER. The money might be lost, if no care were taken to appropriate it in the manner provided in the Constitution. For myself, I believe in the system of township libraries. I believe they have been of vast use in this State. I know instances in which a township commencing twenty years ago with a small library has increased it gradually from year to year, and where the cultivation of the habit of reading in children and in old persons too, has made a township of as intelligent people as there are in the State. I am opposed-to the amendment proposing to provide for the establishment of at "least one "library in the township. These words furnish the CONSTITUTIONAL CONVPNTION. )Ionclay, 430 Jwl 29 187 DBESADPOEDNS 3 foundation for the authority of the Legislature to divide the township library into six, eight, ten or fifteen district libraries. I prefer that we should provide that there shall be one, and only one library in the township. But the section is, I think, better as it is, providing for "a library" in each township. I agree with other gentlemen, that the district system has proved a failure in the rural districts. I think there is a great deal of force in the remark made by some gentleman during the debate this morning, that since the appointment of county superintendents of public schools, we have in each county an officer who might appropriately exercise a supervision over the township libraries as well as the schools, thus making the libraries more permanent and more successful than they could otherwise be. The trouble has been, I fear, that there has been no -system in regard to the kind of books'purchased; there has been no general supervision by any person of the township or district libraries. I had thought myself that it might be as well to strike out this provision in regard to fines, leaving the Legisla ture to appropriate the money to this purpose in those cities or townships where such an appropriation is desired. But upon more mature reflection, I am inclined to think that it would be best to devote these fines to this particular object. It may appear a somewhat suicidal policy to provide that the fines collected for breaches of the pe nal laws shall be devoted to the educa tion of the people, because, according to my theory, the more education the people have, the fewer will be the fines collected. The establishment of good libraries, the cultivation of reading habits among the people, the fostering of popular education may de stroy the probability of raising a great fund from a breach of the penal laws. But by that time the people would probably provide some other means of keeping up the library. I am in favor of the section as it now stands. AMd I would not strike out the word "exclusively." This word is in our present Constitution; and even under this provision, as has been remarked, officers have seen fit to apply the money for costs, to distribute it among those who prosecuted, and ap propriate it in various other ways. This has been done because in some townships the people cared so little to have this money applied where it prop erly belonged; while in townships and cities where it has been properly ap plied, there are to-day, to my certain knowledge, fine flourishing libraries. A provision like that embraced in the pending section, will assist in forming such libraries in every township of the State. Seeing the trouble in this matter, the Legislature-I think it was last winter, though it may have been at some previous session-provided that in some penal prosecutions the costs as well as the fines might be imposed upon the person convicted. Thus the fine proper is left to be applied, as I think it ought to be, exclusively to these libraries. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this section will be adopted as reported by the committee. I do not think that the adoption of any of the amendments which have been offered would be an improvement to the section; nor do I think that the arguments offered by some gentlemen on this floor, militate at all against the section. The fact that some officers in some districts of the State have failed to discharge their duty is, I think, no argument in favor of striking out or altering the section as it now stands. I think that the section provides the proper method of appropriating the fines. I have no apprehension that the morality and intelligence of our various communities will advance so rapidly that the fines will be decreased. Yet I should be glad if such should prove to be the fact. We could then provide some other means of maintaining our libraries. I trust that none of the amendments which have been offered will prevail, but that the section as it now stands, and as it has stood in our Constitution since 1835, may be adop ted. Mr. PRINGLE. Some weeks ago, the treasurer of my county gave me a statement of figures relating to this subject. I made no memorandum of them at the time; and they have passed out of my mind, so that I am unable to state more than the general effect of them. If I remember rightly, the law some years ago authorized a vote to be taken in the townships as to whether this money should be appropriated to township or district libraries; and if my recollection is correct, the vote in my own county was nearly unanimous in favor of having district rather than township libraries. The statement of the county treasurer, I believe, was to the effect that in our county, as matters have been practically administered, the whole amount of fines left, after paying the expenses of prosecu tion, is so small as to amount to an average of less than one dollar to each district. This may be perhaps because my constituents read so many books and therefore get fined so little. At any rate the amount to be distributed among the districts from this source is so small as to be no material addition to the library fund of the district. So far, then, as regards any useful purpose, these fines amount to nothing with us. I believe that the board of supervisors and all connected with the county government think that the money ought to be distributed in some other way. I believe the opinion is universal that some efficient provision for district libraries ought to be made-probably by an annual tax in the district or in some other way. Any provision of this kind by which district libraries could be maintained would be almost universally popular with us. But the particular method proposed in this section for keeping up libraries is one which appears to be of very little practical benefit. Judging from the figures which have been given to me with regard to my own county, and assuming that the facts stated to me represent something like what is the fact generally throughout the State, I feel disposed (though I have not listened to the whole of the discussion this morning) to vote in favor cf striking out this entire section, and leaving this matter to be controlled hereafter by the Legislature. I feel that,,while this pro vision may be in the way of other dis positions of the money and may occa sion annoyance and trouble to the board of supervisors and the county treasurer, yet it will have no practical effect in establishing or maintaining libraries. So far as I know, but one or two libraries are maintained in districts within my own county. One is a pretty good one, which is main tained in the principal district of the city where I reside. But from the in formation I have received, I think that our present provision on the subject is almost entirely a failure. The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. W~. E. WARNER, to the amendment of Mr. CRoOKEB, it was not agreed to. The question recurred on the amend ment of Mr. CRoCKEKR lfr. CASE. On the pending amend ment, I would like to have the question divided. I should like to vote for the last part of it; but I do not feel dis posed to favor the first part of it. I should like to have the section amended so as to read: "The LegisIature shall also provide for the establishment of a library in each township and city." This is about as far as I care to go in the Constitution. By such a provision the Legislature will be left to provide the manner in which these libraries shall be maintained, and make whatever other provision may be necessary. For one, I am decidedly in favor of town ship and city libraries, if we have any July 29, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 431 432 OOSTITUTIOAL COVETIO Mnoday, at all. I am not at all particular-about retaining any part of this section; but if we retain any of it, Iw'ould certainly favor striking out the last part. Mr. GIDDINGS. I Would suggest to the gentleman who introduced this proposition that if he would strike out the words, "-at least one," a number of us can vote for it much more readily than with those words in. We:all want to establish in' each township a 'township library, but'we do not want to have the number fixed. Mr. FARMER. I suppose that the words "at least," furnished the-author ity under which the Legislature acted in dividing up these township libraries and making district libraries. I can not see any other portion of the section in the Constitution of 1850, by Which the.Legislature was authorized to: take that action. I think that is the very thing that created the difficulty. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I think that if this amendment be not adopted by the committee, the substitute proposed by myself will be entirely satisfactory. Mr..'CROCKER. Ther'e'is'one' phae In some towns thereta':'"'the' A.'~:: -;..........' As'....~ae~a e~a~t c ~~~~~~~ 6 ton~~....r sy'n to..a..i.... the ~e ct~ in thaiff,6ie6t t'hip~ ~t'.m k't "the ~a..f!.'... ~ ~~ ~- i.. vo~st te; o f e ~ " a thef- t e n i n tot'h e' a ~ " ~ t', n "'.....*..r o u., ~- "-of"':'-h, -'' - th.~.....'' vo... e~ of-t.t th'"p! flb'ii ~ar,,-~~a::,~~a:e r-. let our State superintendent and our county superintendents give this matter' their. thought and attention. If' they can devise any better'system than: that which at present exists, -their rec-, ommendations can, under this proposition, be carried out. If, after a fair trial, they think it wise to return to the township system, it can be done under such regulations as they may recomtnend. The Legislature will have a chance to act with some latitude and some discretion. Butadopt the section as it stands, Without the amendment, and the Legislature will be tied up. It must return to the system of having in each township a single township library, and can make no provision for any other system. I am not going to discuss here the question whether it is wise to appropriate the fines to libraries or not. My amendment will leave the question open, so that the Legislature can make whatever provision on this subject may be deemed wisest. It has been found, I believe, in a' majority of the counties of this -State,:that the fines.'have not been, appropri,.ted for':the'purchae of-booksifor the,llbra.; but~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gd ni ai.-qj~~ of A t -1 -il- ihy, -L -gisauel tt ~ lo.ida~t,a!c 'rt a iin"amou'nt b'of:one-,,she~d be leave the matter entirely open ad u'.~ -Thr i'an'oth,~ dbnsddertiojii ::liose':fines'~e'e ~(Il,iecI en'..y:d,t) ,?Osei:::e:Orbqz eif:?tt.'ir. e','q.o e~lld~tio~ ~th~file~s Mei'b~era-Ier~4& of. a'law are best ascertained when it is most diligently executed; while ff it is loosely executed those benefits will not appear. I believe we receive most benefit from those laws which are carefully -and thoroughly executed; and attention should be given to so framing ourlawsthat they will be carefully and thoroughly executed. For this reason I am in favor of leaving the matter open' as the proposed amendment con~templates, so that the Legislature may have some discretion in the matter and can act as experience may dictate to be wisest. A'division of the question having been called for on the amendment of Mr. C-R'OcKER, the question was first taken on striking out the'word "a," and inserting "at:least'one;" so as to make the section read, ", The.Legislature shall provide for the establishment of at least one library in each township and city,"-etc. 'The first division of the amendment was -not-agreed to. The question recurred on the last part''of;; the." amendmient,- to strike. out a.ll'f. th sb'ti direrft',.theword city," where'.first'ocUrs;'so: U.to -make the setion, -reAid'kiA ture,hall p.brvide.,'-.for,. thb:.,,: and ,:m-in~,n ~e~e,'...0 lieb',ary in, ~eaeh':twn ship''a'n~~ bity;"'e'hi-h -'a~s,,agr.,e~ed. to, in/~ th~ sbtiute —of ~.'')'AR - 'AA~ ~d;I).~ WARNR. I~ ill'vith-' ~"d~a*:', th~a":s":b~titUt'~:,:::-"o.:if there e". no 17. a esblish m nln,.iitei,entof.,ar 6bjedtoli.:'I'T ac-~~ ~.'ge"m bin Maa- r ben an qj"te he.'~~ in"ertin1' ":.~ nds,ain I i I CONSTITUTIONAL CO.NVEPNTION. -Mnoday, 432 Jul.9 187 DBTS A-~ PRCEDNS 433 induced to offer this amendment simply :because that view has been taken here If the Legislature should'adopt-that view, it would be very detrimental to the interests of the schools in cities In most of the cities, there are several districts. In the city of Grand Rapids there are at least three school districts. There are two large districts,'and they are divided by a river. In the district on -the west side of the river, there is a library which i~ kept in the union school building. On the -east Side there is a large and valuable library which is kept in the union school-building. If the view -should be adopted by the Legislature, that.provision could be made for only one library in a-city, it would very greatly embarrass, those districts and others similarly situated. According to my own construction of the section as it now stands, the Legislature, if it can provide for one library, can provide for more; but to obviate the possibility of a different construction, I have offered this amendment. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. LOTHIROP. I move to amend by adding at the end of the section the following: 'ProvideoS, That the public school libraries of the city of Detroit shall remain under the care and mangement of the board of education of said city; and all fines assessed and collected in said city for any breach of the penal laws, shall be paid over to said board for the use and support of said library." I trust that, after striking out the last part of the section, the committee will indulge us by adopting thisamendment. ,r. CONGER. I move to amend the amendment by adding after the word "Detroit, the words,Port Huron." In our city we have a board of education similar to that: in Detroit and all ouf schools are under the control of that board. Mr. LOTHROP. I accept the gentleman's amendment with very great pleasure, and modify my amendment accordingly. Mr. Chairman, I can scarely conceive of anything which would be more detrimental to the interests of education in the city of Detroit than to leave us without the protection of some provision of this kind. ir. CROSWELL (the President.) I trust the gentleman will also modify his amendment by inserting "Adrian." Mr. LOTHROP. I will do so with very great pleasure.' Mr. COOLIDGE obtained the floor. Mr. RICHIOND. I trust the gentieman from Wayne ('Mr. LOTHROP) will modify his amendment by'inserting "Ann Arbor." -Mr. LOVELL I would suggest that the amendment be modified so Vo1. 2 —No. 55. "as to inelude cities generally, for we . all want to come in. Mt CMr.COOLIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I voted in favor of striking out this sec.:tion; but I shall cordially support the 1 amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) as well as the . amendment to the amendment pro posed by the gentleman from St. Clair, ; (Mr. CONGER.-) I should not be willing to go any farther. And I take this L position more particularly in view of the argument of the gentleman from St. Clair that the effect of these libraries is to promote morality and to lessen the amount of crime. It will be- recollected that we had, a' few days .-ago, a briliant colloquy between that gentleman -and the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTHROP) as to the rela-tive standing in that respect of the citiesof Detroit and St. Clair; and I inferred that they both sand pretty low. I am, therefore, in favor of the amendment granting special educational advantages to those two cities. [Laughter.] Mr. LOTHROP. I hope the gentleman will come and enjoy our superior civilization. Mr. GIDDINGS. If this rule is to be applied to the city of Detroit, I should like to have it applied to our town of Kalamazoo. It does not boast of the name of "city;" but ithas about ten thousand people. Mr. COOLIDGE. I object to this patching on of any more cities. As to the-standing of the two places I have named, I wish it to be understood that I take it entirely from the colloquy between th6 gentleman from St. Clair and the gentleman from Detroit. Mr. CONGER. The Convention has adopted a principle -by which the people of:the - State -may sometimes control cities — when they do not control themselves properly; and I have sometimes thought that -if the .views of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr.- COOLIDGE,)-:prevail, it: may be necessary very Soon for the people of the State toecall-upon his citry to submi-t itself to some means by- which its education and moralifty may be somewhat improved, even against the wish of the gentleman himrself. ~The, question being taken on the amendment of -Mr. LOTHROP, as modified, so as to include the' cities of Detroit, Port Huron and'Ad'rian, it was agreed to;:there being ayes 31,noes!29. MHr. LEACH.'I would like to hear the section read as it now stands. The section was read as follows: " The Legislature shall also provid for the establishment of a -library in each htbwnship and:city: Provide, That the-:pati.:scholo libraries of.the cities of DetrQ',:ort!uro. and Adrian, shall remain under the'_are anmanagement of the boad of er-atn i said cities; and all fines assesed and collected in saidcities for any breach of the penal laws, shall be paid over to said boards for the use and support of said libraries." Mr. RICHMOND. I understood that Ann Arbor was included. M r. GIDDINGS. I supposed that Kailamazoo was included. The CHAIRMAN. The geintleman from Berrien (Mr. COOLIDGE,) had the floor when those motions were made. Mr. GIDDINGS. I think that all the- large cities and towns shouild come under the same rule. I hope that the vote on the amendment will -be reconsideredl, and that all these large'cities and towns will be included or all excluded. M-r.:ROOT. I move to amend by striking out the section. The motion was agreed to; there being ayes 30, noes -25. Mr. WIT H EY. I move to reconsider the vote just taken. Mr. ALEXANDER: I raise the point of order that the gentleman, not having voted in the affirmative, cannot make that motion. - The CHATIRMAN. The Chair is of the opinion that when there is no record, it cannot be ascertained whether a gentleman votes in the affirmative or not. The motion to reconsider was not agreed to; there being ayes 27, noes 28. REGENTS Or THE UNIVERSITY. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 5; There shall be elected eight regents oi the University, whose term of office shall be eight years, two of whom shall be elected in every second year, on the day of the annual township election, so as to succeed the regents now in office, as their several terms shall expire. When a vacancy shall occur in the office of regent, it shall be lilled by appointment by the Governor. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be ex ojcio a member of the board of regents. IMr. MILES. I move to amend by istriking out in the first clause of the section the words "on the day of the annual township election." The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. LOVELL. I desire to offer an amendment, the effect of which is to change the mode of selecting the regents Qf the University; so that they shall not be elected by the people at large, but appo'ted by the Goveinor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. In support of this proposition, I desire to call the attention of the committee to the petition of the alumni of the University, which has been spread on our journals, and in which they unanimously ask for this change;.The fact that these alumni, are,.it may be: presumed, more interested in the welfare of that insti tuion than any other class of persons in'- the.: Statei should demand our seri t 't t c s e t t t i c -july.29 18670 DEBATES AI'SD PROCEEDINGS. 433 43 OSIUINLC/ETO ody ous attention to -the request which they make. I,desire also to call the attention of the cotmmittee to a proposition which, I think, will be conceded by all who are acquainted with the manner in whichnominationshavebeenmadehere. tofore and are likely to be made hereafter; that the regentsof the University, while they continue to be elected by the people, will be nominated at our State Conventions without a proper regard being paid to the fitness of the candidates for the offices which they are expected to fill. The people of the State at large feel comparatively little interest in the question, who shall take charge of the University. Those-persons who are accustomed to make out the tickets which we are to vote at our several elections care generally very little indeed-at least such is my obseiwation-as to who shall be nominated for regents. After the nominations for the more important offices have been made, if there are any "sore heads," who must still have a crumb, the office of regent of the University or member of the State board of education is thrown to them as a sop. If we take the power of making these nominations away from these irresponsible conventions, (for of course the conventions, rather than the electors, decide who shall fill the office; no man thinks of bolting the nomination for regent) if we take the selection of these regents away from the political nominating conventions, and give it to the Governor, aeting by and with the advice of the Senate, we shall get a better class of men for regents. I hope. that in some form the principle of my amendment will be incorporated in the Constitution. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. I wish to inquire of the gentleman who has just taken his seat, whether it is claimed that the present board of regents is not composed of suitable men-wheth er there has ever been any fault found with the' members of the board of re gents. Mr. LOVELL. I am not aware that there is any-fault found with the present board; and if I were aware of any such thing, L would not state it here. But I do know that, under the present. system it is a matter of hap hazard whether we get good regents or poor ones. I know how some re gents have been nominated; I think I know how others have been. There have been some poor boards of re gents. I am confident that by the method of selection -which I propose, we shall get more able boards. That is as far as I want to go in the matter, except again to call attention-to the fact that those who are most interested in this subject-who are, if I may so speak, most unselfishly interested,-the men who have been educated at the University, and who feel a pride in: their alma mater and a solicitude for its welfare that no other class of men do or can feel-have ufnanimously petitioned us that the present manner of selecting regents may be changed, and that the system contemplated by my amendment shall be adopted. Mr. CONGER. I do not wish this question to go to a vote without saying a word on the subject. I do not know how the alunmni of the University may feel on this question; but this is a matter of which the people have had the control,.and I think, intend to keep the control. I think the present system of electing regents is the best that can be adopted: If we take away from the people -the power to elect the regents, we shall subject the'system to the suspicion of being a renewal in this State of the old regencies, which in some other States have controlled matters educational and otherwise, exciting prejudice there, as it will excite prejudice here against the University. It is not true that, under the present system, we nominate regents at the time when we nominate our general political officers. These elections are held in the spring; and when the nominations are made those who are favorable to the cause of education may go and, take part in the convention. The nominating cbnventions are usually composed of the friends of education; and on both sides they make their selections with care, and with a proper regard to the qualifications of the nominees. This is the fact, as exhibited in the past. Now, the regents of the University, as the State progresses, and as the alumni increases in number, may come to be a power in the State that may be dangerous. The very-suggestion of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOvWLL,) and the very petition of the alumni of-that University, show that there is an attempt to control, by the united action of those educated at the University, not only the educational interests of the State, but as gentlemen will see by referring to the petition, the financial affairs of the State. M:Mr. LOVELL. I will say that I, would not- go with the alumni in their proposition with regard to the~financial management of the institution. I would put the University under the control of the Legislature by giving that body the control of its sustenance. Mr. CONGER. The gentleman would give to the Governor, acting in concurrence with the Senate, the conservative power now exercised by the people. After the people have had this power and have exercised it to their satisfaction, an attempt by this Convention to take from the people the power of choosing the regents of the University, an attempt to do away with the popular control of that institution, would appear to me mosl dangerous to the interests of the University and the interests of education in our State. I should consider such a step as calculated to subject the institution to popular prejudice and disfavor, from the effects of which it might never recover. I like the old system, and I hope itwill be maintained. Mr. PRINGLE. I also hope that the'old - system will be maintained. There are, I suppose, something like 150,000 tax-payers and as many voters in the State, not more than one in five hundred of whom is able at any time to send his children or those under his care to the University. i Such an institution, ihaintained at the popular expense, with the funds of the public, wherever those funds may come from, however the original appropriation may have been made, needs all the popular support it can have. Hence, I would have this University managed and controlled forever by the immediate representatives of those who pay the taxes, and for whose benefit. the fund was appropriated. I would have the idea go out to every township, to every school district, that the University is at the head of our school system; that it is not managed by a select board of pri vate gentlemen, appointed upon the nomination or recommendation of the alumni of the institution itself, but derives its support from the great mass of the people of the State, who elect those who govern it. Conducted in this way, it will, in my judgment, have more popular strength than it would have otherwise. Hence, I hope to see this amendment rejected by a vote substantially unanimous. Mr'. McCLELLAND. I never heard until to-day that this institution' was supported by the State of Michigan. I had supposed its support was derived from grants by the General Govern ment. I should be obliged to the gen tleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) if he would state how this institution is supported by the people of this State. -' Mr. PRINGLE. If the gentleman wishes an answer to his question:oMr. McCLELLAND. Certainly I do. Mr. PRINGLE. I - am perfectly . familiar with the facts. The grant was made by the General Government to the State for the purpose of support ing the University. The State has used and controlled that fund for that 8 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Monday 434 I J11ly~~ a9 87 EAE ~DPOEDNS purpose, in one way or another, through its Legislature or the board of regents. The people of the State are also paying direct taxes for the support of the TUniversity, and are likely to be called on to do so hereafter. 'Mr. McCLELLAND. And as they ought. But a day or two ago, the argument was cn the other side, when we were talking about common schools; the assertion was made here, and was not denied, that the people of this State have very little to do with the University, because a large portion of the fund was granted by the Government of the United States. To-day, the tune is changed. Now, sir, I support the amendment of thegentleman from Genesee, as I did a similar proposition in the Convention of 1850. I say frankly that I do not believe the people are sufficiently acquainted with the duties and requi site qualifications of a regent of the University to make suitable selections for that position. I do not believe it; I never did. Though I believe in the intelligence of the people, I do not con sider them competent to appreciate properly the duties and qualifications of a regent. I know that I am not myself, though I have been a regent twice. I do not know now the duties of a regent of the University, and I very much doubt whether a majority of this-Convention do. LLaughter.] Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to ask the gentleman whether, when he was a regent, he was appointed or elected? Mr. McCLELLAAND. I was ap ipointed. Mr. GIDDINGS. That explains, I suppose, why the gentleman did not understand his duties. [Laughter.] Mr. McCLELLAND. The gentle man judges others by himself; and he will find as he goes through life, that that is a very improper rule to follow in all cases. Mr. GIDDINGS. How can the Gov ernor find out the necessary qualifica tions for a regent, if the gentleman himself has not learned them? Mr. MoCLELLAND. Now, Mr. Chairman, if it is a good rule to select by popular vote the officers of an edu cational institution like this, why not apply the rule to the selection of pro fgssors? I think the grand objection to this system of selection is that it necessarily introduces politics into the University. Look at the regents who have been elected, and you will find them all of the same party. This ought never to be. The Governor has had sufficient independence to appoint a gentleman who, I am told, belongs tq the other party, though he is not known as a politician at all; and with out detracting in the least from the character of any of the other regents. I think that as a regent he is the equal, if not the superior, of the rest of of the board. My.impression is- and I think it i% the general impressionthat the board has not been so good since 1850 as it was before. I do not intend to detract from the character or reputation of any member of that board; but I do not know a single in.dividual who has been elected to that board who is distinguished as an educator or as a scientific or scholarly man. Mr. CONGER. Mr. Chairman, I suppose that the remarks of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) in regard to the support of the schools, etc., may possibly allude to some remarlks that I made the other day. Now, I suppose that there is another kind of support than the mere raising of money. I suppose that if there are funds enough to carry on this institution just exactly as we may desire — ample, full, abundant-the people of the State, apart from its maintenance, have the right to exercise some control as to management. I am surprised at the view expressed by the gentleman from Wayne here, that there is danger in allowing the people to control in this matter. Mr. McCLELLAND. — I did not say that. The gentleman is mistaken. Mr. CONGER. Well,.the gentleman at any rate contended that the Gover nor and the members of the Senate should make these appointments rather than that the people should elect. Now, I used to understand that-the very vital principle of democracy (of which the gentleman has been an able and earn est advocate all-his life) was that the people should control directly, and could thus control better than anybody else, in the matter of their own govern ment. I heard this doctrine asserted here the other day in regard to the government of the municipality of De troit. It was maintained that the peo ple there could control themselves better directly than through remote agents; that their affairs could be managed better at home than at Lan sing. That was the argument the other day. Why does the tune change to-day? I cannot understand the rea son. The music is different. It is a higher or a lower key. Now, what is the objection to the election of the regents of the Univer sity by the people, those who support and carry on this institution, wlhether they pay any tax or not for its sup port? But they do to-day pay taxes for its support. They assist in sup porting it. Besides that, the General Government, when it gave to the State of Michigan these funds for this Uni versity, did not give the money to the Governor and the Senate. It was given to the people of the State of Michigan, who, in my humble judgment, will keep the control of it and of this University. I believe they intend to keep the management of it in their own hands. -I think they are satisfied with the present system. I believe that it is democratic. I know that it is republican. Mr. McCLELLAND. I have no doubt that the people of the State do pay something toward the support of this University; but the amount is very small in comparison with the expenses of the institution. And, sir, since the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER) has gone so far, I assert here, without the fear of contradiction by any honest man, that the people do0 not now select the regents. They elect them, but they do not select them. I say that, under the present system, these regents are nominated precisely as other political officers of the State are nominated. By whom? By caucases or conventions, controlled by the wire-pullers of one or the other political party. I do not charge that one party is to blame any more than the other; but I say that this is the manner in which the nominations are made. The wire-pullers arrange all the preliminaries; and all that the people do is to confirm and ratify them. Mr. GIDDINGS. The republican party does not have any of that class of men. Mr. McCLELLAND. The gentle man need not tell me that, because if it were true, how would he have ob tained a seat here? [Laughter.] I hope the mercurial gentleman is sat isfied. Gentleman of this Convention, if they speak candidly, must admit that the people do not know as they should know the qualifications of the men placed before them for election as re gents. I do not hesitate to say that I do not believe the people are com petent to judge as they should of the qualifications of regents. The people act more honestly than many of us here; they, if appealed to, would con fess at once that there are many things in reference to which they are, from their circumstances, unfitted to express a wise choice. Under the present system, when one party is in the ascendency, the regents elected are all of that party, and when the other party isin power, thie regents chosen are all of that party. Prior to 1850, the regents were not all of one party. Mr. CONGER. I desire to ask the gentleman one question. I desire to know whether there is anything:in the I July 29, 1867. DEBATES. AND- PROCEEDINGS. 435 436 COSTITUTIOAL COYETIO on(1ay, Constitution or laws to prohibit the gentlema,n andiall his friends from voting with us, so that the' regents eleeted might be. chosen by the entire peopre, and not merely by a party. 'Mr. McCLELLAND. Certainly not. But if we did so, judging from the nominations for other offices, which the gentleman's party has made in this State for the last five or six years, we should very often vote for. some very bad men, which we do not want to do. But I know there is no use in talking on this subject, because the fiat "as gone forth from the gentleman from St. Clair, andallwe have to do is to take the vote'. Mr. FARMER. Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to argue this question. But I think it well to say that we are not here for the purpose of discussing the propriety or impropriety of the caucus system, and that if gentlemen who have been discussing this question, will allo'w us to come to a vote, we shall soon show them what the will of the people is, as expressed on this subject through their representatives in this Convention. I hope that we shall soon come to a vote. Mr. McCLELLAND. Does the gentleman suppose that he is representing the people here? Mr. FARMER. Yes, sir. Mr. LOVELL. After -all this discussion, it may be well to have read from the Chair the amendment which .we are supposed to be discussing, after which I will take occasion to make a few remarks. I call for the reading of the amendment which I sent up. It has not yet been read. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) moves to amend section five, by striking out the word,elected," where it first occurs, and inserting after the word "IJniversity," the words,"who shad be appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate;" also, by striking out the word "elected," where it occurs the second time, and inserting in lieu thereof, the word "appointed;" also, by striking out the words, "on the day of the annual township election;" so that the first clause of the section will read as follows: " There shall be eight regents of the University, who shall be appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose term of office shall be eight years, -two of whom shall be appointed-in every second year, so as to succeed the regents now' in office, as their several terms shall ex: pire." Mr. LOVELL. Mr. Chairman, in offering this amendment, I did not expect to evoke a political storm'here. I certainly offered it in good faith.; an'd I still believe that it is most desirable that it should be adopted -as:a part of our organic law. The gentleman:from St. Claiir, (Mr. CoNGE,) and -:the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PEINGLE,) sprang to their feet as guardiansof the people's rights, as though some terrible blow had been: struck at'.the'right of the people to manage their own affairs. As those gentlemen have both on previous occas'ions quoted upon this floor certain old maxims, I- desire for their benefit to quote still another, quite as common as any they have- quoted. It is, Facit per aliutm, facit per se. I apprehend that the Governor and the Senate'of'the State of Michigan, are agents of the people of the State, are their chosen attorneys to transact fox them whatever business they may please to entrust to -them; that, those officer's do not bytheir election,become possessed as in their indvidual right of any prerogatives,- powers, franchises or immunities. They are simply chosen as servants of the people, to do the people's bidding. Now, sir, as I understand,i the:'Governor of the State of Michigan is now charged with the appointing: power as to certain positions of trust connected with some of the public institutions -of this State. I apprehend that lhe. appoints those who have charge of the reform school; that- he appoints the ,boards who have charge- o'fthe asyluni forthe insane, the institution for the'education of the-'deaf,:dumb: and blind, and various other institutions in the State. But the gentleman, from Jackson, the gentleman from St.-Clair, and other gentlemen, tell us that the people feel a peculiar interest in the care of this University. We might infer from their remarks that in every county, township and school district.in the State, just before a caucus is held, — - this wh6le question as to the proper system of education in- our University is considered, and discussed pro and con; that the men assembled in the primary caucuses to select delegates to the nominating' conventions instruct the gentlemen who are- to go to these conventions.upon the proper line of policy t9 be pursued. Nowf what is the fact? Every gentleman in this hall whoa has ever attended a State nominating convention, knows that in the majority of instances the selection of candidates for regents of the University is, as:I have before remarked,. a mere matter of hap-hazard. The selections are sometimes very good, and sometimes they are not so good. Mr. LEACH.'- Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him for one moment? I am unwilling'that that as-. sertion should go upon the record un, contradicted. I have frequently at f tiended:: State conventions,- and have. never known that to be the fact. Mr. PRINGLE. I would like to put in my contradiction also. Mr. GIDDINGS. I should like to know what ihe gentleman means by f hap-hazard." Mr. LOVELL. Go on, gentlemen!' [Laughter.] -, i - Mr. IUTLEY. Has the gentleman ever: been a delegate in a convention 3 that nominated regents of the. Uni versity? [ Mr. LEACH. Has the gentleman ever been. in any -State convention of - this State at all? i Mr. P. D. WARNER. The gentle: man has acquired all his knowledge on t his subject in the State of Connecticut. i- [Laughter.] Mr. LOVELL. Now, Mr. Chair tman, if — all the gentlemen have got through with their inquiries, I will en deavor to reply to them.' Now, sir, I -had the misfortune to be born in the "land- of steady habits and wooden nutnegs."': [Laughter.] I have, however, become an adopted son -of Michigan. I will relieve the anxious Lf solicitude -of the gentleman from Ne waygo, (Mr. UTLEY,';) and the gentle,mat;n'from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH,') by saying that I have been in a State nominating' convention in this State., I was in the convention -that nominated among others for regents, Henry C. Knight, of the city of Detroit, and Thomas J. Joslin, then of the city of Flint. I undertake to say that which every member of this Conven tion will bear me out in saying, that the friends of Henry C. Knight in that convention pressed his -claims;very earnestly for judge of the Supreme Court against the then sitting judge, whose term was soon to expire-Judge Campbell. I know that-the delegation from our representative district were strongly pressed to give him their sup port... I know that other delegations were strongly pressed in the same direction But Judge Campbell had a strong hold upon the good sense of that convention, and he was renominated. Mr. McCONNELL. I would like to: inquire what is the question before the Convention... Mr. LOVELL. Iam afraid the gen tleman has got so "mixed" by this cross-firing -of questions to which I have been subjected that he would not understand the question, if it were stated to him. The matter which I have now in hand is to try to reply:to this storm of interrogatories poured upon me because I chose to say that the present mode of nominating, our regents: in political conventions is not calculated to give us the persons best I I CONSTI-lil.V'LTTION —AL CON,.,VENTIO 43-e), — .Mon(la ... y). DE 9,86S NAND PROCEE DIN, qualified to take charge of.the -Univer-im' sity of the State of Michigan it I have been asked whether — I have I: r ever been a member of a State cOni-,I vention in this- _state; and I say that I; -th have. I now propose to go on andti show from facts-which trans,ied.din:' that convention, that regents are nom- T inated as it were hap-hazard; that the of nomination of any particular- man -is es often accidental.. I was saying that Henry C. Knight- th was strongly pressed by his friends for w the position of judge on the supreme e bench of the State; that he failed to ti get the nomination; and then his (h friends turned round and said, As:tlf you did not choose to give us that,- we, try feel very sore about the matter; wi l,e you not at least let Henry C. Knight be one of the candidates for regent m for the State at large? And-I und er- t take to- say that the nomination. f t Mr. Knight was -made, not so.nuc.h] eQ with reference to his fitness for the.po- di sition, as from the fact that he and his o friends felt themselves aggrieved- by-p his failure to obtain the nomination-;e for another office, and to pacify them it he was nominated for regent. ti Mr. P. D. WARNER.. Did the gen tleman say thati the nomination of Mr. t Knight was' not a worthy nornmination? i Mr. LOVELL. I did not say any. such thing; and the gentleman knows I I did-not. I have simply stated how. that nomination came, to be made. Another regent nominated at, that time, was Rev. Thos. J. Joslin, aE very e worthy man, one in whom-I felt.and:n still feel great'interest as a warm per-. e sonal friend. He was. not the,- mana whom it was intended to nominmate- at t that time; but two or three.persons t who were riding together over a cer-.. tain stage route in this State,. laid theih-r heads together and said that, for par ticular local reasons, the person who ( it was supposed might be nominated I from that district should not be nomi- c nated; that another person should dbe-c brought forward to take his place. a Those two or three persons compassed their object; and though a very worthy: man was nominated, one'who, I apprev hend, has done credit to the- position,, t yet it was accidental. 'Now, I-undertake to say that, so-. far as nominations fo -the position of regent are concerned, when they 3 are made at.the same time. nomi'-. nations of other State officers are made, there is a great liability that the office of regent of the University will be traded off to gain strength-for: what is considered by those who are: earnest to get particular men nominat ed more important officeAs. It should not be so. The care; of the University of the State of Michigan is of very great-> portance.-' It is very essential that:a should- be well managed; yet, as Iemarked when on the floor before, Ibelieve that the people -at large a troughout the State take eompara - tey little interest in the manner --- in whch:.that. institution is controlled. here are some people in all sections the -State who do take a deep intert-in the prosperity of the institution;: s bt. those persons do not constitute le.masses; they are not the personis s ho-make-up the caucuses that send-,degates to the nominating conven- tins;.they are -not the gentlemen (onorable and worthy as those gen- I emen:almost always are,)who con1ol-the nominations inm our State con vetons.. Sir,l the people will have-the appoint-, ment of these men quite as directly-if ee -Governor and the Senate select- 1 t.em, as-if ithe nominating conventions - ontinue to, -select- them.' It is only aifference in mode. But if the mode. — f appointment which this amendment ] roposes be adopted, the friends of ducation in the State-those who bear t upon their-hearts to see that educa-. onal privileges are extended, who make it a labor of love to devote to his object their time and money and afluence-can come to the Governor and Senate and present their views. f gentlemen prefer to provide that he Legislature shall- make the selec — ion, I shall not object; I am perfectly willing that: the Legislature should, ilect these regents.. Whichever method be adopted, -the friends of education can be heard respectfully; their appeals will receive that consideration o w-hich they are entitled. Hence, I hinkthis m-thod of selecting regents would be much preferable to the present system. Mr. CONGER. The gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOvELL,) has made a Latin quotation t show that the people do really elect when they do it through others. The gentleman says, Facit per ilium, facit par se, meaning, what one does by another, he does himself. There is another quotation' which classical scholars will understand, as: to the mode of appealing to our sympathies an-d working on our passions; and it is so similar in language,to thatwhich the gentleman lass-quoted that I must repeat it: Facit per alliam, facit per cepe-what one does by a leek, he -may- do by an.? onion. [Laughter.] That is all I have to say on the subject. tr.-,LOVELL. #' presume the gen'Qieman's quotation may be very pointed; butt is that kind of hog Latin in whiche the gentleman- has been instructed, but im which I,was never trained. The amendment of Mr. LOvELL -was not agreed to. The- next- section was. read as —. fol-:lows SECdTION. 6. The regent ofthe University. nd their, successors in office shall continue o constitute the. body corporate, known by he name and title of.' the regents or the Uniersity of Michign.e': No amendments: were-offered. Thenext-section.was-readas follows:.X SECTION 7. The regentS- of the -University hall,: as:often as necessary, elect a President. oI the Univ.ersity,. who shall be ex officioa. member of their board, with the privilege of peaking but' not of voting. HeshaH presldeat.the meetings of the regents', and::be then principal executive-:officer ot the University.The: boar of regents shall have te general supervision of -the Universiity, and.the direc'-; ion and control of:all expenditures from the University interest fund, Mr.- GIDDINGS.I I move to ameind by adding at the endof the section the words; under, suchreions and restrictions as may be provided by law." I think no gentleman here can. object to this amendment.- It seems to me there shouldbe'some limitation; a and I desire -that the Legislature shall have the control of all such matters. MBr. RICHMOND. The clause- which the. gentleman proposes:- to amend is in the: exact language of the present Constitution, and has I think -worked well. I do not know that aainy fault has been found with it. I do not see any necessity for a change. Mr. l GI)DINgS. I do not know that this provision in our present Con stitution has- worked- well; but even.if ~that.is true, I suppose —the fact- that a-. thing has worked well, is no reason why there: mig-ht:not -be — a case. in which it would not work well. It seems to me there can be no substantial objection to attaching the clause which I have. proposea, which will put at rest.the question whether the- regents shall have supreme power in: this matter of expenditures from the- University fund,: r whether the Legislature shall have- supreme control of the subject. I am perfectly willing that.the board of regents -shall exercise this power, 'subject to the authority of the ILeg islature. I desire to" maintain the supreme power in the hands of the :Legislature.- If the provision be amended as I propose, no mischief can result from iit. The language as it stands is too strongg. It -may confer power which at some time me may de-/ sire-to curtail. I do not anticipate any evil from.the action of the-regents; but I desier that we shall place ourselves. inl therproper position: in; regard to the -matter. It seems to me thereican bc no substantial objection to saying that -the board of regents shall have eon — trol of these expenditures, under — the regulations-that- may be prescribed by the Legislature.- - - -. : Mr PRINGLE. I think, JMr.,!Oh - man, that I-can Bay that the provision ju-1-y 29.1867. .I 438 CONS'LTITlTTIONA TL CONVEN TIioN. of our present Constitution, which has been followed in drawing the present section, has worked badly heretofore for the interests of the University. I have known soiething of the feeling of one or two Legislatures on this subject. I have heard the claim made that the board of regents was supreme, that nothing they wished to do could be interfered with at all by the Legislature. I have heard that met byanother claim-that the grant to the State was for a University subject to the control of the Legislature, and that the express words of the trust would control. the matter, rather than the provision of our Constitution. Between these diverse opinions, which have been at different times argued about in this hall and the hall above by the hour, theinterests of the University have, I think, suffered. There have been peopleaad not a few-who have felt that this claim of an exclusive power in the board of regents to exercise control entirely independent of the Legislature, was a claim which ought not to be made, and ought not to be acquiesced in. I think that for the purpose of carrying on the institution, the control of it should remain with the board of regents; but I also think that by such an amendment as that now pending, we should recognize the power of the Legislature to control this fund which was given to the State, to be disposed of according to the direction of the Legislature from time to time. The adoption of the amenidmentwill make the section consistent with the design of the original grant, and I think, with the feelings of the people, and will prevent the representatives of the -people from being frightened at every session from doing that which they deem best for the interest of the University,because it is claimed on the part of the board of regents that the Legislature has no right to interfere. I think that this board should, like other boards managing State matters, act under the control of the Legislature. Hence I shall vote for this amendment. Mr. CHAPIN. Mr. Chairman, I am very much opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS.) It strikes me that, if this amendment be adopted, it will work "evil, and only evil, and that continually." f It will place the University under the control of the Legislature of the State. That body will be applied to from year to year, to do this thing and another thing; and the result will be a vast amount of additional legislation, the-practical effect of which will be, in my opinion, to destroy \entirely the efficiency and accountability of the board of regents. The government of the University by the board of regents, in the manner proposed by this section, has continued for seventeen years. We have heard of no objection to the control being vested in the board of regents. These officers are elected by the people. They are generally selected with great care with reference to their ability for the position. They are not only good financial men, but they are generally men of superior education, who take a deep interest in the educational institutions of the State. They are directly and strictly accountable to the people. Should they adopt, with reference to the University, any course which should work badly, they may be supplanted by another board, and thus the whole difficulty can be remedied. It does strike me- that to bring the University under the control of the Legislature, would be one of the most disastrous steps that could possibly be taken, so far as concerns the prosperity of -the institution. I hope that the amendment will not prevail. Mr. RAFTER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment. I believe in the direct accountability of the regents to the people. It has been urged here as an argument on some propositions that when we have a law or Constitutional provision which has worked well, we should not change it. It appears to me that this provision in our present Constitution relative to the regents of the University has worked well. Our University is in a flourishing condition. It is the pride of our State. I suppose that its present flourishing condition is owing to the very able manner in which it has been controlled by its board of regents. I am opposed to any change in the Constitution which will place that board to any extent at the mercy of _the Legislature. The section as reported corresponds with the provision of the present Constitution, which experience has shown to be wise. I trust that it will be retained. Mr. WILLIAMS. I have just voted with the majority of the Convention to maintain the provision that the regents should be elected by the people. In so voting, I supposed that I was voting in favor of a board that should be responsible to the people for its action. If we had adopted the proposition of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) that the members of this board should be appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, I do not know but that I should be willing to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS.) But it occurs to me that the action we have already taken implies necessarily that this board of regents is to be an in dependent board elected by the people, and responsible to them alone. If, however, we adopt the amendment, the section will then provide that "the board of regents shfiall have the general supervision of the University, and the direction and control of all expenditures from the University interest fund, under such regulations and restrictions as may be provided by law." Thus it winll be seen that, by the amendment, not only the direction and control of the expenditures but the general supervision of the UTJniversity, will be placed under the contrbl of the Legislature. It occurs to me that the Legislature cannot be as proper a body to control the University as those gentlemen elected for that express purpose, and knowing the wants of the institution. Mr. GIDDINGS. Mr. Chairman, I am unable to see the force of the reasoning of the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS.) He says that if this board were to be.a0ppointed by the Governor, by and with the' advice and consent of the Senate, (which would be only another mode of getting the matter out of the hands of thepeople,) then it would be proper to say that the Legislature may control their action; but that if the people elect these officers directly, then there is no necessity for any legislative control. Can any man see the force of such reasoning? The argument is that because the people elect the regents, therefore the Legislature should not have supreme control over-the expenditures to be made by those regents! It seems to me there is no force whatever in the proposition. While 1 am proud of the University, and will stand by it in everything that is right, I propose that, for the sake of the University, as well as for the sake of the people, the lawmaking power of the State shall have supreme control over the institution at all times. And I want it to be understood that I am as friendly to the University as gentlemen who claim to be its friends par excellence. But, as has been suggested by the, gentleman fromJackson, (Mr. PRsGLE,) whenever you undertake to throw around the institution a sort of class legislation, placing it beyond the control of the Legislature, you create enemies to the institution. The safe method is- to leave the final control with the Legislature; and if we send to that body careful men, who can be depended upon, the people of the State will have reason still to be, as they have been, proud of that institution. Let us not fear the people. -' Mr. RICH[OND. I am surprised that this amendment should have been offered by the gentleman from Kala t -M-Onday, I DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. mhzoo, (Mlr. GiDDiNGS,) a gentleman who is usually so clear and correct on general principles. What is contemplated by the amendment he has offered? The only interpretation that can be put upon the language of his amendment, is that the Legislature, instead of the regents, shall have the control of the interest fund of the University. The section as it now stands provides that " the board of regents shall have the general supervision of the University, and the direction and control of all expenditures from the University interest fund." What is it that is put under the control of the regents? The interest derived from the University fund. It is put under their control for the support and maintenance of the University. They are elected as a board of trustees, and are the proper officers to have the control of this fund. What is their appropriate power, if not to control this fund? Now; it is contemplated by the amendment-no other construction can be put upon it-that the Legislature shall have the control of this fund-thus departing from what has been the policy of the State under the present Constitution, by which the board of regents are exclusively empowered to control the expenditure of the University interest fund. If the control of this fund be made a matter to come before the Legislature every year, the University is really placed under political control, which I, and every other member of the Convention, I hope, desire iot to see. I am astonished that the gentleman from Kalamazoo should introduce such a provision. If it were in accordance with the general principle-if the Legislature had under its control the election of the regents, etc.-the matter would stand differently. Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to ask the gentleman one question: does not the Legislature retain a superintending control over the boards of all our State institutions? Mr. RICHMOND. It has a superintending control over the boards; but this amendment contemplates that the Legislature shall take the control of the funds, npt of the board. It proposes that the Legislature shall take into its hands the control of the funds and the management of the institution. Mr. GIDDINGS. Not at all. The Legislature all along has exercised a general supertntending control; butt the distribution, the special care of the fund has been left to the regents. The effect of my amendment will be this: if the regents for any cause do not carry out the views of the Legislature -if they should not appropriate the money properly-the Legislature may from time to time make such directions as it may deem necessary. I believe the people desire, that such power shall be reserved to the Legislature. Mr. RICHMOND. If the gentleman will look further along in this article, he will find a provision that this fund shall not be diverted from the intention of the original grant. This University fund was granted for certain purposes and on certain conditions. The people elect the board of trustees or regents. All that is contemplated by the provision to which the gentleman proposes to attach- this amendment is, that the regents shall control the disbursements of the interest accruing from the University fund. The effect of the gentleman's amendment will be to put the control of the interest accruing from the University fund, as well as the control of the board, into the liands of the Legislature. The effect is substantially to give the control of the University to the Legislature, instead of allowing it to'remain in the hands of the board of regents. Mr. WTT,LARD. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, will not prevail. It appears to me objectionable, because it is calculated to invite the interference of the Legislature in regard to a matter which has heretofore been left, and I think wisely left, with the board of regents. How far the Legislature might be authorized to extend its power under the provisions of the present Constitution, is a legal question, which I should not pretend to determine. I suppose that the Legislature has supreme control over all the public institutions of the State. But the proper organ of the popular will in regard to the imromediate management of the University should be, I think, the persons whom the people have chosen for that particular purpose. I know that last winter there was passed by the Legislature a resolution based upon a wrong impression with regard to facts existing in the University Our legislation is oftentimes hasty; and while with regard to appropriations which the State may make, it is of course competent and proper for the Legislature to,make at any time such conditions as it may deem necessary, yet it seems to me that the provision of our present Constitution, as embodied in the present section, should not be changed by the addition of the amendment, for the reason that it may tend to foster a disposition hereafter on thQ part of the Legislature to interefere with the management of the University —an effect which I should deprecate.' Mr. CONGER. If the object of this Convention is to place a corporation of this State entirely beyond State control for all time, then the amendment proposing to subject the management of this institutibn:to the regulations of law, should not be adopted. But how this University can exist except under the provisions of law, I cannot see. The amendment, it appears to me, should be adopted, unless we mean to make this institution a close corporation; for the section preceding this makes the board of regents a body corporate. If any members of this Convention desire that this board shall have the absolute control of all the interests of this State in the University, without being subject to any provisions of law, they will oppose this amendment. But I do not think we want such a state of affairs in this commonwealth. I do not want any power higher than the law. I have no question that, under the Constitution as it stands, this board is subject to the provisions of law. I have no doubt that the Legislature can control all the doings of that University, its existence and its - mode of existence. But it is proposed now to declare in the Constitution that -this body corporate, like every/ other body corporate in the State, shall be subject to the provisions of law. Why should this particular body corporate be made an anomaly.? I am not surprised that regents of the University, representing here its interests, should vote that the University and the close corporation controlling it, shall not be subject to the provisions of law. Still I think that, if we should so declare by our action, it will not speak very well for this Convention. Whatever may be the effect of the vote here or hereafter, I shalli if the question should come up in Convention, ask that the votes of members on this important qiestion shall be recorded. Mr. VAN VATLKENBURGH. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the amendment of the gentlemau of Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDrNGs,) will not prevail. I consider it a blow aimed at the very foundation of our University. I have never heard it intimated until to-day, that the regents of the University are incompetent men. I had supposed them to be men well qualified for the station that they occupy-men devoted to the interests of education-men:who have raised our University to the proud eminence that it now occupies~ I conceive that the adoption of this amendment would be dangerous to the institution-nay, would be fatal to its welfare. I hope that the amendment will not prevail..'/, a- L The amendment of Mr. GIDDINGS was not agreed to; there being —ayes 11,' noes41. - - - - J-41 - 29t 1867. - y, — 439 I I 410 COITUTIOAL CONVETIO. MOII day, STATE W,ARD OF EDUCATION. The next section was read as foll-ows: SECTION 8. There:shall be'elected three members'of a State Board of "'Ediucation whose.term off ofice shall be six years, one 0' whom shall be elected in every -second year, at the time of the election. of regents oftthe University. They shall enter uponthe duties or their office. on the first day of Janutary nextsucceeding their election. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be ex o.fficio a member and secretary of-such board.- The bQard shbll -have the general supervision of the State:Normal School, and their duties shall be prescribed by law. No amendments were offered. AGRIOULTURAL COLLEGE. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 9. The Legislature shall support and maintain an -agricultural college, — and may make the same adepartment ol the University, tor Ilnstruction in agriculture and the natural sciences connected therewith. Mr. LOVELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend this section by striking ouit the words, "and may make the same a department of' the University." I offer,this:amendment in deference to the friends -of agricultural education, many of whom manifest, and perhaps justly, a feeling of jealousy at what they regard as a design of the friends of the University to get control of their d epartment of education, in order that they may enjoy the benefit of its funds. I think the farming'in:terest should have the entire control of the Agricultural College. I would miyself desire to see it put, if possible, under the control of the Agricultural Society of the State. Certainly I think there should not- be inserted in theConstitution anything which should invite the University and its: friends to press upon the Legislature requests that the funds of the:Agricultural College, or the college itself, shoulad be-put under the control 0of; the University. Mr. DANIELLS. I hope that:the amendment may prevail, and this Clause- may be stricken out. It- seems :t0 me that -the whole- design of insert:ig -the'ela'use is to give —the Legisla-ture a chliane to' do away wth iall the lacfaeilities.::existing under: the:. present yStem- for: obtaining an: agricult'ural : education at the Agri cltu.al College. If the lan contemplated by the:sec tion be carried?inito- operation, its prac:tical'affect will,:be to -take the funds of :the Agricltural College- and transfer 'them to the University. Perhaps : there may - be atta:hed- to —:the Univer sity a department to be called an ",ag-ricultural department;"- but:e.verybody ~"nows that if the-'attempt is made to: ;teach' agriculture where the ela siecs -and other higher departments of:- edu cation are taught, there is formed-a -sort of — -aristocracy or caste.;:'Those :studying in- the agricultural depart ment will not rank with those pursuing classical studies; whether 'they will rank above or below, I wi :not say. The effect will be to destroy all the benefit that might otherwise be expected from an agricultural education. I hope the amendment will prevail. - Mr. VAN VALKF NBURGH. I trust that the amendment of the gentleman from Genesee "(Mr. LOVELL,) will prevail. I had prepareda similar one, which I intended to offer. I think with the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) that if the section be adopted as now reported, it will be a-fatal blow to the Agricultural College. I think that that College is doing a good work. There are now at the institution some ninety students, who are being instructed in practical farming and all the scientific knowledge useful inthat pursuit. In saying this, I affirm whereof I know. There is Something there besides the "black Galloway bull" that the gentleman from Washtenaw (Mr4 NORRis) told us about the other day. The farm is in good order, and progressing finely. I have been there occasionally during the progress of the farm; and I can say from my own ob Servation that the farm-is now in good condition and under 6ood- management. I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Genesee will prevail. The amendment of Mr. LOVELL was agreed to. Mr. GIDDINGS. I move to -amend the section so as to read: "The Leg islature shall provide for the support and: maintenance of an agricultural college," etc. Tis is a iere -verbal correction.- -Mr. THOMPSON. Wvill not-:.the gentleman modify his- -amendment so as to say "the Agricultural College," instead of "an agricultural college." This institution is known as the:Agri cultural College. Mr. —GIDDINGS. That can be a tended to by the commiittee on arrange ment-and phraseology. The amendment was agreed to. ::Mr. PRINGLE.' I move to amend by striling out "an," -before the words "-agriultural college,". and -inserting "the."; — The amendment was agreed' to. - APPROPRIATION OF EDUCATIONAL FUNDS. The next section was read as fol — Lows: SECTION 10. The proceeds from the-sale of all lands that have been or hereafter may be granted by the United States to the State for educational purposes, and the proceeds of all lands or other property given by individuals, or appropriated by the State for like-purposes shall be and remain a perpetual fund, the intLerest and income of which, together-with the rents of all such lands as may remain unsold, shall be inviolably appropriated and annually applied to the. specific objects of the or'ginal gift, grunt or appropriation. No amendment was offered.: -DISPOSITION OF ESC,HEA*TED LANDS. The next section was read as follows: .'SrCTION I1. All lands, the. title of which shall faill from a defect of heirs, shall escheat to the State; and the interest on the clear proceeds.from the sale thereof; shall be appro. priated excltsively to the support of primary schools. -Mr. YEOMANS. I move to amend by striking out " State," and inserting "-county where the land is;" so that the first clause of the section will read, "All lands the title of which shall fail from a defect of heirs, shall escheat to the county where the land is." The;amendment was not agreed to. Mr. GIDDINGS. I seen no necessity for the provisio:6-oontained in this section. I think the Legislature is as com pectent to take care of the matter as this Convention. The CHAIRMA. — Does the gentleman move to strike out the section? Mr. GIDDINGS. No, sir. SPECIAL TAX FOPR UNIVERSITY. - Mr. RICHMOND. I move to amend by adding the following -as a new section: SECTION -. There shall be assessed upon the taxable property of the State, and raised by tax annually, the sum of one-twentieth of a mill on each dollar of the assessed valuatpn thereof, for the use, aid and maintenance of the University. The amendment was not agreed to. SERVICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE AS REGENT. Mr. D. GOODWIN. I have some doubt in my own mind as to the propriety of-the Chief Justice being a member of the board of regents of the University. Desiring to present that question, I move to amend section five, by striking out these words: " The Chief Justice shall be ex officio a member of 'the board ofregents." Mr. LOVELL. I -:rise to a ppoint cf order. I submit that when we have once gone over a section in committee of the whol0e, no member can offer amendments to it except by unanimous consent. The CHRATNR-. The Chair is under the impression that -amendments to the body of the article are now in order. :Mr. LOVELL. I think the decision of the Chair is incorrect, but I do not propose to -taie an appeal The C HA?RMAN. The amendment ,is in order. ~The question being taken upon the -amendment, it was agreed to-ayes 28, noes 24. - NORMAL SCHOOLS. - Mr._ U.TLEY. I- move to amend by -adding the following as a new section: — S.CTION 1Q.- The Legislature shall provide for the'establishment and: maintenance, in each-of:ithe.'-:present con,gressional districts of the State, except the third, of a normal school IMonday, CO-N-ST-i-.r-lLiTIONAL CONVENTION. Alto Jul 29 187 DEAE Ao PRCED -S 44 for the education of teachers, to be conducted and controlled in the same manner, as near as may be, as that Dow established in the city of Ypsilanti. Such Normal Schools may be established in connection with colleges or seminaries of learning, now or hereafter to be established; but the direction and control of such schools, shall be at all times entrusted to the State Board Qt Education. I offer this amendment, because it seems to me that the great link wanting in the school system of our State is some proper provision for the education of teachers. In the conduct of our primary scTools, we experience more difficulty from this deficiency than from any other. I do not propose to make any speech on the subject. I submit the matter for the consideration of the Convention. Mr. PRINGLE. Does the amendment say that the Legislature " shall provide," or " may provide?" Mr. UTLEY. It says "shall;" but I will change that word to "may," with the consent of the Convention. Mr. PRINGLE. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are entirely ready yet to say that the Sate must establish five additonal-,normal schools, however desirable they may De. I think that we had better proceed a little more slowly. As soon as we are able, let us establish one more; then, as soon as that is filled up, let us establish a third; then a fourth; then a fifth; then a sixth. If by that time we have seven or eight Congressional districts, we can establish other normal schools as they may be needed. But I do not think we are entirely ready at the present time to enter upon the plan of establishing five more normal schools. I shall vote against the amendment upon another ground; and that is, without any such provision full power on this subject will reside with the Legislature. That body can, if it sees fit, raise money and establish any number of these schools. I think the whole matter had better be left to the Legislature. I do not believe the people of the State are disposed to tie up the hands of the Legislature to a particular line of policy in this direction. The: question being taken on the amendment, it was not agreed toayes 17, noes 28. Mr. LOVELL. Id move that the committee rise, report the article back to the Convention, ask concurrence in the amendments made'thereto, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. The motion was agreed to. So the committee rose; and the PREsIDENT having resumed the chair, . Mr. WINSOR reported that the committee'of the whole, having had under consideration the article entitled "'Education," had directed him to report the same with sundry amend Vol. 2-No. 56. ments, in which the concurrence of the Convention was requested, and to recommend the adoption of the article. The report was accepted, and the committee discharged. On motion of Mr. PRINGLE, the article was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed, as amended, in the journal. The article, as amended in committee of the whole, is as follows: ARTICLE —. EDUCATION. SECTION 1. Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. SECTION 2. Institutions for the benefit of those inhabitants who are deaf, dumb, blind or insane shall always be fostered and supported. SECTION 3. The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools, by which a school shall be maintained in each school district in the State, free of charge for tuition, at least four months in the year. The instruction shall in'all cases be in the English language. SECTION 4. There shall be elected eight regents of the University, whose term of office shall be eight years, two of whom shall be elected every second year, on the day of the annual township election, so as to succeed the regents now in office as their several terms shall expire. When a vacancy shall occur in the office of regent, it shall be filled by appointment'by the Governor. SECTION 5. The regents of the University and their successors in office shall continue to constitute the body corporate known by the name and title of "the Regents of the University of Michigan." SECTION 6. The regents of the University shall, as often as necessary, elect a President of the University, who shall be ex o.ffcio a member of their board, with the privilege of speaking but not of voting. He shall preside at the meetings of the regents, and be the principal executive officer of the University. The board of regents shall'shave the general supervision of the University and the direction and control of all expenditures from the University interest fund. SECTION 7. There shall be elected - three members of a State'Board of Education, whose term of office shall be six years, one of whom shall be elected in every second year, at the time of election of regents of the University. They shall enter upon the duties of their office on the first day of January next succeeding their election.' The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be ex officio a member and secretary of such board. The board shall have the general supervision of the State Normal School, and their duties shall be prescribed by law. SECTION 8. The Legislature shall provide for the support aLd maintenance of the Agricultural College, for instruction in agriculture and the natural sciences connected therewith.' SE.CTIoN 9. The proceeds from the sale of all lands that have been or may hereafter be granted by the United States to the State for educational purposes, and the proceeds of all lands or other property given by individuals, or appropriated by the State for like purposes, shall be and remain a perpetual fund, the interest and income of which, together with the rents of all such lands as may remain unsold, shall be inviolably appropriated and annually applied to the specific objects of the original gift, grant or appropriation. SECTION 11. All lands the title of which shall fail from a defect of heirs, shall escheat to the State; and the interest on the clear proceeds from the sale thereof, shall be appropriated exclusively to the support of primary schools. UNIVERSITY or MICHIGAN. The PRESIDENT, by unanimnous consent, laid before the Convention the following communication, which was laid on the table and ordered to be printed in the journal: UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 1 Ann Arbor, July26, 1867. HON. C. M. CROSWELL, President of thIe Con stitutional Convention: - DEAR SIR-A letter from the Secretary of the Constitutional Convention, to J. H. Burlison, Esq., Secretary of the Board of Regents of the University, containing the resolution of inquiry adopted by the Convention, has been handed to me, as the Secretary is now absent from home. I am not able to give an exact reply, as it would require a more careful study of the accounts than I am able now to make, but I hope that the following general statement will be satisfactory till Mr Burlison shall return: The annual receipts of the University from the State Treasurer, being interest on the proceeds of lands sold, is, in round numbers, about $37,000. The amount received from students' fees for the year just closed; ir $19,105. Besides this, the University has a "Reserve Fund," of about $15,000, bearing interest, which it is designed to increase to $20,000, to replace that amount already received from the sale of a lot of land in Detroit, which was conveyed to the University by deed of the Governor and Judges of the Territory of Michigan, and the proceeds of which have been expended for buildings. The University received from a land company in Ann Arbor the site of forty acres,, on which it is located. It has also received from the State a release from an obligation to pay interest on $100,000, borrowed from the State for buildings. The University has also received from citizens of Detroit, private subscriptions amounting to about $10,000, for the establishment of the Observatory. It has received from the city of Ann Arbor, for the same purpose, $5,000. Also from the city of Ann Arbor. for the enlargement of the Medical building, $10,000. The other donations have been inconsid erable in amount, and have mostly gone into the Museum and Libraries. As it regards the receipts from students' fees, I am able to give you an analysjs-of them for the year just ending, as follo: Amount received from Mich"'fi stu- dents.....................$3,7 45 Amount received from other States,....15,360 Michigan students have been charged fifteen dollars the first year, and five dollars a year thereafter. Other students have been charged twenty-five dollars the first year, and five dol lars a year thereafter. Hereaf'ter, Michigan students will be charged twenty dollars the first year, and ten dollars a year thereafter. Other students will be charged thirty-five dollars the first year, and ten dollars a year thereafter. The University is largely indebted to the fees received from students of other States. Indeed, without them, the Medical and Law departments could not possibly be sustained. With great respect, I have the honor to ", Yours, very truly, ~' E. O. HAYi, Pres. University of Jzfichian. Mr. CHAPIN. I move that the Con vention now take a receSS. The motion was Sgeed to; and the Convention, (at fifteen minutes past twelve o'clock p. m.,) took a recess. till half-past two o'clock p. m. ~ 4' Jul - 29 1867. y ) DEBATES AND PROCE'FT)ING- S. 44-1 I .4-: -* f' - - V. vST T - -'..1.._-.. I I... ., - - 11: a. -............. AFTERNOON SESSION.; The.Convention re-assembled at half-' past two o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll-was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Hi. BROWN asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence. JUDICIAL DEPARTENT. Mr. ALDRICH. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole on-the.general order. The motion was agreed to, The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. BILLs in the chair,) and proceeded to the consideration of the ar — ticle entitled "Judicial Department,' which was read at length. The first section was read as follows: SECTION 1. The judicial power shall:b.e vested in a Supreme Court, in circuit courts,* probate courts, justices of the peace, and in such other courts and tribunals'as shall b" authorized by law. No amendments were offered. ORGANIZATION OF SUPREME COURT. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 2. The Supreme Courtis continued subject to the provisions of this article. The Legislature shall provide for the election of one additional judge, so that the court shall consist of five members, and for a classification of judges so that one shall go out of offlice every two years. The judge having the shortest term to serve from time to time, shall be Chief Justice during the remainder of his term of office. The term of office of a judge of the Supreme Court shall be ten years. MHr. P. D. WVARNER. I move to amend by striking out the words, one additional;" by striking out" five," and inserting "four," and by changing "judge" to "judges;" so that the second sentence of the section will- read, Tbe Legislature shall provide fOr thef election of judges so that the court shall consist of fouir members, and for a classification of -the judges -so thati one shall go out of omce- every — two years." Mr.- Chairman, I do not desire- to discuss,this question. I wish simply to call the attention of the committee to the purpose I have- in view in offering the amendment. The section as reported adds one judge to our-S-ipreme Court. I believe, from -th inforation I am able to obtain, that' a coi4 constituted of four judges is aS well fil to discharge the duties devolving U1ln the supreme court as a bench consis a of five judges. If the court is compos of five judges, three will be necessary fxrender an opinion if the court is divid, or to reverse the judgment of the c rt below. In that case it appears to ie that the judges deciding that particulr question would in' oint -of fact be — equally divided.- Thejudge occupying.the bench -of the inferior court might perhaps be as well qualified to decide the issue as any one of the supreme judges. But, should four be adopted as the number of supreme judges, then in case of an appeal, the opinion of'three of the court being necessary to reverse the decision:of the court below, there would be the opinion of three judges against two. This is the idea which has presented itself to my mind and induced me to believe that four judges could discarlge the duties devolving upon the Supreme Court quite as well as, if not better than five. I had expected that some -other member might offer such anh amendment. It seems to me to possess a degree of merit entitling it at least-to the consideration of the com migittee. Mr. —-WITHEY.- It maybe desirable, r. -Chairman, that there should be a word of explanation in reference to *this provision. The subject-matter of this amend ment was considered in the standing committee that reported this article, and it was unanimously agreed incom mittee that it was desirable to have the Supreme Court composed of an od-d number of judges, rather than an -even number, as suggested by the amendment of the gentleman! from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER;) because, among other reasons, where there is an od number of judges-for instance five, as'proposed in this section —three being necessary to pronounce an opin ion, that O pinion when pronounced is authoritative through6ut the State; whereas, if the Supreme Court remains as at present, composed of four judges, the: result is that when the court is equally divided upon a case coming up ofi6om,circuit court, the circuit judge Of the particular circuit decides that case. His decision, not being reversed, stands as ~ the -law of the State so for as that circuit is concerned. In another circuit, the same question may arise before another: circuit judge, :who may hold directly the reverse of the law as laid down in the other cir cuit. This case also goes to the Su preme Court; the judges are again equally dvided, and the decision of the ~citcuit judge stands as the law for that circi::t.:: Htence, with; an- equally di vded Supreme Court, the number upon the bench being four, we- have -in one circuit one rule:as the law, and in- an other circuit another rule as the law. This is the case under the present sys tem.< It was not- deemed desirable by the committee, and I apprehend this convention will not regard it as desir able, that this system shall continue. Without going further into the question, it seems to me that this single consideration is entirely controlling upon this question. Thus, gentlemen will at once see the propriety of having in this State a forum in which the law shall be' pronounced, and shall be the law throughout the entire State; so that we may not have a legal question decided in one way in one circuit, and another way in another circuit, with no means of giving uniformity to the conflicting decisions. Mr. P. D.- WARNER. In view of the explanation of the chairman of the committee that reported this article, I' withdraw my amendment. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 3. The Supreme Court shall have a general superintending control over all other courts and tribunals, and also such appellate jurisdiction as shall be'provided by law; and to that end may issue writs of error, certiorari, mandamus, procedendo, prohibition, and all other' appropriate writs and process. It shall also have origina-[jurisdiction in cases of mandamus, habeas' corpus, proceedings in the nature of quo warranto, and proceedings by scire-facias to vacate letters patent. It shall have such jurisdiction of questions reserved as shall be provided by law. Its jutiisdiction in all cases not embraced in this article, shall be appellate only. M.. DANIELLS. I move to amend by striking out the words - and tribunals," in the first clause of this section. .We have constituted one supreme tribunal, from which there is no appeal; and it would- be singular to provide that the supreme court shall have "a general superintending control over all other courts and tribunals." [Laughter.] Mr. WINSOR. I hope the amendment may prevail, as it would make the gentleman chairman of the next board of supervisors of which he may happen to- be a member. [Laughter.] The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. CROCKER. I move to amend by striking out the word "original," in the fourth line of the section, as printed, and inserting in lieu thereof the word "concurrent;" also, by inserting, after the word "and,'J in the fiflth line, the words "and original jurisdiction in all;'' so that the section will read as follows: SECTION 3. The Supreme Court shall have a general Isuperintepding control over all other courts and tribunals, and also such appellate jurisdiction as shall be provided by law, and to that. end may issue writs of error, certioLari, mandamus procedendo, prohibition, and all other appropriate writs and process. It shall also have concurrent jurisdiction in cases of mandamus, habeas corpus, proceedings in the case of quo warranto, and original jurisdiction in all proceedings by scire-facias to vacate letters patent. It shall have such jurisdiction of questions reserved as shall be provided by law. Its jurisdiction, in all cases .not embraced in this article, shall be appellate only.,. CONS-IITUTIONAT,, CONVPNTION. 44-2 - M'o,ndav, 413 July 29, 1867. DDEBATES AND PROGECDINS-. _....... ..'~' aly; one held in,. Detreste 1y., v, g -es The object of this amendment is to annually; one held in etroit e oth- the views expresse by the gentleman give the circuit courts more clearly er atansing. It is inconvenient and fo Jackson, (Mr PINOLE,) I move and certainly ridicon in cases of expensive to suitors in different por- to amend by striking out the words, mandamus. If this amendment should tions of the tate, tfour judicial din mu,3.,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lnm Iithis acoevdment shoul..,-:-~'.the' prevail, I propose at the proper time other of these two pla,ces to present tricts of the.Lower Peninsula of the to offer an amendment to,section-nine, and have argued questions coming State." It occurs to me that the Leg changing somewha the language of from various circuits distant and re- tisl'ure w"ould be th:0e ouappropriate cang etingy ]ms~c _...; omewhao.,~v~t oeothe Iane wasde l.~~. t o J:..e that section, so as to correspond with mote from these points. It was deem- body to determine the places where this. Under the language of this sec- edby the committee more equitabland the thems of the Supreme Court shall tion, as it stands, it might perhaps be just that there should be a distribution be held. It might or it might not be inferred that the circuit courts would of the ters of the soeupreme Court convenient to have a term in each of t~~~~~~ ~ thles ci r.' -... -...U r.'u.' nothave jurisdiction to issue writs of at different points in the State, these four judicial districts. At one omandamus in all cases, but only to which would more nearly accommodate time this might be convenient, and at compethpefracoftheir own the pbro e of tiusiness interests of the State. another time a change might be expeorders with reference to matters di- This is the view which influenced the dient. The terms of the court would rectly under their own control. minds of the committee. I do not probably be fixed in great measure Mr. PRIyGLE. Mr. Chairman, I deem it necessary to give anyfurther with reference to the convenience of infer from the way in which this see- explanation. counsel; for the parties are notoften tha~~~~~~~~~~ scio,so a s ruCoresod wth o7 —-....t tion reads that the word" original is Mr. P-RINGLE. My own mind is required to attend at the sessions of ^used in the fourth line as contrasted committed to no particula policyin the Supreme Court. Access to a good u~~~~~~~f.h':se- inbythe~cmlmm-~-m....'- ":a'"'r "-'y' i ih o with the word appellate -" in the sev- this regard. It would -doubtless be a oas has been sug enth line, d that the landguage can many accounts a convenient thig to gested by the gentleman from Jack be interpreted only byreference to that the people of one section of the State son, be an important consideration. mf~~~e ~..,.;.~ ~_ i~~-aid sse risofatifee pit ~~~contrast. It! could not bhei, t ave court held at Grand Raids The business of the dieet distrits -~~~~~~~~pee onc a, ye-...oth it strikes me, to give -to the Supreme once a year; anot oio o hee would also have to be taken into ac Coulrt exclusive jurisdiction; it would people would find it convenient to count. The circumstances with refer ~onlygiveiorigial jursdiction in have na court held at alamoo; ence to thismatter, a s with re compl give itrforignan ceofr gar to,lwn me. _i.. these cases; and that is necessary to another tohave a session of thecourt gardtolaw libraries, might bedifer beprovided for, becauseitisafterward at Coldwater; another, perhaps, at. ent at differenttimes. cebe the word "soriginal" is prop- the Stat. But after all, when the ieg- in regard to the matter. erlye utsed t here islature shall come to consider this lrY. I have already said. can be no doubt about the constructriaion e in if a subsequent part of the article shall vise in regard to it, I fancy they would vention of thea propriety of thbs see givethepower:o isn teewitstre lk to fxthterm of e courts tion as it now stands. the circuit or other courtsl. at such places as have the convenience It will be noticed that, according to Mr. WITHEY. It will be observed of a w library; places where there the wov of t s articethd ower that in the section of this article rela are easily accessible such books as Peninsula will, under proper legisla te to circuit courts, those courts are must necessarily be used in the hear- ion, be divided into four judicial di empowered to issue writs of man- mgiof causesrbefore the.Supreme Court. tricts, with an additional district in damns. This meets the objection,ow, there are, if I am correctly in- the Upper Peninsula, making five dis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fraisedy by the gen State; and itas deemed iment. The word;original," proposed at Ann Arbor,h aticeall dvisable, in view of what I before sta to be sticken out, is not of course in- elsew t i t the tat,e o f td ouhts old be annually a tended to mean "exclusive." There may at some other places be some term of the Su preme Court in each of can be no objection, I think, to the sec- very good private law libraries. Es- these four judicial districts. tion as it stands, when taken together. uept at the places I' have mentioned, As to the question of suitable li Without occupying further time, I will there are no good public law libraries braries, that is wholly unimportant, so simple say that, in o t the opinonieti of o e ser oncn cndri o ao.;..pacs...e standing. committee that reported thbe oint ervems of court. thi is section enunciates article, this amendment ought ot to Ihavethus suggested n inconven- the principl hae one term of the be adopted. It might throw out of ience which, it occurs to me, might Supreme Court in every year should joint this section and one or two oth- arise froml an arbitrary division of the be held in each of these juditial di ers. State into judicial districtos with the otrcts. That mis the principle. A library The amendment was not agreed to. view of accommodating different local- will be accuinulated wherever there is TERMS OF TE SUPREME COURT. itiesr But, anes I have aid,my mind ise ter oe Supreme Court. riI veni t te w rattention of the committee tliman will gainsay it-that if we pro SECTION 4. There shall be held at least four to - tin- el e the vide for a term of the supreme Court eins'e of the ate, tsucti n n r.o no ther eIn isa inte arest i the courts, and places asshalleprovided by law. insist on the motion I have glade, where there is an ordinary amount of sha~~~~~~ll eaprpoedlate An y. or Mr. PRINGLE. In order to elicit though possibly I may present the business, there will grow up a library an explanation, I move to amend, by question again when the article shall adequate, or as nearly adequate asmay striking out the word "annually." come before us in Convention. With be, to the wants of the court. At many Mr. WITHEY. I do not know that the conso,entr of., thecommit I i n of the it important towns of this State, any explanation is necessary. We have withdraw the motion to an end. outsideof Detroit and Lansing, t~wns now two terms of the Supreme Court vMr. D. GOODWI. Concurring in at which terms of the court might and 444 ()OTITUTiOAb COVETIO. Monday, perhaps would be established, there are private libraries which even now would answer very well the puposes of a court that might be located there. The question is, is it correct in principle that the Supreme Court should hold these terms at but two places in the State, as is the case at present? It is said by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. D. GOODWIN,) that, if the amendment be adopted, the Legislature may provide for holding terms of the court at more than two places in the State; but I ask gentlemen of the Convention whether the Legislature could not have done this at any time in the past. It never has been done, though there has been no limitation or restriction upon the Legislature in this respect. Now, when we establish these judicial districts in the Lower Peninsula, is it not a fit and proper time to say that there shall be annually a term of the Supreme Court in each of these districts, to dispose of the business in each of the districts? Why should we leave the matter in such a position that the suitors in different parts of the State must reach the SiiprrmnA Court at only two points, unless the Legis sha make some provision to meet the case, which it has never yet done? Is it not a correct principle that justice should as nearly as possible be brought home to every man's door? It is the principle which we are adopting in this Constitution. It seems to me, as it seemed to the committee, (and I think that our view has met with a hearty response from the profession throughout the State,) that this provision in the fourth section is a wise and salutary one. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will be rejected, and the section retained in its present form. Mr. D. GOODWIN. I am not tenacious in regard to this matter; and after the views expressed by the honorable chairman of the committee, I will, with the consent of the committee, withdraw the amendment. No further amendment was offered. PRACTICE IN SUPREME AND CIRCUIT COURTS -JUDICIAL DISTRICTS, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall, by general rules, establish, modify and amend its practice, and may also make all rules that may be' necessary for the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It may appoint its own clerks and a reporter of its decisions. A concurrence of three judges of said court shall be necessary to a final decision. Mr. PRINGLE. Inasmuch as this section and the next section propose a somewhat important bchange in our present Constitution, I suggest that the two sections be considered together. By the sixth section, it is made the duty of all the circuit judges "to meet at least once in two years to es tablish uniform rules of practice in the circuit courts, and'to modify the same." By the present Constitution, the Su preme Court is required to establish rules for the circuit courts. There may be reasons to be adduced on both sides of the question, and in order that nothing may be foreclosed by passing over this section, I suggest that this and the succeeding section be consid ered together. The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection, sections five and six will be considered together. There was no objection. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 6. The State shall be divided into five judicial districts, four of which shall con sist of contiguous territory in the Lower Pe ninsula; the filth shall emhrace the Upper Pe ninsula and such portion ot the Lower con tiguous thereto, as shall be designated. Each judicial district shall be sub-divided into cir cuits of at least two in number. In each cir cuit there shall be elected by the electors thereof, one circuit judge, who shall be a res ident or the judicial district in which such circuit is formed, who shall hold his office for the term of eight years and until his suc cessor is elected and qualified. It shall be the duty of all the circuit judges to meet at least once in two years, to establish uniform -ulesof practice in the circuit courts, and to mod-irh-same.' Mr. PRINGLE. Imove to amend, by striking out in section six, the last clause, in these words: "It shall be the duty of all the circuit judges to meet at least once in two years, to establish uniform rules of practice in the circuit courts, and to modify the same." I do not know but that I shall with draw this motion. I shall do so, if up on an explanation of the reasons, the provision of the section shall seem to me wise. But whether a' bench of judges from all parts of the State, meeting but once in twp years, and only for a single purpose, will be the best body to establish and modify these rules, seems to me somewhat question able. There has been no very great fault found with the rules which have been devised by our present Supreme Court for the circuits. Those rules are convenient to the profession, and have not been greatly changed within the last fifteen years. M~r. WITHEY. I will say in reference to the provisions made in these two sections-one that "the Supreme Court shall, by general rules, establish, modify and amend its practice;" and the other, that the circuit judges shalU "meet at least once in two years to establish uniform rules of practice in the circuit courts "-that while it may be said that the rules of practice hitherto in the circuit courts of this State, having been established and modified from time to time by the Supreme Court, have not encountered very great objection, yet the evidence is, that in many particulars those rules established by the Supreme Court for the circuit courts do not produce uniformity of practice, because the circuit courts have power, also, to make rules as well as, to give construction to the rules established by the Supreme Court. There is not that uniformity of practice which would prevail in the State, if all the judges of the circuit courts should meet-at least once in two years for the revision and amendment of their rules of practice. If the gentleman from Jackson (Mr. PRINGLE,) has been accustomed to practice in the different circuits of this State, he will admit, I apprehend, that he has not found a uniformity of practice in those different circuits, except in those courts held by the same judge, the circuit judge under our present system holding court in different counties. If the gentleman practices in courts in different counties held by the same circuit judge, he may have found there a uniformity of practice; but I apprehend that if he has gone into other circuits, presided over by other judges he will have noticed that the practice is not uniform. The object of these two provisions-that the supreme court shall make and modify its own rules of practice, and that the circuit judges shall make and modify the rules of practice for the circuit courts was to obviate this want of uniformity. Under the system contemplated by these two sections, if a lawyer in the southern part of the State desires to commence a suit in the northern part of the State, he will know precisely what the practice is. He will know the first, the middle and the last step to be taken; because the practice will be the same in the northern as in the southern counties of the State. This is an advantage which the profession does not at present enjoy. These sections aim to correct the difficulties which have been experienced in this regard. Mr. PRINGLE. The difficulty mentioned by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) was quite familiar to my mind. I know that there exists a difficulty which we would be glad to have removed. But as these circuit judges are to meet but once in two years, and as diverse constructions of these rules and divergences of practice would be likely to grow up in the intervening time, there being no tribunal to correct these differences of construction and practice within the two years, it has occurred to me that the difficulties would be greater than those which we seek to obviate. The Supreme Court, meeting four times a year, would be able at any time it should meet, to make any needed cor -i I .CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 444 Monday, July' 9, 1867. DEBATES' AD PROCEEDIG. 415 rection or change of the rules to suit cases which might arise. Mr. WITHEY. The gentleman will notice that, by the provision of section six, the circuit judges are to meet " at least once in two years." Mr. PRINGLE. I noticed those words But the words, "at least once in two years," seem to contemplate that the meeting shall be but once in two years. It might be oftener. It would probably not be oftener than once a year, or at most twice a year. And if the meetings - were so frequent, much time would have to be expended by the circuit judges in attending those meetings; and even then their meetings would be only half as frequent as those of the Supreme Court. However, if there be no objection, I will withdraw my amendment. There was no objection; and the amendment was withdrawn. Mr. WITHEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to section six, as it stands-not a particle of objection. But I have been asked to consent to an amendment striking out after the words, " one circuit judge," the words, ", who shall be a resident of the judicial district in which such circuit is formed." Personally, I have no objec tion to this amendment; and I will make the motion for the purpose of presenting the question to the Con vention. If this change should be made, the circuit judge would not be required to be a resident of the judicial district in which the circuit is formed. A judge could be chosen from anypart of the State to preside over any circuit in the State. It is suggested that in some parts of the State, the people by going outside of the circuit to select the judge, might obtain a better class of ability than they could find among themselves. This is the reason which has been presented in favor of striking out these words. I distinctly state that I offer the proposition, not because I am par tial to striking out the words, but be cause the amendment has been re quested, and I have no personal ob jection to it. Other members of the standing committee that reported this article may have objections to the proposition. If such objections should be made, I should not feel like insist ing upon the amendment. I will say that I think it would not change the practice in any portion of the State save in one particular instance. I ap prehend that in every judicial district of the Lower Peninsula, a gentleman residing within the district will be se lected as judge. But it is well known that one of the circuits of the Upper Peninsula has called from Detroit a gentleman of great learning to hold its courts. The people of tha circuit may desire to do the same thing hereafter. If so, it may be well to give them the opportunity. With these remarks, I leave the question with the committee. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. D. GOODWIN. I desire to offer a substitute for sections six and seven. The CHAIRMAN. Section seven is not now under consideration. The gentleman can offer his proposition as a substitute for section six, which is now pending; — and should the substitute be adopted, the gentleman can move to strike out section seven, when it shall come before the committee. Mr. D. GOODWIN. I move, then, the following substitute for the pending section: "The State shall be divided into judicial circuits, in each of which the electors shall elect one circuit judge, who shall hold his office for the-term of years, and until his successor is elected and qualified. "The Legislature may alter the limits ol circuits, or increase the number of the same. No alteration ori increase shall have the effect to remove a judge from office. In every ad ditional circuit established, the judge shall be elected by the electors of such circuit, and his term of office shall continue as provided in this Constitution for judges of the circuit court. Judges of the circuit court may hold courts for each other, and shall do so when required by law. The Legislature may pro vide for holding a term or terms of the cir cuit court by a judge of the Supreme Court." I will remark that this substitute embraces most of the provisions of sec tion six, while it omits those of section seven, with the exception of the last clause. It omits entirely the provision for the division of the State into five judicial districts. It embraces the pro vision of the present Constitution au thorizing the circuit judges to hold courts for each other, and empowering the Legislature to require them to do so. That provision, so far as I have observed, is omitted from this article. It'is also in fact a substitute for the last clause of section eight, which pro vides that " The judges of circuit courts in each judi cial district shall hold the terms thereof either within the circuit for which they are elected, or alternately within the judicial district, as they may elect, or as may be provided by-law for either or all of such judicial districts." The substitute also contains a provision authorizing the Legislature to provide for holding a term or terms of the circuit court by a judge of the Supreme Court. Mr. Chairman, I suppose that the main object of dividing the State into five judicial districts is with reference to the proposed law terms. It is not proposed, however, to require the holding of these terms at this time, but to leave the matter open so that the Legislature may do so. The question then arises whether the entire change proposed here is requisite for that object. In reference to that matter, I may be permitted [to remark that we have already adopted a provision not in the old ConstituLtion, authorizing a circuit judge to reserve a question of law for the decision of the Supreme Court; and this it seems to me provides a much better remedy for the difficulty sought to be obviated than the meeting of a judge of a Supreme Court with the circuit judges. The system contemplated in the provision of section seven that the Legislature may provide for a review of questions of law by the circuit judges in the several judicial districts, with-the aid of a judge of the Supreme Court will not divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to review the decision that may thus be made. Now, if the question, after being decided by the court sitting for the district may be reviewed by the Supreme Court, it is much better that the circuit judge should reserve such questions, sending them directly to the Supreme Court, to be examined and decided by all the judges in bane, than that they should be decided in the district with the aid of one of the judges of the Supreme Court, who will constitute subsequently one of the tri bunal of review. It seems to me that it would be much better, and that con sequently this machinery of five dis tricts may with advantage be dispensed with. I think that the, end to be at tained is not such as to compensate for the change of our system. In framing my amendment, I have sought to take advantage of the benefits which the proposed changes might confer upon suitors in the courts of the State, and to get rid of the cumbrous machinery of five judicial districts, with the delay and expense which would be incident to a review within the districts. As to the blanks in the first para graph of this substitute, I should my self feel disposed to make the term of the circuit judges eight years, as pro posed in the section reported by the committee; and I should be disposed to make the number of circuits the same as at present-fourteen. The Legislature has, from time to time, under the authority given by the Con stitution, added circuits as was deemed expedient. If the present number be deemed too large, such is the increase of business within the circuits that perhaps by the time this Constitution goes into effect, the number of circuits now existing will be required. The State would be fortunate, if during the first term of the judges under the present Constitution, it should not be necessary to increase the number of circuits. The increasing population of our State, and the probable organiza tion of new counties within the limits of some of the circuits aro among the DEBATES AND PROCF4pl)INGS. Ju'lv- 29, 1867. 445 I I 116 I.,,....:.. matters to be taken into considerationin arranging the circuits. In view of all the circumstances, I think that the p'esent number of: circuits would be an appropriate number with which to fill the blank in this substitute; and I shall submit a motion to that effect if the substitute should be adopted. I have stated briefly the reasons which have influenced me in offering the substitute. In a judicial system with which we are familiar, it is desirable to avoid changes which will embarrass proceedings, or thow uncertainty upon them, by.creating — new questions of jurisdiction or construction, unless some manifest advantage is to be obtained.:And I must say, that I fail to see any advantage to be derived from thus dividing the State -into five districts, for the purpose of having in each of these districts an intermediate tribunal, consisting of the judges of the circuit court-aud a, judge of the Supreme Court. I am not sure but that under the first section of this ,article, the Legislature would have the power, at any time when it might be deemed advisable, to provide for some intermediate tribunal in some portions of the State. The present system has certainly the merit of simplicity of or ganization and facility of review by the Supreme Court-two great objects in constituting a judicial system-two great objects which were-had in view, to my own personal knowledge, in organm zing the system embraced in our present Constitution. With these remarks, I submit the amendment,to the consid eration of -the committee. Mr. WITH-EY. I desire to say a few words in reply to the gentleman froil Wayne, (M~r. D. GooDwIn.) If we adopt the substitute, with the modifications which it proposes in sec tions six and' seven, we shall have four teen circuits and fourteen circuit judges in the State; whereas, under the sys tem embraced in the article as re ported, we shall have probably but ten circuit judges, at mosteleven, for some years to come. If- there are but two judges in each district, there will be but ten altogether. It is quite certain that there will not-be more than one district in'the State that will require more than two judges-for some years to come. Hence, -under' the system re ported by the committee, there will be but ten or eleven circuit judges to be paid; while if the substitute be adopted, there will be fourteen, making three more circuit judges. The question presented by-the substitute practically resolves itself into- this: is it -not -de sirable'to redues the i number of -our circuit judges to ten, ra-ther than:- st'ilt have fourteen? -I.pprehend: that tis is very Adesrable. It certainly is in reference to the question of expense; and those who are acquainted with the amount of litigation in the circuit courts of this State appear to think that ten judges will be able readily to do all the lbusiness. Any other questions which may arise in connection with the amendment, I leave for others to discuss. Mr. D. GOODWVIN. Ihave not proposed to fix absolutely the number of circuit judges; I merely suggested the propriety of continuing the present number. I certainly cannot agree with the honorable chairman of the committee, (Mr. WITHEY,) that by dividing the State into five judicial districts, and electing judges within the districts, we change the number of the circuits that will be required. I very much doubt whether, when we -come to organize circuits, we can have all the business transacted with a smaller number of circuits than we now have. But, if the number of circuits can be reduced, let it be done. There is nothing in my amendment to prevent it. Section six provides that " each judi cial district shall be subdivided into circuits of at' least two in number." But in the populous districts of the State, where the courts are crowded with business, I very much doubt whether a smaller number of judges than three can do all the business. If the committee are satisfied that eleven circuits will be sufficient for the trans action of all the business, let the number be fixed at eleven, without having this provision for five districts. If twelve will be sufficient, let the number be fixed at twelve. If thir -teen can perform the business, let thirteen be the number. If the pres ent number is requisite, let the present number be-adopted. In my substitute I have left the number blank. As to dividing the State into five districts, it makes no difference at all in reference to the number of circuits that will be required. As to the expense, the circuit judges, whether you have ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen or fourteen, will be paid fixed salaries. By the proposition I submit, which follows the present system, we fix just the number of circuits which we may con sider necessary to do the business; and I venture to say that, as time rolls -on, the expense of conducting the business in those circuits will be found to be a great deal less than if we im pose on the circuit judges the duty of holding additional law terms; for these , terms will necessarily take up a por tion of their time, and render it neces sary that the-territory of their circuits .shall be reduced. As to doing the business with a a small' force, I -hesitate not to say, that any gentleman who will examine the subject carefully will be satisfied that under thle the present system the business of the courts can be disposed of with a smaller judicial force than under any other. This object was had in view particularly when the system was adopted. The substitute which I present, requires no intermediate tribunal between the circuit court and the Supreme Court. It provides for just so many terms of court, within certain limits, as the Legislature may see fit to direct. It leaves with the Legislature the power which it now exercises, of providing for special terms in addition to the general terms of the circuit court. Under this system the business would be performed in a number of counties, I think, with less ex' pense, and in all the counties with less judicial force, than if we have the machinery of five judicial districts, with law terms held in each district by the circuit judges of the district, with the aid of a judge of the Supreme Court., Certainly the object which the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) sug gests'is a desirable one;.but that ob ject can be ttained just as easily under the system as it now exists, and I think more easily than under the more cum brous system of having, besides the five judicial districts, a provision for an in termediate court of review between the circuit courts and the Supreme Court. The second blank in my substitute I will fill with eight, so as to make the term of the circuit judges eight years. As to the number of circuits, I will leave it blank for the present. If the committee-should adopt the substitute, the blank can be filled in the Conven tion, when we shall have determined the number of circuits that will be necessary. The substitute of Mr. D. GOODWIN was not agreed to. TER3MS "OF CIRCUIT COURTS, ETC. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 7. The Legislature may provide by law for terms in the several judicial districts by the judges thereof, with whom may be associated a judge of the Sup)reme Court. The jurisdiction and powers at such law terms shall be such as may be granted by law. The Legislature may provide for holding a term or terms of the circuit court by a judge of the Supreme Court. MIr,. INGALLS. I move to amend by striking out all of this section down to and including the words "by law;" so that the section will read, "The Legislature may provide for holding a term or terms of the circuit court by a judge of the Supreme Court." I will state my reason for making this motion. Holding a term of court for law purposes alone would be, in almost all -parts of the State, and I think in all 116 01-IN-11's, -ITI "'P NA I CONV NTION. Monday, . J ___: _._ __,... _...._.:9 _. _.. _1....8_6.7,. _ _ _.__ __ _.,. _..: _ _,:.__ _:_.'_ _ _. _.: _._':' i__ _._ _:_. _, __,,,,_ A_. _. __. _. _ L.- _ * * _'_. _..-.-_......I parts of the State, a needless expense. It is a new idea in the practice of this State, although not new to myself. Having practiced several years in the State of Wisconsin, where a provision of this kind exists, I know something of its workings. It is usual in that State,-to have this law-term held in one particular county of the State, and the members of the bar residing in other counties are called away from their regular business to attend to the argument of the law questions arising at' this law term. This necessarily subjects them to great inconvenience, and increases the expenses borne by the suitors. I, for one, cannot see any advantage in such a system. Every question of law might equally well be decided in the circuit court where it arises, and with much less inconvenience to the mem bers of the bar and the judges. Under the system as I have seen it in operation, it is no unusual thing for a lawyer to b called sixty or seventy miles away from his home to another county, in order to argue a question of law which might, just as well be considered and determined in the circuit where the case originated. Of course the ad ditional expense falls upon the clients; and although I know it is unpro fessional to say anything against charging fees to clients, yet I think members of the bar have suffi cient opportunities to charge fees, without making unnecessary expenses. If this section should-be adopted with out amendment, and if the Legislature should provide for the holding of a law term in the circuits, members of the bar will be continually called away from their regular business to attend to the argument of questions which miay as well be considered at the regu lar terms., This has been the result in other States, and I see no reason why the result should not be the same here. Mir. WILLIAMS. I simnply desire to say that the only effect of the pro vision which the gentleman moves to strike out is, that if the Legislature should provide for these law-terms, a judge of the Supreme Court would be one of the judges. Mr. WITHEY. Mr. Cha'iman, I do not suppose it necessary to occupy the time of the Convention by any extend ed remarks in reference to the motion made by the gentleman from Marquette, (Mr. INGALLS.) This seventh section provides for a contingency which, not: long hence, will probably arise-in our State, when by the increase of popula tion, and the consequent increase of the amount of litigation in the State, it will be desirable to have law-terms, as here contemplated, for the review of questions of law which might other wise go to the Supreme Court under its appellate jurisdiction, as well as questions in reference to which there is no appeal to the Supreme Court-questions of error in some form-questions arising upon motions at circuit (for instance motions for new trials) with reference to which there can be no review by the Supreme Court-a class of motions very important in their character, and sometimes involving the whole rights of parties litigant. These questions are not unimportant; and they are frequently questions which should -be heard before some other tribunal than the judge who tries the cause. Suppose any member of this Convention should find himself a party in a suit in the circuit court, involving, if you please, fifty or one hundred thousand dollars. The verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court is against him. He makes a motion for a new trial; and from some prejudice on the part of the judge, or some precon ceived view in reference to the facts of the case, a new trial is refused. No question of law has been ruled upon so as to constitute an error upon which the case can be removed to the Supreme Court. Thus the party is en tirely defeated in his rights, no matter how large the amount involved. Now, the design of this section is that the Legislatuire, in establishing these law terms, shall make such provison that cases where a circuit judge has denied a party a new trial may be reviewed at these law terms. Thus these law terms may be in the future almost as import taut a feature in the judicial system of the State as the Supreme Court itself. The object of the standing commit tee that reported this article was not to increase the number of courts, and the expenses attending litigation; it was to suggest to the.iLegislature what in all probability, and as we think cer tainly, will be the case, that not long hence just such law-terms may be ab solutely needed in this State, not for us lawyers, but for you gentlemen ~who are litigants in the cour ts, in order that your:rights may be secured with out the expense of going to the highest tribunal in the State.': I might present other reasons; but I apprehend that the suggestions I have made, will, in the view of the Conven tion, be sufficient to secure the rejec tion of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Marquette, (Mr. ING -AT,T,S;) ) / Mr. PRINGLE. Mr. Chairman, in regard to the amendment- now before us, I will not undertake to say that there may not be some cases, such as the granting of new trials and some other applications in regard to- the current business of a suit as it is going along, that it might be very well to leavet t he conference of the judges of the district, if we are to have districts. But, if it is contemplated that there shall be a tribunal intermediate between our circuit courts and the Stupreme Court, similar to the general terms under the NewYork code, which are held in each of their eight districts about six times a year in each district, through which all the litigation of the State must go from the circuits and fromm the county courts before it can reach the court of last resort-if anything like that is contemplated, I should be opposed to it; and that is certainly authorized by this section as it stands. The effect of the system in that State, as I understand the history of the mat ter, has been simply to make another step necessary before justice can be obtained, and to make in the different districts diverse decisions; so that what is ruled in one way in the first district is ruled another way in the second, and perhaps still another way in the third. What is settled in one district is not law in other districts, and is not per haps law for that district- when the court of last resort comes to act uponrit. I think there should be but one supreme tribunal in the State-but one tribunal above our circuit courts to decide the questions of law which may arise in them. In some cases, such as granting new trials, where the question is one rather .of judicial discretion than of law, I think there ought to be something provided, besides that which we now hiave, the simple discretion of the one judge who. holds the circuit. But so far as regards the' decision of questions -of law, my idea is that these divers intermediate tri bunals, if they should; be established, would make matters more confused would multiply, instead of diminishing, the questions for the determination of the court of last resort. Hence, while Iwould favor a provision which in the particular case mentioned, the question of granting a new trial, would allow some appeal, either to the Supreme Court or to the judges of the district, from the decision of the one judge, which might be right, or which might be wrong, which might in some cases be just and might inreothers do great injustice; but to constitute an interme diate tribunal between the circuitcourts and the Supreme Court, through which all business going to the latter must pass, would be,- I think, a great mis take; yet, Ifear that if the section be ~adopted in its present- shape, that is just one of the mistake which the Leg islature would be likey to make; be cause the idea of' brin'gig justice to I DEBATES ANJL) PROCEEDINGS"*' '447 .July 29 1867. I CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. every man's door" is a popular idea, one which would in the Legislature be favored very much-too much, I fear, for the real good of the State-too much for the cause of justice as it affects us in our every-day concerns. Hence, I would have -no words here which could be interpreted to give the Legislature authority to establish such an intermediate tribunal. Mr. LOTHROP. Mr. Chairman, by an examination of this section, it will be seen very distinctly that the committee have created no intermediate tribunal. They have thought that at some time a tribunal other than the Supreme Court, for the review of some questions, might be not only expedient, but possibly even necessary. Suggesting this fact to the Legislature and making the single provision that if the circuit judges should be associated for this purpose, a supreme judge shall be associated with them, is all that the committee have done. They have not provided for any new judges; they do not propose that there shall be any new salaries. They simply say that if at any time it shall be deemed by the Legislature expedient, that certain questions shall be reviewed in the immediate neighborhood of the trial, without sending them to the last tribunal, the Legislature may constitute a tribunal of this kind, as could be done without a word in the Constitution on the subject. It does not follow that if a case is carried up for consideration at one of these law terms, it mustmecessarily go to the Supreme Court. The gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) says he would not have the New York system of a generafterm. Does the gentleman mean to say that in the State of New York all the business goes through the general term, and then to the Court of Appeals. No gentleman knows better than the gentleman from Jackson, that a large part of the business disposed of atthe general term, never goes to the Court of Appeals at all. At least sixtenths of the law-business of the State of New York, which is taken to the general term is settled there, and does not go to the Court of Appeals, because it is much more economical and expeditious to settle it at the general term; and it is only questions of great doubt, or questions obstinately litigated, which are taken from the general term to the Court of Appeals. , Now, in regard to very-many questions, it may be very much cheaper to consider them at this law term. It may happen, and will happen, that both counsel and suitors will often be entirely satisfied with the decisions rendered by two or three circuit judges, when they were not satisfied with the conclusions reached by a-single judge at a hasty trial. The committee have done nothing more in this provision than make a suggestion, founded on their experience and consultation, that if law terms are established by associating the circuit judges, a judge of the Supreme Court shall sit with them, and they shall hear just such questions as the Legislature may provide shall be referred to them. That is all we have done; and it seems to me that it is not an u*nwise suggestion. It strikes me as a very prudent provision. Were it proper, I might refer to cases of similar tribunals in neighboring States that work exceedingly well The amendment of Mr. INGALLS was not agreed to. The next section was read as follows: SECTION -8. A circuit court shall be held at least twice in each year in every county organized for judicial purposes,. and at least three times in each year in counties containing te thousand inhabitants. The judges of the circuit courts in each jucicial district shall hold the terms thereof either within the circuit for which they are elected, or alternately within the judicial district, as they may elect, or as may be provided by-law for either or all of such judicial districts. No amendments were offered. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS. ... The next section was read as follows: SECTION 9. The circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction in all matters, civil and criminal, not excepted in this Constitution and not prohibited by law; and such appel-d late jurisdiction from all interior courts and tribunals as shall be provided by law, and supervisory control of the same. They shall also have power to issue Writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, injunction, quo warranto, certiorari, and other writs necessary to carry into effect their orders, judgments and decrees, and give them general control over inferior courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions. Mr. CONGER. I move to amend by inserting before the word "power, the words-" original jurisdiction and;" also by striking out the words "give them," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "shall have;" so that the last clause of this section will read as follows: "They shall also have original jurisdiction and power to issue writs of habeas corpus mandamus, injunction, quo warranto, certiorari, and other writs necessary to carry into effect their orders, judgments and-decrees, and shall have general control over inferior courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions." - In the third section of this article, it is provided in relation to the Supreme Court, that "it shall also have original jurisdiction in cases of mandamus," etc. Section nine, according to my reading of the words, gives to the circuit courts power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, injunction, quo warranto and other writs, only in cases where it is "necessary to carry into effect their orders, judgments and decrees," and where it is necessary to "give them general control over infe rior courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions." I desire that the circuit courts shall have origi nal jurisdiction and power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, injunction, quo warranto and certiorari, whether those writs are necessary to carry out their decrees or not. The writ of habeas corpus may be a desirable writ for them to issue, though it may not be necessary to carry out a decree or order. The proper system, accord ing to my idea, is that the circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction and power, concurrent with that of the Supreme Court, to issue writs of habeas corpus and mandamus in all cases; yet it seems to me that there should be some limitation of the exercise of that power by the Supreme Court. At least we desire, I think, that the circuit courts shall issue these writs within their respective circuits wherever they have heretofore exercised th6 power. We desire that they shall have power to —: issue- -Writs of mandamuts which shall reach farther than their decrees-which shall reach to the boards of supervisors, to justices of the peace and to township officers, etc. Unless I have misconstrued the language, these courts will not have such power under the section as it stands. I may be mistaken in regard to that; but, according to the present terms of the section, I can see no way in which a circuit court could issue a writ of- mandamus to a justice of the peace, a town treasurer or a town ship officer of any kind, unless it should be in furtherance of its own decrees or judgments. I presume the committee could not have intended to take from the circuit courts this power. I would inquire whether the proper construction of this section will allow this power to ba exercised by these courts. -:"' Mr. LOTHROP. The design of the standing committee in reporting this section was that the circuit courts should retain the precise jurisdiction that they now have. I am not aware that the language differs in any'material point from the provision-of the present Constitution on the same subjeet. Besides, it will be seen that by the first part of the section, the circuit courts have "original jurisdiction in all matters, civil and criminal, not exceptted.in this Constitution, and not prohibited by law." The statute law regulates the jurisdiction in the larger part of these eases. In this way the jurisdiction of the circuit courts is regulated as to the writ of habeas corpus. Any power that may be exercised by mandamus, not simply as an auxiliary jurisdiction, but as an original one, i 448 Monday, I Jl 29 187 EAE W ROEI~ 4 may be conferred by statute, if it is not aleady conferred. The power of injunction of course is conferred in that portion of the statute which confers upon the circuit.courts original jurisdiction in all matters in chancery in regard to which it is possessed by the high court of chancery in England and not restrained by the laws of this State. The writ of certiorari is issued by the circuit court in many cases under statutory-authority; and its jurisdiction in this respect, both auxiliary and original, is entirely within the control pf the statute. At any rate the jurisdiction which has hitherto been exercised in respect to these writs by the circuit court, and which was supposed to be entirely satisfactory, is the same that we propose to continue to' the circuit court. The committee were not aware of any evil in the language of the existing Constitution in this respect, and they thought they would proceed safely in repeating it. hr. CONGER. The inquiry in my mind-and to this the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTHROP) has not alluded -is whether the enumeration of the power to issue these writs for certain purposes would not preclude the idea of a general power to issue them for other purposes. It is this considera tion that makes the construction doubt ful to my mind. To this point the gentleman did not speak. Mr. LOTHROP. It escaped my at tention. I will say that I should not regard the specification of power in this section as excluding in any degree the general exercise of the power. Iwill read the provision of the present Con stitution; and the gentleman can ob serve whether the language has been accurately transcribed in drawing up the present section:-. "They shall also have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, injunction, quo' warranto, certiorari, and other writs necessary to carry into effect their orders, judgments and decrees, and give them a gen eral control over interior courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions." 1Mr. WITHEY. If I understand correctly the section as reported by the standing committee, the amendment proposed by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr.,CoDGER,) will not in any re spect change the meaning; it will not enlarge the power of the circuit court in any particular. The words "neces sary to carry into effect," etc., following the words "other writs," do not con fine the writs pieviously referred to. I think the gentleman is under a misap prehension in supposing that the lan guage which he proposes will confer greater jurisdiction than the section as reported. I apprehend that the sec tion will mean precisely the same with Vol. 2 —-No. 57. out the words he proposes as with them. Ar. CONGER. This section does not differ in its language from the provision of the old Constitution on the same subject; but the section relative to the power of the Supreme Court is changed. The present Constitution provides that "The Supreme Court shall have a general superintending control over all inferior courts, and shall have power to issue writs of error, habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, procedendo, and other original and remedial writs and to hear and determine the same. In all other cases, it shall have appellate jurisdiction only." The committee have changed a portion of this section so as to read, "it shall also have original jurisdiction in cases of mandamus, habeas corpus, proceedings in the nature of quo warranto, and proceedings by scire facias to vacate letters-patent." This is a fuller grant of power. The words " original jurisdiction" do not necessarily imply that other courts may not also have concurrently original jurisdiction. But it strikes me that this section enlarges, by construction at least, the power of the Supreme Court, leaving a limitation upon the power of the circuit court. If this is not so, I do not desire that the amendment I proposed shall be adopted. I offered it with the object mainly of eliciting the views of the committee. Mr. WITHEY. Mr. Chairman, I feel very confident that the gentleman from St. Clair, when he shall have ex amined this question carefully, will come to the conclusion that the lan guage to which he has referred gives no additional power to the Supreme Court. The language is in substance the same as that of the present Consti tution. The committee have simply adopted what they regarded as better and more appropriate phraseology. I think thatthe interpolation of the words which the gentleman proposes will not change the sfse in the slightest degree. I have no particular objection to the amendment, because I do not regard it as changing the sense; but I think that the' language of the seetion as it stands is more concise. If, on further examination, any amendment should be deemed necessary, there will be no objection to making it when the article comes before the Convention. Mr. CROCKER. Differing with the chairman of the committee (Mr. WITHEY) as'to the construction of this section, I have prepared an amend ment designed to make it more clear, that the circuit courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, etc. My amendment proposes to strike out the word "power," in the fourth line of the section as printed, and insert "concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court." This will place it beyond any question whatever, that we intend to give this jurisdiction to the circuit courts; for I agree with my friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) in thinking that the language of section three, providing that the Supreme Court "shallhave original jurisdiction in cases of mandamus, habeas corpus," etc., when taken in connection with the language of section nine, restricts in some degree the power to issue these writs to the Supreme Court, and that, unless some amendment be made, the circuit courts would not have power to issue them except in a limited class of cases. Mr. CONGER. I withdraw my amendment, that the gentleman from Maconb (Mr. CROCXKER) may offer his, which I think is better than mine. Mr. CROCKER. I move to amend by striking out the word "power," and inserting the words, "concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court;" and by inserting between the word — and" and the word "other," the words, "power to issue all — such," so that sction nine will read SEcTION 9. The circuit court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters, civil and criminal, not excepted in this Constitution, and not prohibited by law; and such appel late jurisdiction from all inferior courts and tribunals as shall be provided by law, and supervisory control of the same. They shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court, to issue writs of mandamus, injunc tion, quo warranto and certiorari, antd power to issue all such other writs necessary to carry into effeCS their orders, judgments and decrees, and give them general control over inferior courts and tribunals, within their re s'peo~tve jurisdiction. Mr. WITHEY. I do not know but that this amendment may suit the Con vention. It does not suit me. The amendment of Mr. CROcKER was not. agreed to. SEAL OF COURTS-AGE OF JUDGE. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 10. The Supreme, circuit and pro. bate courts, shall be courts of record, and shall each have a common seal No person shall hold the office of judge of a court of record after attaining to the age of seventy years. Mr. McCLELLAND. I move to amend this section by striking out the words, "no person shall hold the office of judge of a court of record after attaining to the age of seventy years." I think that this is a matter which ought to be left to the people entirely. Many of our judges, and many of our ablest lawyers, are seventy years of age. My impression is that Chief Justice Marshall was over seventy years old when he died. Chancellor Kent, under a' provision of the Constitution of New York, went ,Tuly 29, 1867.1 DEBATES AND. PROCEEDINGS. 449 .1 45 -'~~T~~OA CO VTI. ody out of office at the age. of sixty; yet;:h-i intellectual vigor and his judicial ability continued unimpaired for many years, and after retiring from office, hke: wrote those celebrated commentaries on American law, which are the indispensable text-book of every student". -. John' Quincy Adams did not:die till he had attained the age of eighty-four; and but a short time before his death, I heard him speak with all his usual ability and mental vigor. Some of the most talented aind distinguished of thee chancellors of England have remained in full possession of their poWers till past seventy. Lord Brougham is nw' between eighty and ninety years of age, yet his intellect is very vigorous. This question as to whether men seventy years of' age may fitly and safely occupy judicial positions, is one that may very properly be decided by the people in each particular case.: The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. MCCLELLAND, there were-ayes 24, noes 17-no quorum voting..... Mr. McCLELLAND. I forgot to mention one distinguished gentleman in public life, who is over seventy years of age-Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, the leader of the Republican party. [Laughter.]'-' A MEMBER. Oh, we shall not elect him judge. The question was again taken; and there.were-ayes:31, noes 22. So the amendment of Mr. MCCLEL LAND WaS agreed to. CIRCUIT COURT SSMI5IONERS, ETC. The next section ad as follows: SEcTIoN 11. The respective C nit courts held in each county.shall-appoint onr more persons residing therein, who shall be ed with such judicial and ministerial powersshall be provided by law. -- Mr. CONGER. I desire to inquire why it has been provided in this -section that these officers shall be appointed, instead of being elected, as they are under the present system. Mr. 51VWITH EY. The design-:of thisc "section: wash to authorize tfhe circuit courts to appoint a competent pers'6on in.each county to discharge such duties as would devolve upon a circuit judge at chambers. But, as this mode of describing those duties is not well defined, it was'thought better to use the language incorporated in this section.' The present Costitution, it will be remembered, abolished the office of master-in-chancery. Tht -Officer could perform and did perform .meany duties which -'it was.. conveniein to- the suitor, to the -practitioner -and to the court that he should discharge. These duties have for some-years been pe'formred through -the.circuit court co'mmissioner. It has been found in:- practice thatm:any of the circuit court commissioners are entirely, incompetent to discharge properly the duties -devolving upon them.: They -are frequently elected from a class of —young attorneys who are not- competeniit to discharge the duties; and"from this fact the judges experience great difficulty and embarrassment. I'do not know but that in some instances men who were not lawyers: hiave been elected circuit court -ommissioners. At any rate, such instances occurred when the law was first chaanged. E:very practitioner knows it to be' extremely important that those -officers who are vested with -the j,dicial and ministerial powers referred to..in this section, should be men learned in 4he law, so that the business entrusted to their hands may be' attended to with accuracy and corirectness. In addition to the personal knpwledge of members of the committee,;; with regard' to the evils of the presei't system, complaint on this subject came too the committee from various. parts of the State. I could refer to some of the instances referred to in committee, if it were desirable to make any statement of the kind here, which I think it is not. It is believed- that, if:the circuit~ courts -should'appoint these commissioners, the duties would be in better hands, and would be- dis, charged more to the satisfaction of the people, and the ends of justice would be better secured. I have in my possession a letter in which; reference is made to the' circuit court commissioners in certain parts of the State; and if the complaints contained in this letter are well'founded, (and I have no doubt there is a good deal of ground for them,) there exist evils which : I dnot exist if the circuit court had the'i4poinip'tment of these officers." I do not ale to go further into the particulars." I:'ve perhaps answered: all t'hat:was embrqed in the; inquiry of the gentleman from St.'Clair.: l M-:'3~r. CONGER.; As a substitute for ,the' secti-n, I-"offer the following, which' "i.is expressive at least of m-y own views: ~ hiere shall be elected in each county, onea;- or more circuit k'court -commissioners, who shall be vested with such judicial and ministerial powers and duties as daall be pre'cribed by law.' - C -.' M3:[r.; LOTHtROP. I earnestly hope. that the pending section will be adept ed as:repoirted by the committee; forI d6':':d:: not'inirnk there is a more imnportant ~ provision in-the article.- The officers here providedafor are to exercise some of the most important and delicate judicial functions. They- are functions whch- are exercised by the circuit judge himself' when he is present, and :i~:e: intended to be exercised by this .'ofcer: when- the circuit judge is absent or cannot readily be reached. I need name only two of - the very important poweis which this officer exercises-the power of issuing injunctions, certainly one of the most important:functions that can be exercised by any judicial officer, and the power of issuing writs of habeas corpus. He also exercises, under our present statute, though not necessarily, the power-of judgment between landlord and tenant. But I refer more particularly to the power of issuing writs of injunction and habeas corpus. There is no- class of duties more important than, this. As I have before remarked, we intend that the circuit judge shall perform these duties; but, in view of his frequent absence from a particular county, his occasional sickness, etc., it is found necessary to vest this power in some other officer. The persons who are elected as circuit court commissioners are frequently not at all competent for the exercise of this power; and great abuses result. I- know personaily of very great complaint, and very great ground of complaint in this matter. I know it is said, (and I may just-as well refer to the subject plainly,) that it is extremely difficult to keep prisoners in our prisons. I know it is said that they are oftentimes liberated when they ought not to be liberated. However that may be, onething is certainly clear the liberations from our House of Correction by means of writs of habeas corpus are somewhat remarkable. As is well known, persons are sent there, not only from the city of Detroit, but from various parts of the State, to be confined for the terms of their sentence; and it seems to be almost impossible to get a committal to that institution from the interior of the Stato that will stand the scrutiny of a circuit court commissioner. Now, the habeas corpus, it is true,' is a proceeding that maybe-reviewed by the Supreme Court; but in the- mean time the person is discharged; and practically it is not - reviewed by.the. Supreme Court. I have never -known an: instance where such review has been attempted. When a person is discharged, there is an end of the proceeding. ~ i Inasmuch- as -the power thus exercised is really a power of the circuit judge and is in its nature a delegated power, it seems to me proper that -the judge should select a suitable person within the circuit or county to exercise this power. The committee, in drawing -this section, have changed the phraseology of the present Constitution, which is very defective, because it -provides that these officers shall be "vested with judicial powers, not exceedihg those of a judge of the circuit '. ~~ ~..... ~... i i,i. 1 .I .i CONSTITUTIONAT, CONVENTION. 450 Mondy, July~~~~~~ 29 186w DenA~1ADPOED~~ court at chambers." Inasmuch as the exact limits of the power of a judge at chambers is, I think, unknown to the profession, the committee thought it better to provide that these officers shall be clothed with such powers as the Legislature may think proper, and that they shall be appointed by those whom the people have selected as the appropriate persons to exercise these judicial functions. I hope the section as reported by the committee will be retained. ir. CONGER. Mr. Chairman, all the objections which the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) has made to the proposition which I have sent to the Chair, apply either to the competency of the persons who perform these duties, or -to the law assigning those duties to them. I cannot see why the mere appointment by a judge of some favorite of his own should remedy the evils of which the gentleman complains. If these officers are unfit to exercise the powers which -have been granted to them, then the Legislature should withhold those powers from them, if not in all cases, at least in the cases to which he refers. There is.no system that is not liable to abuse; and where the abuse exists, the Legislature should apply'the remedy. I am unable to understand why a person appointed by a judge to exercise these duties, would be.more likely to beta competent and responsible officer than a person selected by the people. I dissent from the doctrine which has found utterance here so frequently, that the people are unfit to elect persons to perform public duties. The people .are sufficiently competent to elect the supreme judges of.the State; they are sufficientlycompetent to-..select the circuit judges, who exercise absolutely all these powers. Yet the committee tell us that the people are not competent to elect men to perform inferior duties. There will be assigned to such an officer, I apprehend, many duties that will not be assigned to a circuit judge. Actions of forcible entry and detainer, and other simple actions which were formerly brought before the: circuit judge are, under our present law, ~brought before the circuit court' commissioner. Certain powers with reference to liens on vessels are also assigned by law to the circuit court commissioner, although I believe the validity of the laws assigning to that officer such powers, has been to a great' extent abrogated by the Supreme Court, perhaps because:it has been ,supposed that such duties can be better performed in Detroit than in the cities and townships:.outside. What ever power the Legislature may deem it proper to assign to these officers, we may assume that the.people will be able to elect competent persons' to -perform them.. I desire thatwe shallhave in our State a harmonious judicial sys-. tern. I do not wish-to declare byvimplication in our Constitution, thatwhile the people may elect all the higest officers of the State, they cannot be trusted to choose those who are to exercise the mrninor judicial functions; So far as my own experience goes, I have never known in the county in which I reside any particular wrong or abuse resulting from the election of these circuit court commissioners by the people. And I am free to say that, having frequently, -in the discharge of my professional duties, gone before the circuit court commissioners in the' city of Detroit, I have found them as competent to perform the duties assigned to them, as;well as higher judicial duties, as many judges of the circuit courts. It is true that:there maybe in sonme counties so few persons qualified to perform these duties, that occasionally there may be elected :ly the people some who do not perform the duties properly.. But I submit that there is just as much, and indeed more, danger that the circuit judge may select his pet and keep him in that office without regard to his' competency, than there is that t.he people will not use proper discretion in selecting a suitable officer. With the increased duties and responsbilities of this officer, the people will of course take more care in their nominations and elections to get a proper man. Mr. PRINGLE. Mr. Chairman, I have been acting generally in this Con vention with those who put trust in the people who believe that the people are competent to make a judicious choice in selecting.- their own officers; but in this particular case, while I do not distrust the ability'.of.the people when that ability is properly evoked, I amein favor of some such section:as that reported by the committee, rather than the substitute proposed by the gentleman from St. Clair. I have great faith in the people. They can judge pretty well not so well perhaps generally as the lawyer will judge, but they can judge very wellof the lawyer whom they see r.acticing in the courts, of the judge whom they see sitting on the bench and presiding over the deliberations-of juries. But as to this particular office of circuit ' court commissioner, there -..has been provided but a brief term of office only two years; and ordinarily the ofice is taken by about the youngest: member of the.'bar, belonging to. the' party that happens to be in power at the time. Though he is nominated by the party convention, yet he is not selected with reference to'his fitness for the duties to be performed. In the view of the great mass of the people, this is.a contemptible office; they do not appreciate the importance of the duties to be performed. These duties are performed in some back office, away from the street, away from the gaze of the people. What these officers do is rarely reported in the newspapers; it is rarely mentioned except in a written report which may come before the court.- Beyond the suitors who are immediately interested, and the judge who receives'the report, there are very few persons in the county who hear what these men do from one year's end to the other. As their duties are not publicly performed, there is no such test Min regard to the capacity of the officers, as:there is, for instance, with regard to the prosecuting attorney of a county, who must appear before juries and show what he, is and what he is not:; or as there is with regard to the judgelof probate, who is called: upon publicly to deal with nice and intricate questions. No such questions are, so far asthe public is aware, required'be solved by the circuitcourt e tsioners., Hence the nominag conventions of both parties generay select for these offices men not extremely well qualified -men in. ma. instances who would nott -be selected for- the much less ,responsible office of justice of the peace. I have inmy mind the case of a young man, who, though he had been educated to the practice of the law, was not capable of conducting proceedings to obtain a judgment upon a promissory note where there was no defense, was not capable of conducting any proceedings in.a.court of chancery-was not capable of doing, and never.did do, during the four or six years that I knew him, any business successfully. Yet he was twice elected to the office of circuit court commissioner. Scarcely any paper which he drew, while holding that office, was correctly drawn; no suitor could entrust business.to him without overlooking it, and probably redrawing the report.or the instrument. Yet the people who elected him had proved themselves pretty well qualified to select their prosecuting attorneys, their circuit judges, their probate judges, their sheriffs and other officers. The trouble was, they did not really exercise their choice with regard to this officer. Cases similar to that have, within my own knowledge, happened in several different counties. It~ is a matter of general complaint throughout: the .State that the persons chosen are:not 'those who should be selected to perform the nice and delicate duties im f i .I i jul 29 1867. .DFBATES AND PROCEI' Gs-. 451 o 452 ()1O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~STITUTIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AL C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iNVENTION. Moilday,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ posed on them- duties requiring a pretty full knowledge of the legal profession. I know that the system which has existed for the last seventeen years has not, in its practical operations, worked well. It has not secured to the people good officers. There are but few persons in the county who know the disqualifications of the officer; and, of those who do know, there are very few who would be likely to be in the nominatin.g convention; and of these there are very few who would be willing, a few weeks before an election, to rise and denounce their party friend as incompetent. Hence the public are not informed of the facts before they make their choice; and the officer, in the performance of his duties, is not brought before the public in such a way as to enable them to judge of his qualifications. Hence, I think that the selection of this administrative officer ought to be left to the courts. I would, however, suggest a change in the section as reported-a change which would, I think, obviate to-some extent the difficulty suggested by the gentleman from St. Clair. I would suggest that, instead of being appointed by the judge who might hold the circuit at the tinme when the appointment should be necessary the officer should, if the district systems to be continued, be appointed by the two-ree or more judges of the particular disti entlemen who, alternating in holdicourt in the county, for which the appointment is to be made-a observing those who practice in the courts, are likely to make a better selection th a single judge, who may have his special favorite. I suggest this change; but I must vote against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from St. Clair. Mr. PRATT. Mr. Chairman, I trust that this section will be retained. In addition to the duties which have been mentioned, this officer has some other duties which I may mention. He is required to take testimony in all chancery cases, which are among the most important cases we have in court. He is sometimes engaged three or four weeks in taking testimony. Now, it frequently, and, indeed, most generally, occurs that the men elected to fill this office are young attorneys without much legal knowledge, and without much practice in their profession. It will readily be understood that testimony taken before an offcer who is not much skilled in his profession will very much embarrass the parties whose business is brought before him. Itis very important that the testimony should be presented in a slillful manner. But, practically, the counsel come before a circuit court commissioner, who is frequently illiterate, and if it is a contest ed case, there is very much discussion and wrangling; the records are all covered over with exceptions, making it necessary perhaps to occupy two or three terms, in arguing those exceptions before the circuit court. In addition to this branch of business, it is also the duty of the circuit court commissioner to endorse all writs of capias, warrants, etc. He examines affidavits to decide whether there is proper cause to order the arrest of parties, and also to determine the amount of bail. An incompetent officer may frequently make mistakes and order the arrest and imprisonment of a man without any legal cause being shown. This circuit court commissioner is also required to make the computations in all cases of foreclosure of mortgages. All reports in cases of partition are made by him. He appoints all guardians ad literni in suits pending before the courts of chancery. In addition to this, he -issues, as has already been stated, writs of injunction and habeas corpus-among the most important writs issued by any tribunal. It is in the highest degree desirable for the interests of the public that these responsible duties should be exercised by a man of thorough competency and strict integrity. Yet, as has been remarked, this office is generally given to some politician, to suit the ends of party. The emoluments of the -ffice are very small; and a competent oi ardly ever willing to go into a Convention a for a nomination. To suit party ends, sme ungpl itician or attorney is generally nominated. Wow, the duties of this officer being peclarly those belonging to the circuit jude at chambers, I submit that, if the poweof appointment be conferred upon tI circuit court, more competent men i1{ be selected for this very important poion. - Mr. CONGER. Mr. Chair an, ift,as gentleman say, this is so high an office, with duties so delicate, the people of the State know the St just as well as the lawyers'know it. But will any gentleman pretend to say that the judge can appoint to this office an experienced lawyer, with a large practice? Would such a lawyer take the appointment, when, of course, in all the cases that he might have, or might expect to be employed in, he could not act as circuit court commissioner. The truth is, whoever the judge might desire to appoint, the wishes of the appointee must be consulted; and I venture to say that no gentleman of large practice at the bar would ever consent to receive the appointment, either from the people or the court. Of course then the appointment must be given to young lawyers, or collecting lawyers, men who do not as advocate~ appear in the trial of causes. This is the fault, not of the system which I defend, but of gentlemen who will not'give up their other business by taking an office which will interfere with it. Now, I have not yet heard any reason why the people who elect the highest judicial officers of the State may not elect a minor judicial officer, and why the people, who are capable of judging of the qualifications of him who is authorized to perform all the duties, may not judge of the ability of one who may be, for certain purposes, his substitute. Either we are wrong in our system of submitting to the people the election of our judicial officers, from the highest to the lowest,or else we are wrong in distrusting. the ability of the people to select suitable circuit court commissioners. I see-no more reason why a judge should appoint an officer of this kind than that a supreme judge should appoint the circuit judges. The same reasons will apply in both cases. The reasoning of all these gentlemen is against the system of submitting the election of the judiciary to the people. Some gentlemen say that this is an unimportant office. If so, then there is no less danger of submitting the selection to the people. Other gentlemen say that the duties of the office are very-delicate and important. But they are certainly less so than those of other members of the judiciary. Let us have a uniform system (that is what we profess to go for) of elections of the judiciary in all its branches by the people. This will be satisfactory to the people. There has been no complaint from the people about the election of circuit court commissioners. It is, I believe, desired by them, that they shall continue to select those who are to perform judicial duties in regard to the hundreds of small matters which have heretofore been committed, as they will undoubtedly be hereafter, to the circuit court com~missioners. But it is to the principle of this section that I object, and it is for that reason that I have offered my amendment. It is not for me to control the views of others; but I have my duty to perform in asserting the right of the people to elect- their judicial officers, high or low, great or small; and in pursuance of that duty I have offered the amendment. Mr. ALEXANDER. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to, there be-, ing, ayes 21, noes 20. So the committee rose; and the PREsIDENT having resumed the chair, I CONSTITUTION A Ti CONVENTION. Moiiday, 452 453 July 2'9, 1867. DEBATE A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D PRO()EEDI~~~~~~~~~~~~- Mr. BILLS reported that the committee of the whole, having had under consideration the article entitled " Judicial Department," had directed him to report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The question being, "Shall the committee have leave to sit again?" Leave was granted. Mr. STOCKWELL. I move that the Convention adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and the Convention (at 25 minutes after five o'clock p. m.) adjourned. FIFTY-FOURTH DAY. TUESDAY, July 30, 1867. The Convention met at 9. o'clock a. in., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. BANWELL. The roll was called, and a quorum of members answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. COOLIDGE. My colleague, Mr. FARMER, received yesterday a telegram informing him of sickness in his family. I therefore ask indefinite leave of absence for him. Leave was granted. Mr. RICHMOND. My colleague, Mr. NORRIS, found it necessary to go home. I expect him here at ten o'clock to-day; but I ask leave of absence for him for the day. Leave was granted. Mr. UTLEY asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence after to-day. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. Mr. WTILLIAMIS, from the committee on miscellaneous provisions, submitted the following report: The committee on miscellaneous provisions, to whom was referred article 18 of the present Constitution, respectfully report that they have had the same under-consideration, and have directed me to report an article entitled "Article-, Miscellaneous Provisions," recommending that the same do pass, and ask to be dischaged from the further consideration of the subject. W. B. WILLIAMS, Chairman. The report was accepted and the committee discharged. The article was read a first and seeond time by its title, ordered to be printed, placed on the general order, and referred to the committee of the whole. GRANT FOR A RAILROAD FROM DETROIT TO LAKE SUPERIOR, ETC. IMr. INGALLS. I move to take from the table the preamble and resolution offered by me on Thursday last, asking our Senators and Representatives in Congress to use their best efforts to secure a grant of land to aid in the construction of a railroad from )etroit, by way of the Straits of Mackinaw, to intersect with, or become a part of, the Northern Pacific Railroad. The motion was agreed to; and the Convention proceeded to consider he following resolution, entitled "A resolution asking our Senators and Representatives in Congress to use their best efforts to procure an appropriation or grant to aid in the construction of a railroad from Detroit, in the State of Michigan, by way of the Straits of Mackinaw, and through the Upper Peninsula, to the head of Lake Superior, to intersect with, or become a part of, the Northern Pacific Railroad:" Whereas, The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is rich in nearly all the valuable minerals useful to man, and it is desirable to open an avenue for their quick and cheap transportation to a market; And whereas, The whole interior of the said Upper Peninsula is a wilderness without roads or railroads;' And whereas, A railroad running from De troit, by way ot the Straits of Mackinaw, and thence through the interior of the said Upper Peninsula, and to intersect the Northern Pa cific Railroad at or near the head of Lake Superior, would open all said country to set tlement, and afford the means of developing an amount of mineral wealth unequaled in richness in any other portion of the United States,'as wellt also as open to settlement the northern counties of the Lower Peninsula and afford a direct and cheap avenue for the transportation of the products of the vast iron and copper mines and marble quarries o the Upper Peninsula to a market; And whereas, Owing to the geographica position of the Upper Peninsula, separated a: it is from the Lower Peninsula by the waters otf Green Bay, Lake Michigan and the Strait; of Mackinaw, unless some railroad communi cation is opened by way of the Straits of Mack inaw-which is the only practical point fo such connection-the wants of the separate localities will within a few years eventuate i a dismemberment of the State and the erec tion of a new State, a necessity for which would, by the construction of a railroad through the State by way of the Straits o Mackinaw, be greatly lessened; And whereas, The construction of a rail road along the route above named and th Northern Pacific Railroad, would be a work of national importance; therefore, Resolved, That our Senators and Repre sentatives in Congress be instructed to us their utmost lawful endeavors, at the nex and succeeding sessions of Congress, to pro cure a suitable grant, either in land or bonds or both, as the case may be, from the Unite States, to aid in the construction of a railroa from Detroit as aforesaid, by way of th Straits of Mackinaw to the head of Lake Su perior: Provided, That if a grant of land b obtained, said land shall not be withdraw from the market, but shall remain subject t sale, the avails to be appropriated to the pur pose for which the grant is made. Resolved, That the Secretary of State be re quested to forward copies of this resolutio to each of our Senators and Representative in Congress before the next session thereof. The PRESIDENT. The -questio is upon the adoption of the resolutic as modified by the acceptance yester day of the amendment of the gentle man from Grand Traverse, (M LEACH.) Mr. McCLELLAND. Is the wor "bonds," retained in the resolution? The PRESIDENT. The resolutio has not been changed in that respect. Mr. McCLELLAND. I move then to strike out the word "bonds." Mi. INGALLS. I would like to ask the gentleman whether the Govern ment does not issue bonds to the Cen tral Pacific Railroad. I am under the impression that it has done so, and is now paying those bonds as that road progresses.- At any rate, that L was my opinion at the time I drew the resolution. If I am mistaken in that impression, I have no special rea sons for desiring the clause in re lation to bonds to remain in. If, how' ever, I am correct, I see no serious ob jection to its remaining. It was my - impression at the time I drew the res; olution that the Government is issuing bonds payable during the construction of the road and paying those bonds as t they become due. If such be the fact, I see no reason why we might not ask our members of Congress t6 use their r influence to obtain that kind of aid as well as the aid of grants of land. - At any rate; this is only-a recom mendation; it is not obligatory -up on anybody; and I see no reason why the clause with regard to bonds should not remain, even though the t Government has not heretofore exf tended such aid. Our Senators and Representatives may ask whatever de sci-iption of aid they deem proper; they will get whatever they can. I see no harm in asking too much. There ' might be harm in not asking enough. r The Government might hereafter, even e if it has not done so heretofore, see fit to n aid'in the construction of a railroad h by the issue of bonds, as it is already d paying a portion of the expenses of the f Central Pacific Railroad. I may be mistaken in relation to this e matter. If I am, I shall be glad to be k set right. I am not tenacious that the a word "bonds" should remain in the 3e resolution; but' it does seem to me rt that it can do no injury there, and may a perhaps prove useful in aiding our Ed members of Congress hereafter in de taking such action on the subject as a- may become advisable. )e Mr. McCLELLAND. It is a mattter of indifference to me what disposLtion the Convention shall make of this subject. But I think that there have en been no bonds issued by the Genes eral Government for the purpose : of internal improvement in a State, ] since General Jackson's veto of the l Maysville improvement. I for one do r- not desire to recognize the principle e-embodied in this resolution. It has Jr been the custom of the Government — and I think very properly-to grant. cd land for internal improvements even in the States, as was done in this State in m>n any instances, in regard to not only DEBATES AND PROCEEDLNGS. July 29, 1867. "''........... L. -,' -.....'' our railroads, but the Sault Ste. Marie' Canal. But I do not believe that since that veto of Gen. Jackson there has ever been a grant of bonds "or money to'a State for wbat might properly be termed an internal improvement, separate and apart from river:and harbor improvements, which have not generally gone under that designation. Therefore, I would desire..that the word "bonds" should be'struck out. But it makes very little.. difference to me. I simply desire that I shalh not be considered as recognizing that primciple. The PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) that perhaps his amendment ought to include more than the word bonds. Mr. McCLELLAND. I suppose that if the word bonds" should be 'struck out, the, gentleman can then modify his resolution so as to read properly. The motion to strike out' the word "bonds," will test the question. Mr: GIDDINGS. I desire to say a few words on this subject, but not with reference to the motion to strike out the word "bonds." I wish to speak upon another branch of the resolution. While I do not like to oppose any proposition which looks to the building of railroads through the State of Michigan, I desire to say there is in the language of this resolution, a peculiarity which distinguishes it from the resolutions of this character which it has been customary to pass in the Legislature. We propose by this resolution to ask the General Government to make a grant of land or bonds, or both, to aid in the construction of a railroad from Detroit to Mackinaw-a most desirable thing in connection with the Pacific Railroad scheme. Now, the peculiarity of this resolution is that, while we ask this aid, we propose to fix the terms upon which we are to receive the boon. There is an incongruity, it seems to me, in asking the Government to give us land, and then undertaking to specify the terms and conditions upon which we shall consent to receive it. This incongruity is contained in the proviso, which Was accepted yesterday on the suggestion of the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH,) and- which is in these words: - "Provided, That if a grant of land be ob tained, said land shall not- be withdrawn from market, but shall remain subject to sale, the avails to he appropriated to the'purpose for which the grant is made." It seems to me very unusual and inconsistent to attach such a qualification to a request for a grant of land. I should suppose that,' if the General Government should be disposed to make a grant of land, it would decide for itself whether it would retain any interest in the land-whether the land shall be put into market or not. The peculiarity of the resolution is that you ask Congress to give you so much outright to build a railroad, and then undertake to dictate to Congress the terms upon which you will accept the grant Suppose my house should be burned down, and I should go to people asking them to assist me in rebuilding it, and should say at the same time, " If you give me this aid, it must be Upon the condition that as soon as it is rebuilt, I may sell it." It is simiply ridiculous to ask a clear gift, and then attempt to dictate the terms upon which you will receive the gift. I can appreciate somewhat the views with which my friend from Grand Traverse offered his proposition, because in the section of the State in which he resides a considerable quantity of land has been kept out of mar ket, to the inconvenience of the people. But that inconvenience, it strikes me, bears no comparison to the great good that will ultimatelybe accomplishedby those grants of land. In this case, too, although it might be some inconvenience to the people, if thelands granted should be kept out of market, the Government might not care to establish any rules on the subject. If the government should refuse to establish rules to satisfy a few individuals in Grand Traverse or elsewhere, I do not see why we should decline to receive the grant. There seems to me an incongruity in the proposition. I have ,never seen such a proposition; and I do not know but that I shall be compelled to vote against the whole resolution if it should remain in its present form. Mr. McCLELLAND. I desire to perfect the amendment I have offered. I move to strike out the word, "either," before the words "in land," and also the words -" in bonds, or both, as the case may be." I do not believe there is any case, except that of the great Pacific route, in which any other rule has been adopted than to make simply a grant of public lands. Mr. LEACH. I do not propose to discuss this question; but I must say one word n reply to the gentleman from Kalamazoo (Mr. GIDnINGS) —a gentleman who, upon most questions, is generally right, but who is invariably wrong upon this question of land grants for railroads. The gentleman tells us that we have no right to ask a boon, and then prescribe the terms on which we will receive it. It seems to me, M~r. President, that we have a perfect righlt to do that. We say to the Government, "We are willing to receive a land grant for the construction of a railroad, if you will attach to that grant such conditions that it shall not prove a curse, instead of a blessing." I think such a proposition is very reasonable. Unless my amendment or something equivalent to it shall be retained as a part of the resolution, I shall feel constrained to oppose it to the utmost of my ability. The gentleman from Kalamazoo says that he is unwilling this amendment should be made for the gratification of a few individuals living in Grand Traverse or somewhere else in the northern part of the State. I wish to say to the gentleman that this amendment looks not to the gratification of a few individuals living at Grand Traverse, but to the interest of the entire northern portion of the Lower Peninsula. Three millions of acres of the public domain in that portion of the State have been kept out of market for ten- years; and now we are askedto'pass another resolution requesting Congress to grant another million of acres, to be kept out of market for an interminable length of time. It seems to me this Convention will not tolerate such a proposition for a moment.. All I ask in this matter is justice, simple justice nothing more.. Mr. INGALLS. Mir. President, I do not wish to occupy the time of the Convention unnecessarily with this subject; but I desire to say a few words in reply to the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) and the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS.) I am quite sure that I saw in a newspaper a few days ago, a statement of the fact that the Government commissioners had gone on to examine the section of the Central Pacific Railroad that was completed, and that the Government was about to pay over the proportion which it had pledged itself to contribute in aid of the road. Mr. McCLELLAND. If the gentleman will. permit me to interrupt him, I desire to say that I do not deny the fact which the gentleman has just stated; I know it to be the fact with regard to the Pacific Railroad; but what I maintain is that perhaps the only instances in which since the veto to which I have referred, the Government has departed from its uniform policy of giving no aid: in bonds or money to enterprises of this nature have been in Kansas and California, and that on account of this Pacific Railroad, which has been by Congress taken out of the general category of internal improvements. But- I think there have been no other cases. In respect to the Pacific Railroad, the CO STITUTIONAL CONVENTION. .454 - Tu'esd,ay, July 30, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS, 455 Gov ernment does, I -believe, grant money as well as lands. Mr. INGATLLS. What I intended to say was, that the road contemplated by this resolution, is also a Pacific railroad. It is intended to become a part of the Northern Pacific railroad, to be a continuation of it, from the head of Lake Superior to Detroit. If it should be constructed, it will be as much a part of a Pacific railroad as that now building by the way of Kansas and the South Pass.' Hence, I-see no reason why the government may not aid this enterprise in the same manner as it has aided in the construction of the Pacific railroad. It is certainly a road of as much national importance as the Central Pacific railroad, or that by the way of the South Pass. It will open up all our northern country through Minnesota and north of the Rocky Mountains to Puget Sound, and will become the most direct route from Asia to the Atlantic. It will in fact become the national throughfare across the Continent, not only for the transportation of everything that may be wanted in our own country, but also for the great Asiatic trade. It is in fact a national enterprise, as much as the Central Pacific railroad. Hence I see no reason why the Government might not aid it by grants of money as well as by grants of land. There is nothing against this view in the fact that the road may extend through this State; for it is still a part of the great trunk to be built across the -continent to the lakes. In relation to the point suggested by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,') I will say that the object of accepting the amendment of the gen tleman from Grand Traverse is obvious. I myself am not very much in favor of granting lands to be taken out of the marke-to be placed beyond the reach of settlers, business men and others, who desire to bring those lands into immediate utility. I am in favor of grants for railroads, but I desire them to be made in such a man ner as will not only benefit the particular enterprise, but at the same time benefit the people. I am well aware that such grants have heretofore been made in such al manner -asto- m flict injury on the people. We are in jured in our portion of the State by having too much land' taken out of market. This objection has been ob viated in grants which have-been made within the last year or two in States farther west. In the cases of grants made to -the State of WVisconsin, the lands remain subject to entry at ~the land office, at double the ordinary price. In other words, any person now' desiring to enter lands:in Wiscousin under those landgrants can go ,to the general land office and enter the lands at twenty shillings an acre, in the same manner as he could before the lanid was granted; and the proceeds are placed to the credit of the railroad designed to be aided. I see no objection to that method of giving aid, and I do see a very great advantage in it; because wherever the land may be situated, whether it Ls wanted for the purpose of settlement or for cutting pine or anything else, any person desiring to buy the land can do so at twenty shillings an acre.- Thus settlement and business are not retarded, and the railroad gets aid without injuring the community. Entertaining these views, when the gentleman from Grand Traverse suggested that in the northern part of the Lower Peninsula, too much land is withdrawn from market for the good of the State, I was very willing to accept his amendment as a matter of direction to our Congressmen, so that if a bill should be got through Congres, it may be so drawn- as,to benefit the great interests of the country, without injuring any one. I think this is very proper and very practicable. Mr. GIDDINGS. One word of explanation only.: I do not want to be misunderstood on this subject. lMy views on this question do not accord with those of my friend from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH;) and I can very readily see why we disagree. It happens that large land grants have been made, running near his place of residence, striking about the head of Grand Traverse Bay. Those large grants of land, individuals living in that section and especially speculators desire to enter. The gentleman did not tell us, though I know he means to be fair, that while three millions of acres have thus been granted, probably more than three millions of acres yet remain open. There is abundance of land yet to be taken. Speculators are seizing upon portions of- these lands; but large quantities yet remain open. If all the land heretofore granted by the United States for railroads were now thrown open to market, a large proportion of it would be taken, not by actual settlers, but by speculators, who would sell it again at a very largely enhanced price. Yet I see very clearly that some of the settlers do suffer a temporary inconvenience from the withholding of these lands from market; yet it was supposed at the time the land grants were made that this temporary inconvenience would be sufficiently counterbalanced by the great benefit Which would ultimately ensue from those landgrants; and I have no doubt that this is the fact. Now, sir, I wish it to te distinctly understood, that I do not desire to oppose any'proposition calculated to assist in the building of railroads. I think myself, that this proposition is a little "watered" by affixing terms and conditions to the request, the result of which will probably be, that we shall never obtain any land at all for this purpose. I think this will be the result. If gentlemen insist on thus watering" the proposition, and putting it through in that shape, I assure them, that I am not going to support it. I made the suggestion, not for my betefit, but for the- benefit of others. Ir.: CONGER. Our representatives in Congress have for some years been urging the United States to endorse the bonds of the company that might be formed to build the Northern Pacific railroad, or to give the bonds of the United States for that purpose. I agree with the gentleman from Menominee, (Mr. INGALLS,) -that this road will in time be the great throughfare across the Continent. In view of its location and route, there is no question about this. For some three, four or five years, efforts have been made in Congress in favor of what is called the Stevens route-the Northern Pacific railroad route. Congress has been asked to do for this route what it has done for the Central Pacific route-to grant aid by bonds or money, or to endorse the bonds of the company, at least to guarantee the interest on the bonds of the company-not merely to give it aid by grants of land. Our Senators-especially Mr. Howard, who is a mfiember of the committee on the subject-have made untiring efforts to bring about this result. For us now to adopt a resolution requesting Congress to grant lands (which they are always readyto grant,) without asking also pecuniary aid, either by issuing bonds, or by pledging the credit of the Gen eral Governmient, Or by guaranteeing the interest on the bonds of the com pany, is a perfectly useless proceeding. A resolution in such terms would not be worth the paper upon which it was drawn...: The people residing in the north western section of the United States, desire Congress to.do the same for the railroad in- which they are interested, that has been done for the Central Pa Cific railroad-extend aid by money or bybonds. And this is the essential point of the present resolution. With out this proposition, I do not care whether i; be passed or not. Adopted with this clause in it, the resolution will.express the voice of the people of Michigan: in furtherance of the efforts I i 45G ()O-STITUTIO~AL CO-YE~TiO~9 Tuesday, of our delegation in Congress. So far as it may influence Congress, it will second and sustain the efforts of our Senators and Representatives to obtain the only aid that we ask for this enterprise, other than that aid which Congress is ready at any time to give. The gentleman from Wayne, (MIr. IICCLELLAND,) has referred to Gen. Jackson's veto of an internal improvement bill. Although I was but a stripling at that time, yet according to my recollection of the circumstances, as well as what I have since observed, that veto, in its effects on the prosperity of the United States, has been a most damnable thing for the interests of the country, its internal improvements and other great interests. It was an obstacle to the improvement of our rivers and harbors, until the nation was compelled in the progress of events to override even the veto of Gen. Jaqkson. It is undoubtedly a pleasant reminiscence in these days of trial, that the Old Hero did carry through a veto. It is pleasant to look back to the time when a veto could sustain itself in these United -States, and could even add to the popularity of its author. Bat the days of vetoes have long since passed away, both in -this State and the United States generally. They are a harmless amusement in which men placed in high places indulge occasionally, in the vain effort to rally friends around them; but thus far they have proved an extremely unsuccessful amusement, and I trust they will continue to be, so long as they are used to the injury of the people, and to impede the progress of our nation. Mr. LONGYEAR. Mr. President, the proposition of the gentleman from Menominee, (Mr. INCALLS,) as contained in his resolution, is in reality for an extension of the Northern Pacific Railroad project. The resolution, as I understand, does not ask aid to that project as it now stands, but to the extension of it through the Upper and Lower Peninsula to the city of Detroit. Now, as has been well stated by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) there has been a strenuous effort made for several years past in Congress to ebtain aid, by a pledge of the credit of the United States, to the construction of that road commencing at the head of Lake Superior. The effort has been to obtain aid otherwise than by grants of land, which have been already made. Theprecedentre ferred to in all these efforts is the aid granted to the Central Pacific Railroad. That effort in Congress has not been abandoned. It is still being pushed, and in my opinion will be pushed until the General Government shall grant that aid, either by the issue of its bonds or by endorsing the bonds of the company, for the payment of the interest upon them, if not the principal, under such restrictions and with such securities' on the part of the road as will insure the re-payment of the money. *At least there has been made as yet no proposition but such as will secure to the Government the re-payment of any money which it might advance. Now, the resolution of the gentleman from Menominee proposes in the first place an extension of the Northern Pacificarailroad through this State, so that it may find its eastern outlet through the territory of this nation, instead of through Canada, as it undoubtedly will, if continuous effort be not made to give it this outlet through our own national territory. It is one of the projects of the Canadian railroad men and of the Canadian government to obtain, whenever this road shall be built, an eastern outlet for it through Canada; and this is one of the considerations that has been and is-being urged before Congress, and will continue to be urged, in favor of granting aid to this railroad, and in favor of thus extending it, in order to secure its eastern outlet through our national territory. This I regard as the principali merit of this proposition for the extension of the Northern Pacific route through Michigan, to Detroit or some other point upon the eastern bounda ry of the State. The proposition to grant aid by lands or bonds or both, is simply, as I understand, in harmony with the effort now being made to aid the Northern Pacific project as it now stands. If this resolution be passed at all, I think it should be in its present shape, in order that there may be harmony between this proposition for the extension of the Northern Pacific route and the kind of aid sought for its extension. In regard to the amendment offered yesterday by the gentleman from Grand Traverse (Mr. LwEAcH,) and ac cepted by the gentleman from Menom inee, I have no objection to it, and should agree to it as an original propo sition, although with the feeling which I know exists in Congress at the pres ent time in regard to these grants of lands, I think the amendment is un necessary; for I do not expect to see any more grants of lands in aid of rail roads without sonie such condition at tached to them. The fact is, that when the extension of the grant to the Amboy, Lansing and Traverse Bay Railroad was obtained, it was proposed to annex that condition; and at the last session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, when the request was made simply to extend the time for the completion of the grading of the first twenty miles, the feeling in favor of such a condition had then grown so strong that it was difficult to get through that small measure without imposing that condition upon the grant. I do not expect to see any new grants of land for railroad'purposes without some such condition annexed to them; for such is the general feeling in Congress at the present time. I do not, as does the gentleman from Kalamazoo, -(Mr. GIDDINGS,) look Upon this feature of the resolution as attaching a condition to a gift which we request to be made to us. It is simply saying to Congress, that if the grant cannot be made without some such qualifications, relieving the settlers of the newer parts of the country from the embarrassment to which they are subjected by large tracts of lands withheld from market, we do not deem the grant desirable. Certainly, if a man should propose to make me the gift of an -elephant, it would be competent for me to say to him,'I do not desire the animal, unless you will provide for his care and maintenance." Hence I do not regard the proviso attached to the resolution as being in any manner objectionable. It merely says to Congress that we do not deem the grant desirable without some such qualification. Mr. BLACKMAN. Mr. President, while I have no objection to this resolution, or any other of similar character, I cannot see what it has to do with framing a Constitution forl the State of Michigan. I do not think that we were sent here to discuss or pass such propositions. I am therefore opposed to the whole thing. Mr. CONGER. I call for the yeas and nays on the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr: MCCLr,ELLAND. ) The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and the amendment was not agreed to; there being yeas 11,. nays 49, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Chapman, Corbin, Crocker, Hixson, Lawrence, Mc~lelland, Richmond, W. A. Smith and Winans-11. .NAYs —Messrs. Andrus, Barber, Bills, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Conger, Daniells, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Ferris, Germain, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hull, Ingalis, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McKernan, Miles, Murray, Mussey, Pringle, Rafter, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburg, Walker, P. D. Warner, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Williams, Woodhouse, Yeomans and the President-49. ( The question then recurred upon agreeing to the resolution. Mr. INGALLS. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question being taken, the reso .-CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION'T 456 Tnes,clay, July 30, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 457 lution was agreed to; yeas 64, noes 3, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Dun(can, Duncombe, Elliot Estee, Germain, D. Goodwin, Harris, Henderson, Hixson, Holmes, Holt, Hull, Ingalls, Lawrence, Leach, Longyear, Lothrop, Lovell, Luce, McKernan, Miles, Murray, Mussey, Pringle, Rafter, Richmond, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, W. A. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, W. E. Warner, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Winans, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, Yeomans and the President-64. NAYS —Messrs. Blackman, Giddings, and McClelland-3. The question then recurred on agree ing to the preamble. Mr. WITHEY. Mr. President, there is one clause of the fourth para graph of the preamble which seems to me objectionable. I refer to these words: " The wants of the separate localities" (meaning the Upper and Lower Peninsulas) "will, within a few years, eventuate in a dismemberment of the State and the erection of a new State, a necessity for which would, by the construction of a railroad through the State by the way of the straits of Mackinaw, be greatly lessened." I am not willing that this body should de clare that if there should not be a con nection between the Upper and Lower Peninsulas, through this proposed rail-. road line, "the wants of the separate localities" will eventuate in the dis memberment of the State. I therefore move to amend by striking out the words I have read; also, by striking out the word "unless," in the preceding portion of the paragraph, and by in serting before the word "opened," the words, "required to be;" so that the paragraph will read as follows: "And whereas, Owing to the geographical position ot the Upper Peninsula, separated as it is from the Lower Peninsula by the waters of Green Bay, Lake Michigan and the Straits of Mackinaw, some railroad coimunication is required to be opened by way of the Straits of Mackinaw, which is the only practical point for such connection.' Mr. VAN ~ALKENBURGH. If I have understood correctly the gentle man from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) I differ from the view which he has expressed. I think that this proposed railroad will connect more closely-the Upper and the Lower Peninsula; that it will be a bond of union between them will lessen the chances of dividing the State and making a new State of the Upper Peninsula. Mr. GIDDINGS. I moye as an amendment to the amendment to strike out the entire preamble. My own conviction is that there is no necessity for preambles to reolutions of this character. I think that the resolution itself is out of place here, and although t have no particular objection to it, yet Vol. 2 —No. 58. when the yeas and nays are called for the purpose of putting a man in an emnbarrassing position, I always take care to vote in such manner as to show that I am not to be influenced in that way. I think this Convention is no place for such a resolution, much less for such a preamble. The PPESIDENT. In the judg ment of the Chair, the motion to strike out the entire preamble cannot be entertained as an amendment to the amendment.- That motion will be in order when the pending amendment shall have been disposed of. Mr. WITHEY. Mr. President, the amendment which I propose is de signed to strike out what I regard as a very objectionable declaration in the fourth paragraph of the preamble. The declaration is there affirmatively made that, unless this railroad connec tion be made, " the wants of the sep arate localities" (referring to the Upper and the Lower Peninsula) " will within a few years eventuate in a dismember ment of the State." Now, I do not believe that this Convention desires to make any such declaration. I have no doubt that, as stated by the gentleman fiom Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) a connection by railroad between the Upper and the Lower Peninsula will bind the two sections more closely to gether. But that is not the point. It is stated that unless such a connec tion be made, the want of it will even tuate in a dismemberment of the State within a few years. I do not believe that; and I think that this Convenfion does not believe it. Mr. INGALLS. Mr. President, my object in inserting the provision which the gentleman from Kent (Mr. WITHEY) has moved to strike out, was that it might be used in the way of argument by our members of Congress: in Wash ington. Mr. GIDDINGS. Will not such an argument urged upon Congress be all against us? Mir. INGA_LLS. I do not think so. It strikes me that it is a matter of great importance for the benefit of both sec tions of our State that the State be kept together; and any consideration going to show how the two parts of the State may be united in such a man ner as to remain forever one State, would, in my estimation, be a good argument to be used at Washington, as well as here. Now, sir, wsmay just as well look facts in the face. I do not know any reason why we should shut our eyes to circumstances as they actually exist. And in my opinion it is a fact that this State never can' continue as one State, unless we unite the two portions in such a manner that persons living inl one end of -the State may go to the other without passing out of the State. Laboring as our State does, under the great disadvantage of peculiar gecgraphical boundaries, it is easy to see that the division of the State is only a question of time, unless by our own exertions we unite its diverse and conficting interests. For all practical purposes, the Upper Peninsula might as well belong to-day to the State of Kansas or Minnesota, as to the State of Michigan. A citizen, resident in some portions of the Upper Peninsula, can -to-day get to Kansas as easily and cheaply as to Lansing, and in winter time he can do so more easily and cheaply. It is preposterous to suppose that when that portion of the State shall become settled, when its resources shall be developed and the regions which are now a wil derness shall teem with population, the citizens of that section will be content to remain united with us politically when they are obliged to pass through other States or through the dominions of the British Queen, to get to the seat of the State government. They will necessarily ask, and the people of the Lower Peninsula will not refuse their right, to establish a new. State for themselves. But if we can unite the two portions of the State by railroad so that persons residing in the extreme part of the Upper Peninsula, desiring to reach the seat of government, or Detroit, or any part of the Lower Pe ninsula, may do so by passing directly through the State, the disadvantage of our geographical boundaries will be overcome, the interests of the two sec tions will be identified, and the State will continue a unit for ever. Now, it is a well known fact to. some of us, though perhaps not to all, that until the last year or two we could not at a certain season transport a prisoner from the Upper Peninsula to the State prison in the Lower Peninsula, because to do so it was necessary to go through the States of Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana, and we had no author ity to pass through any' of those States with a prisoner; we could only do it by stealth. I myself, two years ago, procured the passage by Wisconsin of a law authorizing us to bring our prisoners through that State; so that now we can bring a prisoner to the Lower Peninsula by way of Milwaukee.. This is one instance, and only dne, of the inconveniences under which we now suffer, in conse quence of the peculiar geographical conformation of our State and the difficulty of intercourse between the two portions. As the population and business of our State increase, these inconveniences will be more and 458 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Tuesday, more felt, and unless the proper remedy be provided, hardly a generation will pass before the peo ple of the Upper Peninsula will feel impelled by the inconveniences and disadvantages under which they will labor to ask a separation that they may form a State government for themselves. I believe that there:is at present throughout the Upper Penin sula a fraternal feeling, a feeling of attachment for the State of Michigan, which makes the people there desirous to remain connected with our State. Yet every man there realizes the ex isting disadvantages and knows what the final result must be, unless the difficulty can be overcome; and this can be done only by the construction of this railroad by way of the Straits of Mackinaw, thereby giving facility of intercourse to the people of the two portions of the State, uniting their interests, making them in fact what they never otherwise can be- one people. Now, sir, such being the fact, it is useless for us to refuse to look the fact in the face.- If such is the fact, it may as well be stated here as anywhere else; and it is a fact which is proper to be used by our members of Congress as an argu ment in favor of the extension of this aid by the government of the United States. In incorporating in the preamble of may resolution this partic ular statement, I have not introduced it for the purpose of having this Con vention commit itself particularly to any such view. I have simply intro duced it as the statement of a fact which does exist, and as a fact very proper to be stated as a reason why Congress should grant aid to the con struction of this railroad. I have in troduced the statement for the purpose of enabling our members of Congress to use it as one of the many arguments in favor of such a grant. I think our members of Congress now realize that the two portions' of the State must be connected by railroad, if they are to continue as one State. I see no reason why the Convention should shrink from stating a palpable fact. Mr. ALEXANDER. As this questione which, so far as I can see, has no relation to the making of a Constitution, has already consumed much time, I must, with all proper respect for the friends of this measure, submit a demand for the previous question. The demand was not sustained. Th question being taken on the amendment of Mr. WVITHEY, it was agreed to. The question then recurred on agreeing to the preamble as amended. The PRESIDENT. Does the gen tleman from Kalamazoo (Mr. GiD DINGS) now desire to submit his motion to strike out the preamble? Mr. GIDDINGS. I think that this preamble, and indeed the resolution itself, have no relation to the business of this Convention. My object in making the motion to strike out the pre ambie was rather to express that idea. I saw an attempt here to introduce propositions foreign to the legitimate business of this [Convention, and then to intimidate members into supporting them by calling the yeas and nays. I wished to show that I am not to be intimidated in that way.. The PRESIDENT. As the gentleman does not renew the motion to strike out the preamble, the question is on agreeing to the preamble as amended. Mr. RICHMOND. I renew the motion to strike out the preamble. I think that, whatever may be demanded of us on this subject, the resolution itself is sufficient, without the preamble. The question being taken on the motion to strike out the preamble, it was not agreed to; there being, ayes 10, noes 41. The preamble, as amended, was then adopted. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. TURNER. Mr. President, I supposed that my colleague, Mr. PARSOS, had indefinite leave of absence; but from the journal such does not appear to be the fact. I therefore ask indefinite leave of absence for him on account of sickness. Leave was granted. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Mr. RAFTER. I move that the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole on the general order. The motion was agreed to. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. BILLS in the chair,) and resumed thie consideration of the article entitled "Judicial Department." , CIRCUIT COURT COMMYISSIONERS, ETC. The CHAIRMAN. When the com mittee rose it had under consideration the following section: SECTION 11. The respective circuit courts held in each county shall appoint one or more persons residing therein, who shall be vested with such judicial and ministerial powers as shall be provided by law. For this section,'the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) had offered the following substitute: "There shall be elected in each county one or more circuit court commissioners, who shall be vested with such judicial and ministerial powers and duties as shall be prescribed by law." Mr. WITHEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the attention of the comn mittee to one or two additional consid erations in connection with this subject. I regard the section as reported by the committee as of no inconsiderable impor. tance. I feel persuaded that Whatever may be done in reference to circuit court commissioners-whether or not they be continued as officers to dis charge such duties as the law may de volve upon them-the provision which is made in the pending section ought to be adopted. I feel somewhat confi dent that it will be found practically to be of the very greatest importance to the people of the State that certain officers should be appointed by the courts to perform certain duties which would be performed by the judge of the court, if he were present and had the time and opportunity to attend to them. This is what is contemplated by the pending section. It has been said, as an argument why this section should be changed as pro posed in the substitute, that the people are competent to judge of the qualifica tions of these officers-circuit court commissioners, or whatever else they may be called-as well as the judges of the various circuits; that if the people are competent to say who shall be judges of the circuit coirts, and who shall be judges of the Supreme Court, they are equally competent to determine who should be placed in nomination and elected to the office of circuit court commissioners. But sir, I know it to be a fact that circuit court commissioners frequently receive the nomination without any reference to their qualifications. The people know very little in reference to the duties to be performed by these officers. The inquiry arises in the nominating con vention, "Upon whom shall we confer this office?"' Within my own recol lection and experience, I have known it to be the case, not merely once, but twice and~thrice, that nominating con ventions have found some difficulty in finding a person who would take this position. It has been offered to one and another, and refused; and it has been given to an/y one who would take it, if under the law he could take it. Men of most indifferent qualifications have held these important offices, di charging their duties very inefficiently. My own observation is that many times these 6fficers are nominated and elected without reference to their qualifica tions. I apprehend there is very little knowledge among the people as to what the duties; of a circuit court commissioner are. It is known generally that these officers take testimony in various cases; it is known perhaps that.they have jurisdiction in cases of forcible entry and detainer to obtain the possession of real estate, and in questions July 30 187 EAE - POED~+ 5 between landlord and tenant. But in regard to the more important subjects of which these officers take cognizance, there is, I apprehend, very little information ambong, the people; and very little reference is had to such'matters when the officers are nominated and elected. Without pursuing that view of the subject, I may say that so far as my own county is concerned, we have there two circuit court commissioners, who are unexceptionable men, discharging their duties to the entire satisfaction of the community. Hence I am not influenced in my remarks by any want of ability in the circuit court commissioners of my own county, although I have known a different state of things to exist in that county; and for such a condition of things which may exist now and then, not only there but elsewhere, the provision contained in this section would be a remedy. But I wish to call the attention of the committee to another view of this subject. Under the Constitution of 1850, circuit court commissioners have been elected in virtue of the provisions of section sixteen of the article on the judicial department, which expressly provides for the election of such officers. Now, if the pending section be adopted as it stands, the Legislature may continue the office of circuit court commissioner. There is now a law upon the statute book providing for the election of these officers and prescribing their duties. In the article reported by the committee on the judicial department there is nothing which interferes with the authority of the circuit court commissioners under the present law. Those officers may be continued. They may continue to discharge such duties as the law now devolves upon them. The Legislature may not interfere with the present powers of these officers. The law need not be changed. The circuit court commissioners may be allowed to exercise the same duties as the law now gives them. I say, then, let the powers and duties of the circuit court commissioners, if you please, continue. The pending section does not abolish the office of circuit court commissioner. It simply provides that the circuit court of each county "shall appoint one or more persons residing therein who shall be vested with such judicial and ministerial powers as shall be provided by law." Now, by the first section of this article, which we have already passed, it is provided that "the judicial power shall be rested in a Supreme Court, in circuit courts, probate courts, justices of the peace, and-in such other courts and tribunals as shall be authorized by law." The law, then, may continue the circuit court commissioners. But I ask that by the adoption of the pending section the courts may be left at liberty to appoint officers to discharge certain duties, even if the office of circuit court commissioner be continued. 3Mr. Chairman, I believe this section to be one of the most valuable provisions of the present article. If gentlemen consider it. important that the people should continue to [elect circuit court commissioners, let it be done; but I feel confident that the best interests of the people of the State will be subserved by the adoption of section eleven, so that the circuit courts of each county may appoint one or more officers to discharge such duties as are generally performed by judges when not holding cour-to hear and determine such questions as the judge himself must determine when not upon the bench. Let the judge appoint some person learned in the law-a man of judgment and experience, before whom any one would be willing to go for the assertion of his rights. There are many circuit court commissioners elected by the people, who are not competent to hear and determine questions of magnitude and importance. But it is said that the judge is no more competent than the people to make this selection. Now, sir, I assume that the judge would never appoint a person whom he did not deem qualified for the performance of the duty. Suppose, however, the appointee should prove not to be qualified, the judge has only to enter an order removing the incumbent and appointing a more suitable person. Thus whenever, by any mistake or oversight, an improper person may be appointed, the evil can be promptly remedied by his removal and the appointment of a more competent person. But when a circuit court commissioner has been elected by the people, he cannot be removed until the end of his term of two years. Whenever an incompetent officer has been chosen, the people must endure his incompetency, his want of knowledge, or it may be his dishonesty for two long years. Meanwhile those rights which this officer should protect and guard, are at the mercy.of an inef ficient, perhaps a dishonest officer. But, gentlemen of the Conventioh, I ask you to adopt section eleven, even though the office of circuit court com missioner is to be continued and that officer is still to ]be elected by the peo ple. Adopt section eleven that the courts may appoint in such county one or more persons who shall be abun dantly qualified to discharge the re sponsible duties contemplated by this section-duties no less responsible than those discharged by the judge when not holding court. I do believe that this is a very important section. I do believe from my own experience that there should be one or more officers appointed by the circuit court to dis charge the duties which were had in view in drawing this section. I hope therefore that the substitute will be rejected and the section retained. Mr. CONGER. Mr. Chairman, in my remarks yesterday on this subject, I stated the view which then presented itself to my mind. I see no reason, from the argument of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. VVITHEY,) to change the view which I then expressed. I submit that the considerations adduced in favor of having these circuit court commissioners, or whatever else they may be called, ap pointed rather than elected, would ap ply with equal or greater force to the circuit judges and the judges of the Supreme Court. If the people cannot elect a proper person to perform the duties of a circuit court commissioner, they certainly cannot elect suitable per sons to discharge the higher and more responsible duties of circuit and su preme judges. The argument in favor of the substitute which I have pre sented rests upon the principle of the ability of the people to judge of the qualifications of their judicial officers. By gentlemen on the 6ther side, the ability of the people to Judge, is ignored as to the inferior officers, while it is ad mitted as to all the superior officers. Now, it is barely possible that the mind of my friend from Kent may be influenced somewhat by the practice of the court over which he presides with dignity and honor. The system of the United States is to appoint the judges and all the other officers of courts. So far as regards the United States judi cial officers of all grades, the people have nothing to do directly with their appointment. But the State of Hichi gan has adopted a different principle. The people of this State have asserted their ability to elect their judicial as well as their ministerial and execu tive officers. If we have been wrong in adopting that principle, let us abandon the principle now while we have the opportunity, in framing this Constitution. I venture to say, sir, that there is no gentleman of this Convention who would risk his position with the people by placing before them a Constitution denying them the right to elect the judges of their courts. - I have not heard anyone suggest the propriety of such a pro ceeding. Why, then, in regard to this particular office, shall we depart from the principle which, as to other officers, 0 DF,B.&TE' S AND PROCEEDINGS. July 30,- 1867. 459 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIOl. is uniformly carried out? Are the duties of these particular officers so important, so peculiar, so delicate that their selection cannot be entrusted-to the people who choose all other judicial officers; or is it desired that the circuit judge shall have some power by which he may appoint some one or two of his pets to positions where they may carry out his will? I tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people of the State of Michigan have the ability to select their public officers; and they mean to do it. They can select judges of the Supreme Court; they can select circuit judges; they have done so with success. For seventeen years they have selected their circuit court commissioners, with success generally. If there have been exceptions, the reason has been that the people of the particular county have not perhaps in the first instance appreciated the important duties of the office, and through neglect have failed to make a proper selection. But by the admission of the gentleman from Kent, himself, it appears, that although in times past he has thrice known instances in which improper persons have been selected in his county, yet even the people of Kent are now so well educated that they have elected two unexceptionable cir cuit court commissioners, who are now serving. There is progress in the right direction in the county of Kent; and I am glald to hear it. In all the counties where the people have suf ered from bad selections in this respect, they will not suffer more than one or two terms; they will then make it all right. It is a good way to educate the people to look to the ability of the officers whom they select. I will not prolong my remarks on this subject. What I object to in this section is the adoption of a different principle in regard to inferior officers of our judicial system from that which we adopt in regard to the higher officers. My objection to the section is founded on principle and on the reason of the case. I believe that my substi tute will be more satisfactory to the people of the State than the section as it stands. I do, not believe the people will like this proposed chan~ge in the system. I do not think they desire that the judges of our circuit courts shall have the power to appoint two persons in,every county to carry out their will. These judicial offices are created for the purpose of carrying out the law and the will of the people-not the will of the judges of the courts. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Mr. Chairman, I trust that this section as reported by the committee will be adop ted without any alteration. Unwilling as I am to differ with my learned friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGiER,) I think 'that the arguments advanced by the gentleman from Kent are conclusive on this subject. The officers contemplated by this section are invested with the powers usually exercised by a judge at chambers. They must often decide important and difficult questions; and-they should be men of character and judgment. I have myself seen the results of the system'which hasbeen in vogue for the last seventeen years. In the county which I in part represent, we in one instance elected to the position of circuit court commissioner a man who was a justice of the peace-a very good justice of the peace - but whose legal knowledge did not extend beyond that position. After his nomination and — before his election, the court took the responsibility of licensing him to practice. I have seen the evils which have resulted from having in this position a man totally unacquainted with the administration of the law. I think the office an impor tant one; and I believe that our cir cuit judges are more competent, to appoint persons to discharge these du ties, than our caucuses are to nominate and our people in general to elect. I have as much regard and reverence for the "dear people," as my friend from St. Clair; but it is well known that in selecting these officers, so much care is not taken as in selecting our judges. Inasmuch as these officers are invested with the powers of a judge at chambers, I think it is properly the province of the judges to appoint them. They can better decide who are qual ified to' perform the duties of the office, than men assembled in a nomi nating convention. As has been already remarked, it is frequently difficult to get any one to take this office; and those who assem ble for the purpose of making nomi nations, take into view not so much the qualifications of a person as his popularity with the party. I trust that the section as reported by the committee will be adopted. Mr. WITHEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to correct an erroneous impres sion which may have been created by a remark of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. ~oNGER.) He spoke of these officers as being the "pets" of the circuit judges appointed to carry out theirs views. Now, I apprehend that any gentleman will see on a-tmo ment's refilection, that these law-officers whose appointment is contemplated by this section are not designed as officers to carry out the purposes and wishes of the judges. Most of the questions coming before an-officer of this descrip tion arise in the absence of the judge, without any knowledge or concern on his part. Applications are made to, and decided by, the law-officer, without -the knowledge of the judge. He does not know, and in many cases cannot' possibly know what would be the view of the judge upon the particular question decided, though if he did know, it would undoubtedly have great weight in the decision, if the judge is, like most of our judges, a competent man, having correct views' of legal questions. The officers are to be appointed in every county of the State. The judge has his local residence somewhere, and remains there, except when he-is holding his circuits in different counties. The questions to be decided by these law officers of the circuit courts are generally questions arising in the absence of the judge. In nine cases out of ten, he is not even in the county when they arise, and cannot be -conveniently consulted.'. To-be sure, this law-officer. may takle time to make his decision, and may possibly confer and consult with the judge; it would be well that he should do so, when he has any doubt about the question. But, to refer to these officers as "pets" of the judges to carry out their views, is, I apprehend, wholly gratuitous. These officers are designed for a higher and a better purpose than to be anybody's "pets," or to carry out anybody's views. They are officers to administer the law, so far as the law is involved, and to accord to parties coming before them their just rights. I think they are very important officers. Mr. LOTHROP obtained the floor. Mr. PRINGLE. If the gentleman will give way to me a moment, I-desire to offer an amendment, presenting another view of the case. Mr. LOTHROP. I yield to the gen tleman. Mr. PRINGLE. I move to amend the section so as to read as follows: "The judges of the circuit courts in the several districts, shall appoint one or more persons residing in each county in their dis tricts, who shall be vested with such judicial and ministerial powers as shall be provided by law. The said judges shall have power to remove the said persons from office." I wish merely to say that this is in tended to give the appointing power to the judges of the district, instead of the circuit judge occupying the par ticular circuit. Mr. LOTHROP. As to the amend ment just offered, I shall be in no wise strenuous one way or the other. The judge of the circuit court in his county would, I suppose, be best acquainted with the members of the bar there, and hence best qualified to select a suitable person for this office. At least this 0 460 Tue8day, July (), 1S67. DBATI AD rRooEEDIG. 461 would seem to be the judgment of the committee that reportea the article. It would also be well that the power: should be exercised by the circuit: court, so that the order making the' appointment might be entered of i record. Still, I should not be strenu- ous about the matter either way. As to the power of removal, if that is not implied in the power of ap- pointment, it would. be regulated by. law; and unquestionably the circuit court would be authorized to remove for any good cause or at pleasure. I do not care whether any provision on that subject be placed in the Constitution or not. In framing the provision; the committee thought it not desirable to go any farther than simply to authorize and direct the appointment. It is with very great reluctance that i I detain the, committee with any remarks on this subject. My only reason for speaking upon it is the very just anxiety entertained by many persons in regard to the question, in which anxiety I share. There is no other subject upon which so minany of my ac quaintances and constituents have spo ken to me. And I agree with the chairman of the standing committee who reported the article, (Mr. WITHEY,) that this provision is of the very great est importance. I am not going to discuss the ques Sion, (for it does not properly belong here,) whether judicial officers gener ally should be elected or appointed. There is no proposition now before the Convention to change the mode of selecting the higher judicial officers. Whether the present system works well-whether, if so, it will continue to work well-whether it is the most desirable system are questions which we are not in a position here to discuss, and I shall say nothing about them, though I have very definite opin ions of my own upon them. One thing, however, is certain: the safety of electing the superior judicial offi cers lies. necessarily in the attention that shall be given to their nomi nation; and from the very conspicu ous places which they hold, it must be assumed that persons of estab lished character and competency are likely to be selected. If this is not so, it is perfectly clear that the system must be a failure.,Now, with respect to the appointment of these officers, occupying, as it would seem, an inferior position, it is certain that proper at tention is not given and will not be giyen by the people to their selection; and though in some instances suitable men may be elected, it is well known that oftentimes unfit persons are nomi nated and elected. Now, I do not propose to speak of this in a party point of view at all. Indeed, Mr. Chairmnan, (if I may be permitted to say it,) until I was recently educated on the subject, I had a notion that I was not a party man; that I had not much standing as a party man anywhere. Within a few days I have learned that the fact is quite otherwise; that a man may be a party man, though he disregards party nominations and party votes. However that may be, I say I do not intend to regard this question in a party view at all. The earnest, anxious representations which have been made to me and other gentlemen on this question, come not from -men who take the general theoretical views of party that I entertain. And gentlemen will recollect that a newpaper representing political views differing from my own, has for weeks and months been presenting certain facts bearing on this subject, which have doubtless attracted the attention of all gentlemen, except those who, living in remote parts of the State, have not felt the evils of the existing system of selecting circuit court commissioners. I am further authorized to say that representations have come here from persons representing the police inter ests of certain sections in this State, declaring that the evils of the present system of electing circuit court com missioners must be remedied, or order cannot be maintained. For these rea sons I feel very great solicitude in re gard to this question. Mr. CONGER. If the gentleman will allow me, I desire to ask him whether the fault is in the system of election, or in the officers holding the positions. Mr. LOTHROP. The fault, in my judgment, is in the system, under cer tain circumstances in which it is ap plied; that is, in the election of officers who hold apparently unimportant posi tions, to which they are elected without the guarantees of character and com petency, but who are clothed with the very highest authority that is vested in officers who are selected with a view to their character and com petency. The trouble lies there, and it cannot be overcome under the present circumstances. The judge whom you select for the performance of- high judicial duties cannot always be at hand; and his functions must be delegated to somebody else. Hence it becomes important that he who has re ceived the confidence of the people shall himself delegate his power to a person who can also be confided in fully and entirely by the people. If this sec tion be.allowed to remain, nobody will be wrQnged, no harm will be done; and remedial justice may much more effect ually be brought home to various cominunities. As has been remarked by the chairman of the committee, (Mr. WITHEY,) we do not, by this section, abolish the office of the circuit court commissioner or any:other. We simply provide that the circuit judge who exercises the general judicial functions of his coduty may himself appoint certain other persons to exercise such of those functions as the Legislature shall prescribe. Thus the community has the greatest possible guarantee that these -functions will be properly exercised: first, the guarantee of the Legislature in declarig what power shall be exercised; and second, the guarantee of the first judicial officer of the county in selecting the man who shall- exercise that power. In one word, the circuit judge of the county is responsible to the people of that county that those functions shall not be prostituted or injudiciously ex ercised. I earnestly hope that the -sec tion may be retained, and that the circuit judges may be authorized to appoint officers who will faithfullyv ex ercise, on behalf of the community, these important trusts. Let me call the attention of the committee to another circumstance. The evils of the present system have been so deeply felt, and have been so distinctly brought to the notice of the Legislature, that last winter a law was passed authorizing the Supreme Court to appoint, on the nomination of the circuit judges, certain officers called commissioners. Now, it is exceedingly doubtful-perhaps more than doubt ful-whether, under our present Con stitution, the Supreme Court can exer cise that authority. But the great importance of having officers to exer cise certain functions in connection with the judicial-administration has been so deeply felt that the last Legis lature actually passed a law for the appointment of such officers; and this want will be constantly felt. This sec tion is so framed that the Legislature may authorize just as many judicial officers to be elected from time to time by the people as the wants of the State may require. But do not, gentlemen, tie up the Legislature so that it may not, if the wants of the State or any part of it shall require, authorize the circuit judges to- delegate a part of their power, and perhaps the exercise of some of their most important func tions, to officers in whose hands they may Abe as safely vested as in their , own. Mr. PRINGLE. I wish merely to * say in regard to my amendment that L while, upon the one hand it guards the [ people against-such a thing as has been twice referred to by the gentle r, 8 DEBATES AND PROCEEDIN,G-S. 461 J-uly 30, 1867. I t 462 COTITUTIOAL COVETION. Tucday, man from St. Clair, (Mr. ConcNGR,) the appointment of a relative or pet of the circuit judge, it secures a larger in quiry into the qualifications of the appointee. The appointment being made by the two, three or four judges who may occupy the district, there is a guarantee that a good officer will be selected, and that the power of ap pointment and removal will be prop erly exercised. The method of ap pointment proposed in my amendment would, I think, be more satisfactory than to have the appointment depend ent upon the circuit judge, whose dis trict ordinarily extends over one, two, three or four counties. Mr. CONGER. The commissioner authorized by the act of last winter, was a Supreme Court commissioner; and his duties are thus defined in the act creating the office: " Every such Supreme Court commissioner shall have power to administer oaths and af firmations, and take depositions in any cause, matter or proceeding. in any court in this State, and to administer any oath and take any affidavit. in any cause, matter or proceed ing, except oaths to witnesses and jurors in the trial ol causes, and such other oaths as are or may be required by law to be taken be fore some other officer only. Every such com misioner shall have power and.authority to take proof and acknowledgment of deeds, mortgages and all conveyances ot any inter ests in lands and of all other instruments in writing that are or may be required by law to be acknowledged." Those are the duties of the Supreme Court commissioner. They are the powers of any notary public. What the act was passed for I cannot tell, unless to authorize the appointment of somebody in each county who shall take from the people's officer, the circuit court commissioner, a part of his duties, that part productive of fees. The duties imposed on the Supreme Court commissioner are not delicate, not important; yet he comes in as an appointee of the Supreme Court on the recommendation of the circuit judge, to perform the minor duties which any notary public may perform, and take away fees which the circuit court commissioner elected by the people might otherwise have to sustain him. Mr. WILLIAMS. I would like to inquire of the gentleman whether the act to which he refers extends the powers of these commissioners beyond those of a mere notary public. If it does not, how does it interfere with the powers and duties of the circuit court commissioners, any more than with those of the notaries public? Mr. CONGER. It authorizes this officer to do some things that a notary public may do, and some things that a circuit court commissioner may do. It gives the authority to take depositions, which is one of the principal things that a circuit court commissioner may do, to these appointees of the courts. Mr. WILLIAMS. May not notaries public take depositions? Mr. CONGER. They may by agree ment of the attorneys, which is done very frequently where the circuit court commissioner is himself an attorney in the case. It is done by stipulation, which is put on record. This is done in many cases in our part of the country. Mr. LOTHROP. Though it is en tirely true that the taking of deposi tions is a function not to be compared in importance with the administration of the writ of habeas corpus or the writ of injunction, yet there is no experi enced professional man who does not know that to be an accomplished ex aminer or to take depositions in an accur.te and rapid way is a very con siderable professional accomplishment, possessed in a high degree by very few persons. Hence, situated as we are in this State, it is of some importance that there should be in each county a per ton competent to discharge this duty, there being many counties where the notary public or even the circuit court commissioner does not give us the ad vantages we ought to have in that regard. I simply referred to the act of last winter as showing that the want in this respect was felt, so that the attention of the Legislature was called to the propriety of supplying that want by bringing into requisition the knowl edge of the judiciary. Mr. WRIGHT. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) how he proposes to remedy the great evil of which he complains by the adoption of this section. He says that the committee on the judicial department do not propose to abolish the office of circuit court commissioner; that the people are still to be permitted to elect circuit court commissioners; yet the courts are to be empowered to appoint additional officers to perform the same duties. As I understand, the objection to the present system is that incompetent persons or persons of no integrity are sometimes elected by the people- to the office of circuit court commissioner. I understand the gentleman from ~Vayne to complain that in his own county, the officer elected by the people to this position, goes outside of his duties or exercises them -injudiciously in issuing writs of habeas corpus for the release of prisoners, etc. Now, if the people are still to elect these commissioners, I ask the gentlemen whether the people of Wayne county may not still continue to elect incompetent officers who will release upon habeas corpus prisoners who ought not to be released, or who may grant injunctions when they ought not to be granted. Though the courts may be authorized to appoint officers to perform the same duties, yet there would only be an increase of officers; and designing men may still accom plish their ends by applying to an in competent circuit court commissioner, or one lacking in integrity and ability. Even if we authorize the appointment of these officers by the judges, I do not see what will be gained if the peo ple are still permitted to elect circuit court commissioners. Mr. LOTHROP. My answer is this: under this proposed Constitution, the office of circuit court commissioner, or any other office of that grade, would be under the control of the Legisla ture; and wherever it might be found necessary, the Legislature could inter vene. Now the circuit court commis sioner is a constitutional officer, and there is no power whatever in the Leg islature to intervene. Under the pro vision now proposed, we can be relieved from any difficulty; if the Legislature shall at any time see a necessity in that direction. In continuation of what I before said, I will say further, in order that it may not be supposed that I view this sub ject from any party point of view, that of the four thousand gentlemen in the city of Detroit who sympathize with my friend from St. Clair, and vote the same ticket that he does, I do not be lieve there are one hundred who differ from the presentation of views which I make here. Mr.. CONGER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) says that there are four thousand men in the city of Detroit, sympathizing with myself in political views, who desire this change. Now, sir, if those four thousand men who sympathize politically with me, could have thepower of selecting these officers in that county, I venture to say they would exercise the power in such a way that there would not be chosen ihnproper and incompetent officers to bail persons out of jail, or out of the house of correction, without any sufficient cause. The gentleman himself, if he were permitted to make the selection, or if those with whom he associates politically would make such a selection as he would desire, would feel himself as competent to make the choice as any judge in the State. The objection does not lie against the system, but against the improper exercise of the power by the people. If the gentleman's constituency cannot elect a good man to fill that office, out of the one hundred and sixty or two hundred lawyers of Detroit, then the objection is to the election of any judicial officers CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. -462 Tuesday,. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 463 by the people. In many counties the people.do elect good officers. In the county from which I come, we have good circuit court commissioners. We have no trouble about the matter. Gentlemen of the legal profession take an interest in the matter, and see that proper nominations are made on both sides, so that whichever side may pre vail, good men will be chosen. Mr. LOTHROP. I will say to the gentlemen that his political friends are, as to this matter, in no better position than mine. The recent specific com plaints of which I have already spoken, complaints so publicly made that I supposed they must have attracted the gentleman's attention, do not come from my side. The complaints come from both political sides. Nor is the evil confined to my particular section of the'State. It exists there possibly with greater intensity, as all evils be come magnified in a larger population but it exists in many other quarters of the State. Now, we do not propose to take cir cuit court commissioners from any counties that desire to have them. The Legislature can continue the office wherever it may be desirable. But I say to gentlemen of this Convention, the proposition which is made here can do nobody any harm; it will do a vast amount of good. I earnestly entreat gentlemen of the committee to adopt this section as reported in the article now before us. Mr. WITHEY. Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment offered by the gentleman from Jackson (Mr. PRINGLE) will not be insisted upon. The committee who reported this article, on looking the matter over, are satisfied that section eleven, as reported, will ac.complish. the object desired better than the amendment offered by the gentleman from Jackson. If, however, the committee of the whole should not be satisfied with section eleven, and should prefer the proposition of the gentleman fiom Jackson, the standing committee, of course, are not tenacious upon the subject of retaining their own section. But inasmuch as it is desirable that the appointment of these officers. should be a matter'of record, it should be made by the court and not by the officers of the court; it should be made in court and entered upon the journals of the court, being thus made a matter of permanent record. As regards the fears expressed that judges may appoint their own relatives, I apprehend that such a thing will not be allowed by the Legislature. In passing a law to carry into effect this section, the Legislature should prohibit a judge from appointing any relative of his own. I believe, on the whole, it would be better to retain the section, rather than adopt the amendment. Mr. PRINGLE. I understand the remarks of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. VITHEY,) as a solicitation from the committee as well as the gentleman himself. Not wishing to insist upon a proposition which I think the committee would not be likely to adopt, though I think it decidedly preferable to the section as it stands, I withdraw my amendment. The question being taken upon agreeing to the substitute offered by Hr. CONGER, it was not -agreed to, there being ayes, 17 noes, 35. VACANCIES OF JUDICIAL OFF'ICES. The next section was read as follows: SECTIoN 12. W henevera judge shall remove beyond the limits of the district in which jie was elected; his office shall become vacant-; and whenever a justice of the peace shall remove from the township in which he was elected, or be placed without the limits thereof by a change of boundaries, he shall be deemed to have vacated his respective office. Mr. LOTHROP. I presume that te word "respective" near the close of the section has been inserted by mistake. I move that it be stricken out. The motion was agreed to. The next section was read as follows: SECTIoN 13. Whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of Judge of the Supreme, circuit or probate courts, it shall be filled by appointment of the Governor, which appointment shall continue until a successor to fill such vacancy is elected and qualified. When elected, such successor shall hold his office the residue of the unexpired term. No amendment was offered to this section. CIRCUIT COURT CLERKS-PROSEICUTING AT TORNEYS. The next section was reap as follows: SECTION 14. The clerk of each county organized for judicial purposes, shall be clerk of the circuit court of such county. The judges of the circuit courts within their respective jurisdictions may fill vacancies in the offices of county clerk and prosecuting attorney. Mr. WRIGHT. I offer the following substitute for section 14: "The clerk of the circuit court of each county, shall be appointed by the judge of such court, and shall hold his office during the term fQr which such judge is elected. The judges of the circuit court, within their respective jurisdiction, may fill vacancies in the office of prosecuting attorney." Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to make any extended remarks on this proposition; but it does seem to me, that there is much more necessity for authorizing the circuit judge to appoint the clerk of his court than for empowering him to appoint a commissioner. I deem it just as necessary as it is that a business man, in conducting his affairs, should be permitted to select the clerk whom he needs to assist him in his business. My attention was called to this matter only last week by the judge of our circuit, who urged the necessity of such a measure as this, and in this he has been joined by all the members of the bar in my county. My own ob servation also satisfies me of the pro priety of the proposition I submit. So far as my experience goes, much more difficulty is experienced from the election of incompetent persons to per form the duties of clerk of the circuit court than from the election of improper men as circuit court commissioners. The clerk of a court is not required to be an attorney at law; and frequently those elected are perfectly ignorant of the routine of business in the circuit court, so that it takes them an entire term to become even ordinary clerks; and sometimes after having served a full term, they are still incompetent. I know that from this source difficulty has many times been experienced in my own county. The nominee for clerk is frequently placed on- the ticket for the purpose of conciliating a certain portion of the county, and securing strength for the ticket. I am satisfied that a change in this respect is important and should be made. Mr. DANIELLS. I hope that the substitute will not prevaiL I do not believe that the people of the various counties will be satisfied to have the county clerk appointed by the judge. Mr. WRIGHT. The gentleman will allow me to correct him. The substitute proposes to authorize the circuit judge to appoint, not the county clerk, but the clerk of the circuit court. Mr. DANIELLS. I think there is no prbbability that the committee will adopt the amendment. The majority of those present are attorneys. I do not think any remarks are necessary in opposition to the amendment. Hr. WITHEY. I will say that this subject came before the standing committee, and was discussed. I think that some petitions in favor of the change proposed in the substitute of the gentleman from Barry (Mr. WRIGHT,) were presented to the Convention and referred to our committee.'We took the subject into consideration. The question was as to the division of the labor now pertaining to the office of county clerk. If the clerk of the circuit court should be appointee by the judge, there must still be a county clerk elected by the people. The duties of the county clerk are various and multiform. They cannot be dispensed with. There must be a county clerk. Th most of the counties of the State a clerk merely for the court would not realize sufficient fees and perquisites to make i July 30, 1867. 463 -Z 46 GO-T,TOA eOV~TO Tueda the office desirable or acceptable, while at the same time the county clerk would by the division of the business lose a portion of his present income, thus making that office also undesirable. This was the view taken by the coammittee. Although I have no doubt that if the clerks of the courts should be appointed by the judges, they would in many instances be more competent officers, yet on the whole the committee were of opinion that, the proposed change would not work well-that dividing the duties now performed by the county clerk would divide the income, and thus that office,; as well the position of clerk of the circuit court, would be rendered un acceptable. Mr. CROCKER. Before the ques tion is taken on the substitute, I desire to move to amend the section by in serting after the word "county," the words "and register of the circuit court in chancery for such county;" so that the section will read: SECTION 14. The clerk of each county organized for judicial purposes shall be clerk of' the circuit court of such county, and register ot the circuit court in chancery for such county. The judges of the circuit courts within their respective jurisdiction mav fill vacancies in the offices of county clerk and prosecuting attorney. While our courts continue as they now are, the clerks are obliged to'per — form the duties of registers in chancery, and these duties may as well be distinctly specified as belonging to the clerlk of the circuit court. Mr. WITHEY. I have no objection to this amendment, although I think the provision could just as well be made by law. Still I have no objection to inserting those words in this section; and I do not know that any other member of the standing com mittee will object. Mr. LOTHROP. I have no objec tion to the amendment; but I call the attention of the gentleman from Ma comb, (Mr. CROCRER,) and also the: chairman of the standing committee, (Mr. WITHEY,) to the fact that in this State we have no court of chancery as such. We have a circuit court, upon which is -conferred chancery jurisdic tion. The clerk of the circuit court is necessarily the clerical officer of the whole court. The amendment of Mr. CROCKER was not agreed to. The question recurred on the sub stitute of Mr. WRImHT. Mr. MUSSEY. - I call for a division of the question, so as to take the ques tion first on striking out the section. The question being put on striking out the section, it was not agreed to. The CHIIIRMAN.- The motion to strike out failing, the substitute falls. COMPENSATION OF JUDGES-INELIGIBILITY TO OTHER OFFICES. The next section was read as follows:i SECTION 15. Each of the circuit and Supreme Court judges shall receive a salary payable quarterly. They shall be ineligible to any other than a judicial office, during their continuance therein. All votes for such judge, for any office other than judicial, gi-ven either by the Legislature or the people, shall be void. No amendment was offered to this section. QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 16. No person shall hold a judicial office, except that of justice of the peace, unless he is an attorney and counselor at law. Mr. STOCKWELL. I move to amend by inserting, before the word C justice," the words,"judge of probate, or;" so that the section will read: ,No person shall hold a judicial office except that of judge of probate or justice of the peace, unless he is an attorney or counselor at law." Mr. WITHEY. If there is any objection to this section, I think it had better be stricken out. I have personally no objection to that. Mr. STOCKWELL. Mr. Chairman, while it is, perhaps, quite customary to elect to the office of judge of probate an individual who is an attorney and counselor - at law, I see no reason why the office should be confined exclu sively to that class of individuals. Persons not attorneys have frequently held the office, discharging the duties with credit to themselves and satisfaction to their constituents. It is an office, the duties of which are quite generally un derstood by the people; and I see no reason why the citizens of a county: should not be left at liberty to elect to' this office, if they choose, some one who is not an attorney at law. Mr. DANIELLS. I am not decided whether this amendment should be adopted or not. As the section now stands, it would require fthat persons elected judges of probate shall be at torneys at law. Under such a provis ion, my friend from Eaton, (Mr. BURTCH,) would be eligible, while my friend from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSE,) would be excluded. I would not like that. But this article was reported by twelve or fifteen lawyers, and. we have seen how very hard it is to improve it. I feel embarrassed as to how I ought to vote on this question. If we would agree to provide that " no person shall hold any judicial office unless he has been a supervisor;" I think that would be an improvement. [Laughter.] To allow anybody to be eligible to the office of judge of probate, would-be, as my friend from Branch, (Mr. LUCE,) would say, "opening the flood-gates,' and we might endanger the proper ad ministration of that office, which is a pretty important office. I think I shall be compelled to vote against the amendment. IM. WITHEY. If the committee will permit me, I will, in a few words, explain why his section, was inserted by the standing committee. The view which the committee entertained, and which governed them in adopting this provision, that "no person shall hold a judicial office, except that of justice of the peace, unless he is an attorney and counselor at law," was that the person holding such a position has to deal entirely with questions of law; a knowledge of the law is neces sary to the proper exercise of his judicial functions; he is, or should be governed in his decisions by the rules of law and by adjudicated cases. It was thought by the committee that, as a judge of probate is obliged to deal with principles of law, he should be conversant with those principles. If we were providing for the discharge of any other duty,:the-performance of which required a knowledge of any given profession, we should provide for the employment of a person skilled in that profession. If we were making provision for the election of the princi pal of a medical college, we should doubtless provide that none but a per son skilled in the science of medicine should hold that position. The same rule is'applied in all the departments of life. When you engage a man as your family physician, you are careful to select some one skilled in the medi cal profession. There is the same pro priety in requiring that the law shall be administered by some one learned in the law. The law is a science which can be properly administered by those only who have studied it. This is the' view taken of the subject by the stand ing committee; and hence we inserted this section. Mr. DANIELLS. I desire to ask the gentleman whether it does not sometimes happen that a man who has been admitted to practice as an attor ney and counselor at law hardly knows enough to get judgment on a promis sory note?.. Mr. WITHE,Y. I will say in reply to the gentleman, that I have no doubt -there are many such cases. I have no doubt there are many men admitted as attorneys and counselors-at-law, taking that rank, who are wholly unquarfiied to administer [the law. But the idea of the committee was that there would be a better chance of securing persons competent to discharge the duties of the judicial position, if none but law yers should be selected. Mr. DANIELLS. I desire to ask :the gentleman one furthei question: CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Ttiesclay, I 'I. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. whether the duties of a judge of pro.bate are not just as much a matter of statutory provision as the duties of a justice of the peace.? If the gentleman will move to strike out in the section the words "justice of the peace," I will go: for that heartily. Mr. WITHEY. If that were practicable, I do not know but that it would be best, particularly in view of the sample we have of justices of the peace. [Laughter.] Now, Mr. Chairman, there was one further reason why this provision was inserted. In another section of this article, it is provided that the. Legislature may confer additional civil and criminal jurisdiction upon judges of probate. Althbugh in the committee there was some division of opinion as to what would be best in reference to the pending section, yet on the whole it was deemed best to report it as it stands. But I can say on behalf of the committee, that they are not particularly wedded to this section. They are not extremely desirous that it should be retained. It is an open question; and I am myself of the opinion that in many of the newer counties of the State, the provision might prove impracticable. There are counties where perhaps there is no lawyer who would be trusted by the people with.such a position; for there frequently settle in these new counties attorneys of very little legal knowl edge, of very little business capacity men who would n6t from their known character be trusted with the adminis tration of the important duties of a judge of probate. Ihave no objection, therefore, to striking out the section; and if the amendment be adopted the section might as well be stricken out; for none but an attorney and counsel or-at-law can at any rate be selected as a judge of the circuit or the Su preme Court. Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I sim ply desire to say that I trust this sec tion will be either amended or stricken out. In the district which I represent here there are four counties in which there are no attorneys; there are other counties which have but one attorney. Now, it is true that in that region we seldom have occasion for the services of a judge of probate; but the neces sity will sometimes arise; and when it does we would greatly prefer to be at liberty to select such men as we deem suitable, without being compelled to take one particular man in the county, simply because he has by some means been admitted to practice as an -attor ney-at-law. -. - Mr. MeCLELLAND. There is one consideration bearing on this subject, which has not been presented by the Vol. — No. 59. chairman of the judicial committee, (Mr. WITHEY.) According to the estimate of some of the best and most ex perienced lawyers, the real estate of the State passes through the offices of the judges of probate once in every twen ty years; and we very well know that some of the most intricate questions connected with the transfer of real es tate must be decided by these judges of probate. I think every lawyer of any experience, every administrator and executor who has had charge of real estate passing through the pro bate office, must know that it is abso lutely necessary, in order to have the proceedings as accurate as they should be, that any one having charge of that office, should have at least some knowledge of the science of law and of legal proceedings. Now, sir, I apprehend that in some of the old States, as well as in many of the new States, a great deal of liti gation in relation to real property has arisen from the fact that the person in charge of the probate office has not had the necessary knowledge of the law. It is, in my judgment, of great importance that none but a man learn ed in the law should hold the office of judge of probate. In some counties this office is perhaps of greater impor tance than that of judge of the cir cuit court. If the smaller counties object to a provision of this kind, I would suggest to the chairman of the committee that the section might be made to apply only to the larger counties-counties, for instance, con taining a population of ten, fifteen or twenty thousand inhabitants. In most of the counties, there is, in my opinion, as much necessity that the judge of probate should be a man of legal at tainments, as that a judge of the circuit or Supreme Court should possess such qualifications. -The amendment of Mr. STOCKWELL was agreed to. Mr. HENDERSON. I move to strike out the section. The motion was agreed to. JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURTS. The next section was read as follows: SECTION 17. In each organized county there shall be a court of probate. It shall have such probate jurisdiction, powers and duties, as shall be prescribed by law. Other jurisdiction, civil and criminal, may also be conferred on any one or more courts of probate. Judges of probate shall hold their offices or a term of four years, and until their successors are elected and qualified, and shall be elected by the electors of their respective counties or districts, as shall be provided by law. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Imove to amend the section by striking out the words, " otherjurisdiction, civil and criminal, may also be conferred on any one or more courts of probate." I think, Mr. Chairman, that the du ties of judges of probate are suffcieently onerous, without the imposition of additional duties upon them. My experience and observation have convinced me that the judges of probate should not have their attention diverted from the legitimate duties of their. offices. Investing them with additional judicial powers may prevent the faithful discharge of their present duties. In our county, the judge of probate has as much official business as he can attend to. I hope the clause I have indicated will be stricken out. Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to say a word or two in reply to the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH.) -It is a fact that under our present laws other jurisdiction than mere probate jurisdiction is conferred upon our probate courts; and I-do not know that any inconvenience has arisen from it. For in stance,it is required that a probate court shall review the testimony taken in the cases of lads sent here to the Re form School, and certify as to the pro priety of the sentences made by justices of the peace. No —'minconven ience, I think, has arisen from that.. It has also been provided that courts of record shall take the necessary steps in the appointment of commissioners to appraise damages in opening rail roads; and this business is to a large extent attended to by our probate courts, it being more convenient to have them do it thran to run to the cir cuit judge. Duties with relation to highways and ditches, and various other duties, have been thrown upon the courts of probate, for the want of any other tribunal upon which such duties could be conveniently devolved. These various duties increase, of course, the labors of the probate judges; yet they have, I think, with the "exception of those in one or two counties, been able to transact all the. business ima posed upon them; and I believe that by the discharge of these various duties they have subserved the convenience of the people. Having served to a considerable ex tent in the capacity of probate judge, I am able to speak of this subject from practical experience, though in sen turing to say this, I may subject myself to something of the same derision to which the "supervisors" have been subjected here. Still it seems to me best that we should leave it to the Leg islature to dye ermine what extra duties shall be 4devolved upon the probate nudges. At seems to me there-is not only propriety in this, but it will be fpand a great convenience. Mr. WITHEY. I desire to call the attention of my venerable friend from Oakland to the provision on this sub cet contained in the Constitution of i -July 30,.1867. 465 466~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..............-...A OOV~I.. Tue"day 1850, which he. had the honor to aid in framing. He will find that section thirteen of the article on the judicial department provides that "in each of the counties organized for judicial purposes there shall be a court' ofprobate;". and that "the jurisdicti6n, powers and duties of such court shall be prescribed by law." Under this provision of our present Constitution, the Legislature has the power to con,fer upon judges of probate jurisdiction, both civil and criminal-anyvjurisdiction which- the Legislature, in its discretion, may deem it desirable that thesb judges-should exercise. The principle of0~'~ provision of'the Canstiwfionf -1850 h/as been retained in the section'no'w under consideration, though' the Ian, guage has been'changed. There is no special reason, so far as I know, why we should have used the words, "other jurisdiction, civil and criminal," rather than retain the words of the Con-stitution of 1850, "the jurisdiction, powers and duties of such court.shall be prescribed by law." " The language in'the one instance is as comprehensive as in the other. The idea of the committee was that the Legislature should here after, as heretofore, have power to con fer upon the probate court jurisdiction both civil and criminal,.in addition to .probate jurisdiction; and the 1anguage of the section as reported was adopted as suitable for the purpose. I think that it is not objectionable, and that the section may as well stand. Mr. PRATT. In. addition to the reasons given by the chairfman of the committee, (Mir. WiTHEy,) I des'ireto state some reasons which influence me in preferring to retain the provision which the gentleman from Oakland moves to strik:eout. I believe thatthe:meibers of the bar in' the county of -Hillsdale are in favor of a county court with idpro bate jurisdiction; but on: talking ~'the ~ma~tter Over in: committee, it:was~thou:~[ht th'at'such asystem wouldi'not work::welli throughout the State; t'hat'in the'newer counties it might be impracticable to establish a county court with pro~bate' jurisdiction. Hence,.the sectio'n"was dr"~wn in its present form in or'der thaa' -the Legislatur'e'might; have the. power,} it:Rshould be deemed desira ble in'the'klder counties, t~o'confer a certain' amount of civil anda:cri'm~t, jurisdiction: Although the Conven July 30- 1867. DEBATES -AND PROCEEDING-8, 4-75 4~~~~~~~~~~~~T6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - CO~TTOA -O - - - - -.es.a.. ition has stricken out the latter provision of the section, yet the present law will stand upon the statute book until repealed; and I trust the Legislature in its wisdom will not interfere with it. I hope, however, the Legislature will take advantage of the discretion allowed it, by providing additional m3eans, so that our library system may be maintained and supported in such a manner as to be a credit to the State. I have offered the amendment for the purpose of giving the Legislature ample power to change and perfect the present system as wisdom and experience may dictate. I apprehend, as I remarked yesterday, that our State superintendent, acting in concert with the different county superintendents, will be able to perfect our present school system better than we here, with our various conflicting views, can do. -I apprehend that, if we should leave the matter open as my amendment leaves it, not interfering with the pres ent system, it will be perfected in a manner satisfactory to all. I favor the amendment for another reason. Our present system has divi ded the libraries among the different districts. Some of the school districts have now very good libraries, which they are constantly increasing by efforts of their own, with the assistance de rived from different sources provided bylaw. As those libraries are under the control of the law, they would, by the system proposed, be taken from the districts whose citizens have, by their own efforts, built them up. The people would be unjustly deprived of advantages which they themselves have created, if this Convention should now adopt a system requiring township and city libraries, instead of those we now have. Hence I prefer, as the amend ment proposes, to leave the matter open, so that the Legislature, as experience or prudence may suggest, can make what ever change in the system may be deemed necessary. Mr. THOMPSON. I call for a di vision of the question upon the amend ment, so as to take the question first on inserting the words "and mainten ance," after the word "establishment." The question being taken on the first division of the amendment, it was agreed to. The question recurring on the second division of the amendment, to strike out "a," and insert "at least one," before the word "library," it was not agreed to; there being ayes 26, noes 27. Mr. LOTHROP. I move to amend the section by adding these words: ",And all fines assessed and collectedl in any city for any breach of the penal laws committed in such city, shall be applied to the support of the library of such city." On this amendment I call for the yeas and nays. Mr. LUCE. I would like to know whether this aminendment would apply to fines imposed in the city for breaches of the penal laws of the State. Mr. LOTHROP. It would apply to fines imposed for breaches of the penal laws of the State committed in the city. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I move to amend the amendment by inserting after the word, "fines," the words, "and forfeited recognizances." It is perhaps needless for me to explain that these recognizances are recognizances for the appearance at court of persons charged with offenses, and they become forfeited by the failure of the persons entering into these obligations to appear. In such cases the money arising from the forfeited recognizances is all that the people receive from those particular criminal cases, and belongs properly to the same fund as the fines which may be imposed on the trial of causes. The funds arising from these two sources are classed together by the present laws of the State. Forfeited recognizances, as well as fines and penalties, are devoted to the support of the libraries. Mr. HENDERSON. They go to the counties at large, not to the cities. r. SUTHERLAND. And they are then distributed. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTHROP,) applies only to the cities, and provides for the appropriation of the fund derived from the pros ecution of offenses committed in cities the Convention having already voted down the more comprehensive provis ion applying to the entire State. Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I regret very much to be compelled to vote for the amendment; yet I shall do so, because it will in part secure what I would aim at in this matter. The objection which I have to it is that it seems to discriminate against the rural districts of the State. I have been very much surprised that in the remarks of different members, so much testimony has been brought out against these libraries in the townships, that we are now compelled to introduce an amendment to this section to advance the cities above the other portions of the State. It may be that the cities need this special provision; for it has been intimated here that there is more ignorance and crime generally in the cities than in the country. But I did not know until now that we had come to such a pass in the State of Michigan that we must, in our organic law, thus discriminate, and exalt one part of our citizens above another. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I simply desire to say that I am opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) as well as that offered by the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUT1RmLAmD.) I am opposed to this species of legislation, believing it more appropriate to the Legislature than to this Convention. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, I protest against the construction which the gentleman from Kalamazoo puts upon our action. My action, and I trust that of those who have acted with me on this subject, is designed to accomplish just what we think the seetion as reported would fail to accomplish. In this respect, we believe it would defeat itself. Mr. LOTHROP. Iaccept the amendment of the gentleman from Saginaw, and modify my amendment accordingly, so that the funds arisiing -— from these two sources may go together as they do under the present law. Mr. W. E. WARNER. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment, as well as the amendment to the amendment which has been accepted by my colleague, (Mr. LOTHRnoP.) I think that in this proposition, the cities are asking too much-more than they are entitled to. If the amendment could be so modified as to provide-that the cities shall receive theirpro rata proportion of this fund, I should have no objection to the proposition. I think that in its present form, it covers too much ground. Mr. LOTHROP. What would be the pro rata share of the cities? Mr. W. E. WARNER. That cannot be ascertained until a division of the fund arising from the fines and for feitures accruing both in the city and in the county at large. Mr. LOVELL. Mr. President, the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. W. E. WARNER,) intimates that we are asking for too much in the cities. We have been told heretofore that we did not get enough, and it was proposed to give us more of special benefits. It has been said that we have in our cities a class whose character is not the best, and greatly needs improving. I suppose it is a fact that in our cities the tempta tions to evil are greater than they are in the rural districts. If this be so, we ought reasonably to have greater en couragement in the right direction. We have more need of libraries in the cities than you have in the rural dis tricts. We want something for our young men to read-=something to oc cupy their time. We want to give them good employment, that the Dvil CONSTITUTIONAL CON:VBNTION. Tu'old --' ay) 476 Dead AND PROCEEDINGS. \ shall not be using their hands to do bad work. If so many more crimes are committed in our cities, it is fair to give us the fines imposed for those crimes, that we may prevent their re-; currence. I submit that we ought at least to be permitted to use the penalty of our own misdemeanors as a means of preventing their recurrence. Mr. GERMAIN. Mr. President, I am in favor of the establishment of libraries; I am not particular whether they be district libraries or township libraries. I wasin favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. CROCKER,) leaving it discretionary with the Legislature to provide one or more libraries in each township. Such a provision would be general in its operation. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (.r. Lo THROP,) I regard as sectional, and am therefore opposed to it. It looks to me as if there were a design here to ex clude from the Constitution the idea that the Legislature shall maintain a system of publi libraries. We forget the popular nature of our institutions. We forget that they are based upon the intelligence of the people. After having gone a step in advance of the Constitution of 1850, and made it the duty of the Legislature to provide for the maintenance of a school four months, insteadof three, in each dis trict, gentlemen seek now to go back and strike from the Constitution the provision making it incumbent upon the Legislature to provide for the es tablishment of libraries. Now, sir, education is not always intelligence. We possess a mental na ture, which craves and needs informa tion, and it can be developed only by the proper stimulus. I would plant the library by the side of the common school. It matters not to me whether the library is supported by fines and forfeited recognizances, or whether it is supported by a direct tax upon the people. You may tax me, sir,:for the support of these schools, but I wish you to go farther and tax me for the purpose of procuring books to be placed within the reach of those chil dren whose parents are unable to pro cure them. That is the position I occupy; that is the principle I wish to see adopted in regard to these fines and forfeitures, if they go into the general fund. It is immaterial whether the money for this purpose is derived from these fines and forfeitures, or whether it is raised by taxation; for if the fines and forfeitures be appropriated in this way,we mustpay just so much more to run our govern mental machinery. The common school is called "the poor man's col lege;" and I submit that it is a poor college that has no library. I would open to the young an avenue whereby they may have access to the concentrated wisdom and experience of the past. When gentlemen talk of the ailure of this system of libraries, I aver that they are too fast. When a young man has become conversant with the standard authors of our country, of course his interest in them is somewhat diminished. After he has once read them, there is not that same desire to read. Besides, it must be borne in mind that during the last five or six years, the circumstances of the times have been such as to call away the attention of our people from books. The daily papers have furnished incidents of more interest connected with the late rebellion. Hence, it is not strange that the interest in our libraries has somewhat languished. Yet I do know that that interest exists, and needs only the fostering hand of the Legislature ito develop it more fully and strongly, thus tending to the intellectual advancement of our State. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, like the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) I regret to say, that It shall feel compelled to vote for this amendment. I believe the members from the large towns have, as a general thing, opposed the trimming down of this section, desiring that these libraries shall be furnished and maintained as provided in the original section. But the members from the rural districts have in the main been those who have voted down that provision. Withi singular unanimity, the representatives from all the large towns now claim that inas much as they have been voted down in this matter, they shall be exempted from this sweep which has been made at the whole library system. For one, I believe that while the libraries are desirable both in the cities and the townships, they are especially desira -ble in the cities. We have denied to the State as a whole, the benefit of these libraries; and I now wish to give them to those who raise within their own borders, means which they are willing to appropriate to this object. I shall therefore vote for the amend ment of the gentleman from Wayne. Mr. T. G. SMITH. I can hardly believe that the gentleman from Kal amazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) or the genftle man from Hillsdale, (Mr. THoMPsoN,) will vote for this amendment. These fines and penalties, as I understand, belong to the county at large; and if we should adopt this amendment, it would be in fact granting a bonus from the county to the city. b ow, I sup that the cities are quite as able to sus tain their libraries as the rural districts. If the fines and forfeited recognizances for offenses committed within the cities be appropriated to the support of libraries within the cities, the fines and forfeited recognizances collected in the counties will in each county go into a general fund, in which the cities of that county will share equally with the rest of the county, unless we make some other provision inthis Constitution. Now, I think the cities are quite able to support their own libraries, without any bonus from the rural district. Mr. LOTHROP. It strikes me as a little extraordinary that after we have labored and struggled to make this library system a general system, and that proposition has been voted down, gentlemen should turn round and tell us that we commit a grave error in trying to adopt a partial system. The towns tell us that they cannot maintain a library system; that they-have devoted to the object their best efforts, intel lectual and physical, and that they can not keep up these libraries and when we tell them that in the cities we can maintain libraries and desire that these fines and forfeitures shall be appro priated in such a way as to assist us in doing so, gentlemen representing the townships have no answer to make to us except that the provision does not apply to them, and therefore they will not consent to it. But it is said that this proposition will operate unequally? How can this be? We proposeto appropriate to the libraries of the cities the fines and for feitures for only those offenses'com mitted in the cities. We do not pro pose to put our hands on the others. The townships may apply them as they like. Mr. T. G. SMITH. I would ask the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTHROP) whether, unless some special provision be made, the cities will not share equally in the fines and forfeitures col lected in the balance of the county. Mr. LOTHROP. If by any system they should be distributed to the cities, they would go to the cities; but if by any system they should be distributed to the towns, they would go to the towns. We do not ask that they shall be distributed to the cities. I will go with the gentleman in support of a provision appropriating those fines to the primary schools of the townships, or to any other object which he may prefer. We are earnestly desirous that this work which has been so well begun-in the State of Michigan shall not die when entrusted to our hands. I have not much responsibility in regard to this matter; perhaps I have no respon sibiity at all. But I do feel some lit I I - - -.11 .. I..... 1. —.I..,-. —-.- - ,-.- — —,. —-—.,.-. - I..'7.I.., , I... - '... - I'. - I J'uly 30, 1867. Aj7,. '*$ 7 i CONSTITUTIONA I, CONVENTION. tie anxiety to see whether the most re markable and distinguished monument of this Convention is to be the fact that the school libraries of the'State of Michigan died at its hands. No man need tell me that a bare injunction inserted in the Constitution, that the Legislature shall maintain libraries, is going to secure the establishment or maintenance of these libraries. Unless by some immutable law, which shall operate just like a law of nature so long as this Constitution shall remain-unless by some such law operating in the general system of this State, these libraries are established and sustained, we shall not have these libraries. Unless we provide in this Constitution for the continuance of these libraries, which owe their origin to the wisdom of the men who laid deep the founda tions of the educational system of this State, it needs no spirit of prophesy to say that this system fails here in the State of Michigan, and this failure will be the monument of the enlightenment of this Convention. I trust that we shall not allow this provision to fail. There now exist in several cities of this State libraries of the most respectable character. I mean public libraries, not those which rest on private foundations-not those adapted to the more scholar and the book-worm; but libraries where the child, from the time when the thirst of knowledge begins to be felt in his bosom, may go and gratify that appetite, which grows by what it feeds on-where he may be trained in that learning which will be useful to him and to the State. Such libraries, I say, have already been established in many of our cities, and they ought to be established and maintained in every one of our large cities and communities. It is to-day one of the great monuments of that city which perhaps stands at the head of the culture of the Union, that it has a magnificent public library gathered within a noble structure. Its shelves, stored with the literature and learning of every department of human knowledge, are open to the access of all. If you go to Boston, its citizens will point you to that library as one of the crowning evidences of their cultivation, their civilization, their regard for the common weal. I had hoped that the system so well begun in the State of Michigan, and which promised to rival that best evidence of the culture of New England, would not receive its death-blow at our hands, but would be the subject of liberal support. But if gentlemen are determined that they will not have this system in the rural towns, I implore them, in behalf of the interests of education and intelligence and civilization, to permit us to maintain this system where. we wish to maintain it, as the best blessing we can bestow on ou people. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Mr. President I voted against striking out the latter clause of this section, and I am in favor of the appropriation of these fines for the purpose of establishing and maintaining school libraries. But the Convention having voted against such an appropriation of these fines as a general system, I do not see how we can consistently vote that they shall be so appropriated in the cities. As I have before remarked, these fines which are collected both in the city and the country, constitute a common fund belonging to the whole county at large. If we take out of that fund the portion collected in the cities and give it to them for a particular purpose, the balance of the fund will belong to the whole county at large just as it did before, and the cities will be an equal sharer in its distribution. Hence the appropriation of these moneys now proposed will be simply a gift from the counties to the cities, unless we provide for making it all up equally to the whole county, which I am in favor of. I voted against striking out the latter clause of this section; but the Convention having adopted that motion, I do not see how we can make an exceptional provision for the benefit of the cities. Mr. LOTHROP. I desire to say, that if there are here any gentlemen candidly and sincerely opposed to my proposition on the ground just stated by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. T. G. SMITH,) the proposition can be so modified, that the cities shall not in any event receive more than their fair proportion of the fines. What we want is that our libraries shall not be stricken down; that the support necessary to maintain them shall not be withdrawn; that the benign system under which they have been instituted, and by which they have been fostered, shall not be destroyed. M~lr. BRADLEY. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) by inserting after the word "city," wherever it occurs, the words "township or county." Mr. GIDDINGS. My impression is that we shall ultimately come to a vote upon this subject, by which these fines and forfeitures shall be paid as they have heretofore been, and distributed properly to the counties. It seems to me that during the course of this discussion, we have become. involved in so much misunderstanding, that we had better adjourn without taking a vote to-day, though I do not know that I care to make the motion, because I have no desire to cut off the discussion, if gentlemen wish to continue it. Mr. LOTHROP. I desire to give notice that to-morrow morning I shall, i, f on consultation I find it to meet the r views of gentlemen generally, withdraw my present amendment, and offer a provision by which these fines and forfeitures shall be distributed to the t counties and the cities, for the purpose of maintaining their libraries, and to the towns for the support of their r schools, providing for an equal distri bution of the money throughout the [ county. 3 Mr. LOVELL. WVill not the gen tleman frame his proposition so that the money shall be distributed to the towns for libraries or schools, as they ) may choose? Mr. LOTHROP. Of course, I should be delighted to put it in that form. Mr. T. G. SMITH. The amendment of the gentleman from Kalama zoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) meets the whole case. Mr. ROOT. Mr.President, I am glad to see the members of the Convention coming back to some just ap preciation of this section as it was reported by the committee. It will be recollected that the section was on my motion stricken out; but I made the , motion, not because I had any objection to the section in its original form, but because it had been so modified as to be devoid of all efficacy. I hope that we shall all come back to a just appreciation of the original section, and adopt it in that form or something substantially similar. Mr. VAN VALKE1NBURGH. If the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHnOP,) will withdraw his amendment, I will move to reconsider the vote by which the latter clause of the section was stricken out. Mr. LOTHROP. I withdraw my amendment. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I move to reconsider the vote by which the Convention adopted the motion of the~gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) to strike out these' words: "And all fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities, for any breach of the penal laws, shall be exclusively applied to the support of such libraries." Mr. P. D. WARNER. I have no objection to this motion to reconsider; but I am well satisfied that it will be almost impossible for the Convention to come to a satisfactory determination of this question this afternoon. I think that, by adjourning now, we may be able to agree upon something that shall be acceptable to members generally, and harmonize the diverse views which have been expressed. I move I I. 478 Tuesday, July 30, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 479 therefore that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to, there being-ayes 37, noes 17. So the Convention, (at 15 m inute s after 5 o'clock, p. m.,) adjourned. FIFTY-FIFTH DAY. WVEDNESDAY, July 31, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayerby Rev. MIIr. BRADLEY, (a member of the Convention.) The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Sir. RICHLMOND asked and obtained leave of absence for himself, after to-day, until Tuesday next. Mr. ANDRUS asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for himself, after to-day, on account of sickness in his family. Mr. INGALLS asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for himself, after to-day. Mr. RICHMOND asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. STOUGHTON during the day. Mr. WITHEY asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for Mr. FERRIS, who had been called away on account of sickness in his family. PETITION. Mr. DANIELLS presented the petition of L. D. Cross and 24 other men, and of Emma LaVere and 44 other women, citizens ot Clinton county, praying that the right of suffrage be conferred upon women and men equally; which was referred to the committee on elections. CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN MUNICIPAL. Mr. PRINGLE, from the committee on corporations other than municipal, made the following report: The committee on corporations other than municipal, to whom was recommitted with certan instructions, the article entitled "Article-, Corporations other than Municipal," herewith, in accordance with instructions, report the same back to the Convention with certain amendments prepared in accordance with said instructions. EUGENE PRINGLE, Coairman." The report was received, and the committee discharged. The PRESIDENT. The article as amended will be printed at large in the journal, and recommitted to the committee of the whole, if there be no objection. Mr. T. G. SMITH. I object to that. Mr. PRINGLE. I move that the article as amended be printed at large in the journal. The motion was agreed to. The article was as follows; the amendments made in committee of the whole being printed in italics, and the amendments made by the committee on corporations other than municipal being enclosed in brackets: [SECTION 1. Organizations for the purpose of banking, insurance, mining, telegraphing, manufacturing, transacting business as common carriers, and religious societies, shall be incorporated only under general laws. No special charter shall be granted, nor shall the franchises given thereby be enlarged without the assent of two-thirds of the members elect to each House. -Every act passed pursuant to this section, may be amended, altered or repealed by a majority vote of the members elect to each House.] SEcTION 2. The stockholders of every corporation or association for banking purposes, iqsuing bank notes or paper credits, to circulate as money, shall be individually liable for all debts contracted during the term of their being stockholders of such corporation or association, equally and ratably to the extent of their respective shares of stock In any such corporation or association. SECTION 3. The Legislature shall provide for the registry ot all bills or notes issued or put in circulation as money by any bank organized under the laws of this State, and shall require security to the full amount ot notes and bills so registered, in interest-bearing stocks of-this State,or of the United States, which shall be deposited with the State Treasurer, for the redemption of such bills or notes in lawful money of the United States. - SECTION 4. In case of the insolvency of any bank or banking association, the bill-holders thereof shall be entitled to preference in paymnent, over all other creditors of such bank or association.' SECTION 5. The Legislature shall pass no law authorizing or sanctioning the suspension of payments by any corporation. [SECTION 6. The Legislature shall pass no law altering or amending any act of incorporation granted prior to January 1, 1851, without the assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each House. No such act shall be renewed or extended.] SECTION 7. No corporation or joint stock association shall hold any real estate hereafter acquired tor a longer period than ten yearsfrom the time of acquiring the same, except such real estate shall be actually occupied by the corporation in the exercise of its ifranchises. No real estate shall hereafter be withheld from market for a longer term than ten years, for the use or benefit of any corporation. SECTION 8. The stockholders in any corporation shall be individually liable for all labor done in behalf of such corporation during the time of their being such stockholders, equally and ratably to the extent of their respective shares in the stock of such corporation. Mr. PRINGLE I now move that the article be laid upon the table for the present. The motion was agreed to. COMMUNICATION. Mr. WRIGHT. A communication was handed me this morning, which I will send up-to the Secretary and ask that it may be read.., Mr. MILES. Does the communication relate to the business of this Convention in any way? Is it from any State officer? The PRESIDENT. It purports to come from the Auditor General's office, but it does not bear the official signature of any State officer. Mr. WRIGHT. I ask that it be read. .Mr. MILT,ES. If it can be read without being entered upon the journal, I will not object. The PRESIDENT. It will be read if there be no objection. Mr. WILLARD and other members objected. The PRESIDENT. The question will then be taken upon tie motion of the gentleman from Barry, (Mr. WRIGHT,) that the communication be read. Mr. McCLELLAND. From whom is the communication? The PRESIDENT. It is dated, "Auditor General's office, Lansing, Michigan, July 31, 1867;" it is addressed to "The members of the Constitutional Convention," and is signed by William B. Carpenter and W. W. Bruce. Mr. GIDDINGS. It is a flippant challenge from some would-be-smart fellows, to play something. I hope the commlmication will not be received or read. The PRESIDENT. The Chair knows nothing of the nature of the communication. The question is upon the motion that itbe read. The question was taken, and upon a division, ayes 24, noes 40, the motion was not agreed to. EDUCATION. The Convention then resumed the consideration of the unfinished business, being the article entitled "Education," with the amendments made thereto by the committee of the whole. TOWNSHIP AND CITY LIBRARIES. The PRESIDENT. When the Convention adjourned yesterday, it had under consideration the amendment of the committee of the whole, to strike out section four of this article, which section was as follows: "The Legislature shall also provide for the establishment of a library in each township and city; and all fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities for any breach of the penal laws, shall be exclusively applied to the support of such libraries." Pending the question of concurring in the action of the committee of the whole, the section was amended, on motion of the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) by striking out these words: "and all fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities, for any breach of the penal laws, shall be exclusively applied to the support of such libraries." Subsequently, the-gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,). moved to reconsider the vote striking out those ; -. -.. I- - - —, - 1. - CONSTITUTIONATl, CONVENTION. words. The question now pending is upon the motion to reconsider. Mr. LUCE. I understood a substitute has been proposed for this section, which will perhaps meet the approbation of all parties here. If the motion to reconsider could be withdrawn, so as to allow that substitute to be offered, I think we could arrive at a satisfactory conclusion that way more quickly than by acting upon the motion to reconsider. I would, therefore, ask the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) to withdraw his motion to reconsider, and allow the substitute to be offered. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I would like to hear the substitute read first. Mr. LOTHROP. In pursuance of intimations given by members in the discussion upon this subject yesterday, I have drawn up a substitute for this section, which is as follows: The Legislature shall provide for the es tablishment and maintenance of a library in each city and township. And all moneys be longing to the public, derived from fines, penalties, forfeitures or recognizances, im posed or taken in the several counties, cities or townships, for any breach of the penal laws of the State. after deducting the actual costs ot collecting, shall be apportioned in the same manner as is the income of the primary school fund, and paid over to the sev eral cities and townships of the county in which such money accrued, for the support of such libraries: Provided, That the Legisla ture may authorize any township, by a vote of its electors to apply its portion of said money to the direct support ot its primary schools." - It Bill be observed that the objection that it was not competent, under the provisiohs of the present Constitution, to apply any portion of this fine fund to any other purpose than that of libraries, is expressly removed by the provision of the substitute giving the Legislature power to authorize any township, by a vote, to apply its por tion of this money to the direct sup port of primary schools. In regard to the objection that it was not competent to deduct the costs of collection from the fines, the substitute expressly pro vides that the actual cost of collection shall be deducted: Then the money so derived is to be apportioned as is the income of the primary school fund, and paid over to the townships and cities in the counties in which the money accrued. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I will withdraw my motion to reconsider. Mr. LOTHROP. I now offer the substitute which I have read. Mr. WILLIAMS. I am opposed to the principle embodied-in the present aonstitution, in the provision in relation to township libraries, and also to the principle embodied in the section re lating to that subject reported to us fom the committee on education. I shall be very happy to support the substitute for this section offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) I am in favor of the system of having libraries in townships or in school districts; but I prefer the libraries in townships. The main objection to the old township library system, I apprehend, grows out of the laws now in force. But thoselaws can be altered or amended, so as to conform to the requirements of this substitute. In that way I think we can have a good system of township libraries. Mr. HENDERSON. It has seemed to me from the first that the reason which must have contributed to the framing of the section which we have now under consideration, and the reason which has been the basis of the arguments made upon this floor in its favor, was the apprehension or supposition that the Legislature would divert this fine fund, and cripple the libraries in the cities. I consider that apprehension to be entirely groundless. But this substitute robs the section of those very objectionable features which have induced me to engage in the strenuous opposition to it, and I ca.n support it without any compromise of principle. Mr. WITHEY. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) whether this substitute- is designed to operate, or whether in his opinion it will operate, so as to pre-: vent the establishment and maintenance in any city, of more than one library? I would like his declaration upon that point to accompany the substitute,: so that we may know with what design and purpose it was drawn and offered. I make this inquiry, because in the city where I reside, we have two or three union school libraries; we have separate union school buildings, and a separate library in each. If this sub stitute will prevent the continuance of those separate libraries, I shall! be obliged to oppose it, or ask-that it be amended. I therefore ask the gentle man who offers it, his view of the probable effect in that respect. Mr. LOTHROP. The portion which: I framed, under the instructions made here yesterday, does not affect that question at all. If any difficulty of the kind would arise, it would be under the first part of the substitute, which is the same as the first part of the sec tion as originally reported. That por tion is as follows: "The Legislature shall also provide for the establishment of a library in each township and city." I did not alter that at all, but took it precisely as it was approved by the Convention. I frankly say that if it is permitted to stand in that way, it would, in my judgment, requate one library in the city. If the Convention had adopted the proposition made by the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. CRoacKER,) to insert the words "at least one," before "library," it would have permitted the establishment of more than one library in a township or city. Mr. GIDDINGS. I do not concur in the views of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTIROP,) on that point. It seems to me that it is after all within the power of the Legislature to direct that one portion of a library in a city /ay be in one place, and another portion in another place, and still have one library in a city. Mr. LOTHROP. I do not think the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) understands me. I have no sort of doubt that different portions of what is regarded as the same library, might be kept in different parts of the city o-rtown, the whole being regarded as one library. It would be perfectly competent to keep different portions of the same library i7 different parts of the city or town. But I do not think it would be competent to establish two independent libraries in the same city or town. Mr. GIDDINGS. I think the point of the gentleman from Grand Rapids, (Mr. WITHEY,) was whether, when the section says " a library," one portion could be kept-in one school building, and another portion in another school building. Mr. LOTHROP. I have no doubt at all that that could be done. Mr. WIT-HEFY. That does not ob viate the difficulty. We have separate libraries in the city where I reside; each school district has its library; the libraries are separate and distinct, not portions of one library. Now, I do not want any provision adopted here which will require those separate libraries to be combined into one library; I wish to have a separate and distinct library maintained in each district in that city. I should regret very much that this Convention should compel any change in our libraries in Grand Rapids, which I think might be the case under this provision. I hope the Convention will allow an amendment to be made in the respect I indicate. If I remember the wording of the substitute it is "The Legislature shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a library in each city and township," etc. I would move to amend the substitute so that it shall read-" The Legislature shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a library in each town ship, and of at least one in each city," etc. Mr. LOTHROP. If that change is acceptable to the Convention, and no Wednesday, 480 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. one has contrary views on the subject I will accept the amendment without any hesitation. The PRESIDENT. The question will then be on the substitute as mod ified. MIr. WRIGHT. There are many townships which perhaps would desire the same privilege which the gentleman from Kent (Mr. WVITHEY) desires for the city of Grand Rapids. There are some townships in.which there are two small villages, four or five miles apart, in different parts of the township. Each of those villages might desire to have a library. I would suggest to the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) and also to the mover of the substitute, (Mr. LOTHROP,) that it would be equally as well, certainly it would be more congenial to my views, to have the amendment of the gentleman from Kent apply to townships and cities, instead of confining it to cities alone. Mr. HENDERSON. Before we take action upon this substitute, it would be well for us to consider what contributed to the defeat of this very proposition yesterday. To my mind it was this and this only; the ex perience of the past under the law which authorized the electors of a town ship to lay their hands on the township library, and divide it up into school disc trict libraries, and thereby defeat the whole object of the library system. That was the objection which obtained among members yesterday; that is what defeated the proposition yester day. And I would suggest to gentle men that they are now proposing to place us back on the samne old ground. Mr. CROCKER. I would inquire of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) who offers this substitute, what construction he places upon the words " the net proceeds of fines?" Does that require that the fees of the prosecuting attorneys, who take any part in the collection of these fines, shall be first paid from the proceeds, before there can be anything appropri ated to the use of these libraries? Or what construction does the gentleman place upon those words? Mr. LOTHROP. I do not use the words, "'net proceeds," at all. The "actual costs of collecting" are to be deducted. Constructive costs, other costs of the proceedings, are not refer red to in the substitute at all. It is to enable those who have charge of get ting the money, if they shall be under the necessity of paying a counsel fee, or a per centage, or anything of the kind, to do so. Beyond that I would not be willing to go. I would not consent either to accept the proposed amendment of the gentleman from Vol. 2-No. 61. Barry, (Mr. WRIGHT,) to allow more tthan one library in a township. The almost universal testimony of the members of this Convention was, that - the system of school district libraries had been a failure, that it was but a W aste of money. It is only in cities that it is possible to have more than - one of these libraries, and attain the object of having a library at all. Mr. BILLS. I hope the proposition of the gentleman from Barry, (Mr. WRIGHaT,) will not be urged. I am most decidedly of the opinion that the prop; osition should prevail to give the priv ilege to cities to have two or more li braries. Take the city of Grand Rap ids, for instance, where Grand River separates the two districts, and where there is a union school-house on each side of the river; it is easy to see that it would greatly embarrass that city to require them to combine their two li braries into one. The same may be true in regard to other cities. It may be desirable in large cities, at some time, to have more than one library. But in my opinion, the objection to ex tending that privilege to townships is that it would entirely defeat the design of having township libraries. That more than anything else, has contribu ted in the past to defeat the favorable operation of libraries in townships. Mr. BLACKMAN. There is one feature of the substitute which, if I have correctly understood it from the reading of it, I would prefer to have changed; that portion authorizing this money to be paid over to the cities and townships in which it accrued. Mr. HENDERSON. I do not think the substitute will admit of the con struction given to it- by the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLaCKmAN.) It says-,c paid over to the several cities and townships of the county in which such money accrued." Mr. LO(THROP. All the money accruing from this source in a county becomes a fund to be- apportioned to the cities and townships in the county "in the same manner as is the income of the-primary school fund." Mr. BLIACKMAN. If that is the effect of it, then it is just as I prefer te have it. I did not get that under standing of it from hearing it read. Mr. LOTHROP. That is the pre cise meaning of it. Mr. PRINGLE. I desire to suggest one difficulty in regard to this matter, which occurs to my mind. Very many of our school districts are partly in one township, and partly in another; some of them are partly in a city, and partly in one or more townships. The district in which I reside comprises parts of two townships, and' also parts of three wards of a city. These different rules authorized by the proviso attached to this substitute, it seems to me would work pretty badly in such cases as t those. There might be one rule of ap portionment in one portion of the dis trict, and another rule in another por tion. Mr. LOTHROP. All of these diffi culties, I apprehend would be be met by the law; the Legislature can make provisions adapted to these particular cases and circumstances. The question recurred upon the substitute offered by Mr. LOTiHOP for the section, which substitute had been mod ified to read as follows: " The Legislature shalf provide for the es tablishment and maintenance ot a library in each township, and of at least one in each city. And all moneys belonging to thepub lic, derived from fines, penalties, forfeitures or recognizances, imposed or taken in the several counties, cities or townships, for any breach of the penal laws of the State, after deducting the actual costs of collecting, shall be apportioned in the same manner as is the income of the primary school fund, and paid over to the several cities and townships of the county in which such money accrued, for the support of such libraries: -.Provided, That the Legislature may authorize any town ship, by a vote of its electors to apply its por tion of said money to the direct support of the primary schools." The question was then taken upon the substitute, and it was adopted. The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon concurring in the action of the committee of the whole, striking out the entire section. The question was taken, and the PREsIDENT declared that it was decided in the negative, and that the Conven tion refused to concur in the action of the committee of thei whole. Mr. LUCE. There is a question among some members here aS to the situation of this matter now. Is the substitute adopted, or has the whole been stricken out, section, substitute and all? The PRESIDENT. The Chair an nounced that the Convention had re fused to concur in the action of the committee of the whole, striking out this fourth section. Consequently, the section stands as amended by the adoption of the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. Lo THROP. ) Mr. lENDERSON. What gave rise to the inquiry was that many here voted to concur in the action of the committee of the whole, which would have stricken out the substitute also. The PRESIDENT. The Chair an nounced that the Convention had re fused to concur in the action of the committee of the whole. That conse quently leaves the substitute to stand as section four of this article. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY. The PRESIDENT. The next amend ment of the committee of Ahe whole is i t i Jully 31, 1867. 481 I .................- -- to section five, which section is as follows: "There shall be elected eight regents of the University, whose term of office shall be eight years, two of whom shall be elected in every second year, on the day of the annual township election, so as to succeed' the regents now in office, as their several terms shall expire. When a vacancy shall occur in the office of regent, it shall be filled by appointment by the Governor. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be ex oJfeio a member of tihe board of regents." The amendment of the committee of the whole is to strike out the words: "The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be ex officio a member of the board of regents." The question is upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. WILIARD. I desire to say to the Convention that I really hope they will not concur in the action of the; committee of the whole, striking out this part of the section. This provision was pretty fully considered by the committee which reported this article; and after a full consideration of it, a large majority of, the committee were very decidedly of the opinion that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of this State was a very proper person to have a seat on the board of regents of the University, for his advice would be valuable to the board. The bo6ard would then consist of an odd number, which is very desirable under some circum stances. I really hope the Convention will not concur in the action of the committee of the whole in this respect Mr. D. GOODWIN. This amend ment was made in committee of the whole upon my motion. I made the motion without any very decided opin ion upon the subject, and without hav ing given it any very mature consider ation, rather with the view of eliciting from the committee on education their reason for incorporating such a pro vision in this section. After thinking over the matter fur ther, I have come to the conclusion that the clause should be retained; and therefore I shall vote against concur ring in the amendment of the commit tee of the whole, although it was made upon my motion. The idea has been suggested by the chairman of the committee on education, (Mr. WIL LARD,) that without the Chief Jus tice the board of regents would con sist of an even n1umber; and conse quently they might be equally divided upon some questions that came before them for consideration. I think itchi an advantage to have an odd number to constitute the board. In the article upon the judicial department, the committee have reported a provision adding one judge to the Supreme Court, which at present consists of four judges, in order that there may be an odd- number, so thatin all questions there may be a decision by a majority of the Court, should there be 'different views held by the judges. It seems- to me- that the same principle can: be applied very properly to the board of regents of the University; and I think the Chief Justice would be a very proper person to be a member of that board. Then again, in regard to those questions about which there might be a difference of views entertained by the members of the board, I think it would be very desirable that they should have the counsel and advice of the Chief ,Justice, especially when there are legal questions to be considered, and which it is important for them t6 dispose of in the performance of their duties. I shall, therefore, vote against con cur-ring in the amendment of the committee of the whole, although it was meads upon my motion; and I hope that: the- amendment will not be con currbd in by the Convention. Mr. DANIELLS. Might not ques tions of law come before the board of ,regents which would also come before the Supreme Court afterwards? Mr. D. GOODWIN. There might be such questions, and it would be very advisable to have the advice and conL sent of the Chief Justice of the Su preme Court in regard to them. The same provision might be made in ref erence to this board that was sug gested yesterday in regard to the Leg ilature, that upon the vote of two thirds of the, board the opinion of the Supreme Court could be asked upon - any question. The opinion which they would,give upon such request would - be exactly such as they would give in ,deciding a question brought before them in-the ordinary manner. - Mr., BILLS. A single idea has oc curred to me in regard to the propriety - of placing a judge of the Supreme Court l in, this position; perhaps there is no w,~eight in it; perhaps it is of no conse sequence. The idea is this; while we de sire of course in the exercise of the func tions of this board to secure the high1 est.character of propriety and correct ness in every particular, so that i~sha11 - always act within the rule and the law, discreety and in the wisest manner; - yet, I would suggest the inquiry whether it is desirable that a member i of the Supreme Court should be made B theattorney of that board? That is s the argument for placing him there. r We have called the Supreme Court an 3 independent court. Now, is it advisa ble to place the Chief Justice of the Supreme:Court in the position of at3 torney,:: counsellor, and adviser of a f lage aand important interest in this State, separate and apart from the judicial duties which we impose upon him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Now, while I desire, as every member of this Convention desires, to secure the best and highest interests of the University, and the best administration of its affairs through its regents, and that in the discharge of their duties the best counsels shall prevail, I have some doubt as to the propriety of placing a judge of the Supreme Court upon that board as the advisory counsel of the board. :Suppose that questions, involving the action of the board, should become ;matters of litigation, and should reach the Supreme Court, would it be desirable that a member of the Su preme Court should have been the counsel of that board, and have acted as it adviser? I throw out this sug gestion for the consideration of mem bers. It is not a subject to which I have given much attention; but the suggestion hi occurred to my mind that this was not a desirable position in which to place a judge of the Su preme Cotirt. Mr. GIDDINGS. Much of what I desired to say, has been said by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS.) I desire simply to',add that the board of regents of the University can at any ,time obtain the advice of the judges of the Supreme Court, without requir ing any of them to go out of his ordi nary duties, and take the place of chairman of a board with which he has nothing to do. I hope the amendment of the committee of the whole will be concurred in. Mr. LOTHROP. I desire to say, that this matter was very fully consid ered by the-committee on education, and I individually devoted much considera tion to it. I was decidedly in favor of adding to the board of regents the Chief Justice for the time being; not simply to be the attorney of the board, not to be the legal adviser of the board at all, but in order that he may bring to the assistance of the board, that wide experience, that mature judgment, and - that habit of dealing with affairs which I will always be possessed, we may pre, sume will certainly usually be pos; sessed, by the accomplished gentleman who shall for the time being be the ~ Chief Justice of the State. He holds ~ the office of Chief Justice for but two years; under the system which we have . adopted, it rotates through the court. The board of regents is not a trading - or commercial corporation. It dog not have much to do with litigation; ordinarily it will have nothing what ever to do with litigation. I believe that board has been in the Supreme Court but twice since it was instituted; i. s 0 t i i :h b i CONSTITUTIONAL CONVEN - IO-W. Ml.1,T, ednesclay, 4,82 Jul 31 187 DEM0 D~ PROED- ~~. once to recover the property that belonged to the old trustees of the old University,under the grant to the institution when Michigan was a territory,and once upon the application of a relator, applying for a mandamus against- them. It is quite probable it will not be in the Supreme Court again for the next ten or a dozen years; at any rate it must rarely be so. If it shall ever go there, there will be four justices of the Supreme Court who can act, and they will be no more influenced by the Chief Justice than they would be if a suit came before them in which the Chief Justice was individually interested; and nobody would deem that an objection at all. The advantage of this provision is that the board will secure the services of a gentleman who is thoroughly habituated to dealing with affairs generally, not only in their legal, but in their business aspects. It seems to me that it would be very wise to add such a gentleman to that board, and that he would be very useful indeed to them. Though he would certainly act as their counsel and adviser, it would only be as any other member of the board would act as counsel and adviser. I could add further, what any gentleman connected with the University knows, that under the original organization of the board, by which all the justices of the Supreme Court were ex officio regents, they have left their impress upon that institution, which remains to this day for its great good. Mr..CONGER. When this section was under consideration in committee of the whole, I was in favor of striking out this clause, partly for some reasons which have been suggested here, because the Chief Justice would thereby be a member of a corporation, and could not act officially in cases where that corporation was interested; and partly because there was a provision in the article on the judicial department which provided that no judge of the Supreme Court should be eligible to any other office during the continuance of his term. The objection in the last respect is obviated, for these two'provisions of the Constitution are coordinate, and would be of equal force in controlling the matter.:The other objection I then had, that the Chief Justice would thus be a member of a body corporate, is removed in my mind by the consideration of the fact that this corporation is really a State institution for educational purposes, and as has been suggested by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHEOP,) not liable to litigation upon any subject-matters not directly connected with the:interests of the State. And:if the Chief Justice should be present as a member of the board when such- acti'ni was taken as should lead to: -litigation,. there would still be four judges of. the Supreme Court to decide the question. That explanation, and my own refleetions on the matter, have removed,,my objections to this clause, and I shal1l vote to retain it in the section. The question was then takenupon the amendment of the committee of the whole; and upon a division, ayes 10, noes 41, it was not concurr6ed in. AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE. The PRESIDENT. The next amendment of the committee of the whole is to section nine of this article, which section is as follows: "The Legislature shallisupport and-maintain an Agricultural College, and may- make the same a department of the University,. for instruction in agriculture, and the natural sciences connected tlherewith." The amendment of the committee -of the whole is to strike out the words "support and maintain an,'" andto insert in lieu thereof the words "provide for the support and maintenance-of the;"' also, to strike out the words:' and may make the same a department of the University;" so that the section would read: "The Legislature shall provide for the support and maintenance of ,the Agricultural College, for instruction in agriculture and the natural sciences connected therewith." The question is upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. LUCE. I move to amend theamendment of the committee of the whole by striking out " the" and in serting "an," in the clause which now reads, "provide for-the support and maintenance of the," so that-that that portion of the section will read-" he Legislature shall provide for the support and maintenance of an Agricultural College." I believe the amendmenti have offered will have the support of the committee who reported this article. In the section as they reported it, they use the phrase "'an' Agricultural Colf lege," so as not to confine the Legisla ture strictly to supporting the present Agricultural College. Section two of this article provides that" Iiistitu tions for the benefit of those inhabit ants who are deaf, dumb, blind, or in sane, shall always. be fostered andsup ported." I desire to have the Legisla ture no more strictly bound to support the present Agricultural College, than they are to support the present institu tions for the benefit of the deaf, dumb, * blind and insane; leaving it an open question with the Legislature. Mr. CONGER. The amendment of the gentleman from Branch (Mr. LUTE) is such an innocent: one that- I am disposed to support it. I think the past experience of this State -will not lead the Legislature to provide for more than three or four agricultural colleges in the State, Mr. LONGYEAR. I think there -will be no objection to this amendment on the part of the friends of the institution:now in existence. It will not authorize the Legislature to support more-than one agricultural college. Mr. PRINGLE. I believe the amendment was made upon my motion. A previous amendment had been made, which struck-out the word " an," and in proposing to insert the word "the" I made the change without any particular thought. I claim to be a friend of the Agricultural College. The amendment of Mr. LucE was then agreed to. The question was upon concurring in-the amendment of the committee of the whole, as amended. Mr. BLACKMAN. I desire to have a division of the amendment, which I believe embraces two distinct -propositions. One is to strike out and insert certain words, and the other is simply to:strike out certain other words. 'The PRESIDENT. Under the rule, an amendment of the committee of the whole cannot be divided, but must be- treated as an entirety. M ].r. RICHMHOND. I move to amend the amendment of the committee ,of -:the whole so as to insert,- after the words "Agricultural College," the words" -and may make the same a department of the University;" so that the section will read-"The Legislature shall provide' for the support and maintenance of an Agricultural College, and may make the same a department of the University," etc. Mr. GHAPIN. I would ask if the amendment of the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. RICHMOND,) is in order? Have not the-words he proposes to insert been already stricken out of the section? :The PRESIDENT. They were stricken out by the committee of the whole, but that action has not yet been concurred in by'this Convention. The Chair however, is of the opinion, that the amendmentrnamed by the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. RICHzoND,) is not strictly an amendment to the amendment of the committee of the whole. But as a concurrence in the amendment of the committee of the whole, will leave out of the section entirely the words which the gentleman from Washtenaw proposes to have retained in the section, the Chair will entertain his amendment as an amendment to the committee of the whole. Mr. WILILIAMS. Is not one o'f the questions under consideration to con cur in the action of Ahe committee of i D,EBATES AND PROCEE-DINGS. J-uly 31,'1867. .483 484 COSTITUTIOAL CO-vETIO. Wednesday, the whole, in striking out the words cand may make the same a department of the University?" The PRESIDENT. That is one question. Mr. WILLIAMS. Is it proper to divide the amendment of the committee of the whole by this means? The PRESIDENT.- The action of the committee of the whole upon this section having been reported as one amendment, the Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman from Washtenaw (Mr. RICHMOND,) may move the amendment he has indicated, in order to obtain the sense of the Convention upon the subject. Perhaps it would be better for him to propose to insert.the words in some other portion of the section, if he can accomplish his object by doing so. Mr. RICHMOND. I move this amendment for the purpose of ascertairing the feelings and views of this Convention upon this subject. I apprehend that this question was passed over in committee of the whole without due consideration. The subjects of education and of our educational institutions are subjects which require mature and profound consideration. In my judgment they should be touched only in cases where there seems to be an absolute necessity to do so; they should be changed only where the change is sure to be for the better. In committee of the whole several subjects were presented for consideration, and, as will be remembered, they were passed over without any debate or discussion. I thought at the time, and I still think, those matters were passed over too rapidly. I hardly think this Convention is prepared to establish a principle which, after due examination, may perhaps be found to work badly or to be an injury to the educational as well as to the pecuniary interests of this State. I forbear atthis time to go into any lengthy discussion of this matter. I desire simply to obtain at this time an expression of ~the sense of the Convention on this subject. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I call for the yeas and nays on the amendment to the amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. CONGER. I am glad the call for the yeas and nays has been supported. I shall be very glad to record my vote in favor of keeping the Agri. tural College of this State a separate institution from the University. The question was upon the amendment of Mr. RICHMoND to the amendment of the committee of the whole. Mr. LOVELL. In committee of the whole I deliberately moved to strike out of this section the words "and may make the game a department of the University." I did it to accomplish a purpose, if the committee would agree with me; and the purpose will be accomplished if the Convention concur in the action of the conm mittee of the whole. That purposeis to permanently separate the Agricultural College from the University of the State of Michigan. It has been deemed wise and prudent that our Normal School should not be under the control of the L board of regents of the University, although in its nature it is much more suited to that control than is the Agricultural College. The Agricultural L College of this State is so diverse in interest from the University that I do not think a class of persons can be found fitted to properly take charge of both institutions at the same time. And another thing: there is a growing feeling of jealousy, and it has acquired a great deal of strength, if I rightly appreciate it, between the friends of these two institutions; each feeling, perhaps, that the other is try ing to monopolize the public favor, or gain an advantage over the other. In my view, if we secure each of them in their independent rights, we will remove this ground of jealousy, and they will be both better supported, cherished and loved by the public. I do not want these rival institutions to clash with each other, to their mutual undoing. They are each richly en dowed, and with small additional fa vors from the State, they may each continue to be a bright ornament to the State. Do not let these institu tions clash with each other; do not'let the Uniyersity men seem to have an opportunity, as the friends of the Agri cultural College will say, to grasp the endowment of the Agricultural Col lege, nor the reverse. Let them go on, each in its own career, free from em barrassment with'the other. :-The PRESIDENT. The Chair is informed by the Secretary that the amendments of the committee of the whole to this section were reported separately. Consequently the first question will be upon the amendment of the committee of the whole to strike out the words" support and maintain an," and to insert in lieu thereof the words, "'provide for the support and maintenance of an," before the words "Agricultural College." After that has been disposed of, the question will then be upon concurring in the action of the committee of the whole in striking out the words "and may make the same a department of the University." By pursuing that course there will be no necessity for taking the question upon the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. IRICHMOND.) Mr. RICHMOND. If action upon the amendment of the committee of the whole will embrace the subject of my-amencldment, I am willing to withdraw it. The PRESIDENT. It will present precisely the same question; by refusing to concur in the second amendment of the committee of the whole to this section, the precise object the gentleman has in view will be accomplished. Mr. RICHMOND. Then I withdraw my amendment. The PRESIDENT. The first question will then be upon concurring in the first amendment of the committee of the whole to this section; to strike out-the words " support and maintain," and to insert the words.-" provide for the support and maintenance of;" so that that portion of the section will read-" The Legislature shall provide for the support and maintenance of an Agricultural College." Mr. CHAPIN. By concurring in the action of the committee of the - whole in striking out the words "and may make the same a department of the University," we will attain a very valuable object; that is, we will save much time and expense, which will occur at every session of the Legislature, if we leave this open for legislative consideration and discussion. Not only that, but we will place the Agricultural College upon a safe and permanent basis; it will become a fixed institution; its destiny will be no longer uncertain; it will have a constitutional existence, and will not be subject to the fluctuations of legislative action. I regard that as a very important object for us to accomplish. The Agricultural College has been in existence a number of years; it is gradually perfecting itself, and meeting the wants of the State. It is located in a central portion of the State, and has already sent forth a number of students who are engaged in the avocations of life. Wre have witnessed its practical results; we, in this section of the State, have come to consider that institution as our institution; we have no other educational institution in this region of any particular notoriety. It has attracted towards it the affection and regard of this whole section of the State. We wish to have the question settled in the Constitution, that this institution shall not hereafter be subject to legislative action. I deem it a matter of the utmost consequence to the Agriculture College, as well as to the University, that this question should be settled here. If we concur in the action of the committee of the whole, the University need not hereafter have any expecta CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIO-N. Wedne-,d. ay, 484 July~~ 31 87 EAE NDPOEDG- tions from that source; they will not entertain any. And the Agricultural College will entertain no fears in regard to the permanency of its existence. I deem it a matter of the utmost importance that the amendment of the committee of the whole should be concurred in by the Convention. Mr. RICHMOND. I hope the Convention will indulge me in a few remarks on this question. For me to state now that I am a friend of education, and of the educational interests of this State, might perhaps be unnecessary; but I do so declare myself. I have on the committee on education endeavored to use my best judgment in favor of educational institutions of whatever character and kind in this State. I have in committee of the whole advocated what I believed to be the true principle in regard to all our educational interests. I will say further, that I am no opponent of the Agricultural College; -I am in favor of the education of the children and of the young men of this State. I would rather contribute a sum for educational institutions than to give one-half or one-quarter of the same amount for State prison or reform schools. I believe education to be the basis and foundation of the State, and its prosperity and intelligence; and that upon that intelligence it must continue to grow and prosper. It is with great reluctance that I enter into any further examination of this subject. - But I desire this Convention to so leave the institutions, the Agricultural College, and the University, and I may add all the other educational institutions of the State, in such a position that if any advantage can hereafter be taken of circumstances which may occur, and as they occur, the people of the State, through their Legislature may improve that advantage. I have had an earnest desire that if possible the University should be relieved from the necessity of ever coming to the Legislature of the State for any further pecuniary aid. To that end, I introduced into the committee of the whole a proposition by which, if it had been entertained and made a constitutional provision, the University would have been relieved, in my judgment, from the necessity. But the proposition which I introduced, I think, was passed over by the committee very hastily, and without the consideration it deserved. Seeing that disposition manifested on the part of the committee of the whole and of members of this Convention, I am now constrained, with my feelings toward the educational interests of this State, to say a few words on this subject, and to go fur ther into the examination of it than I otherwise would, in order that the Convention may know, and the people of the State may know, the circumstances and true condition of those two institutions. Let us examine into this subject, and ascertain what the Agricultural College has done, and see if it will be wise to leave it in a situation, not as the gentleman from Gratiot, (Mr. CHAPIN,) has said, that we may know its destiny, but that the people of this State, through the Legislature, may be able to control it as they may deem best. If this Convention will not decide to take any other course in regard to it, my judgment would be that, in order to place the institution upon a firm foundation, so that the son of the agriculturist may hereafter be enabled to acquire the education that will be of the greatest benefit to'liim, it would be wise for this -Convention to so fix these institutions, by combination or otherwise, that there should be no doubt about the matter hereafter. Then we should know certainly, the destiny of the Agricultural College, and the advantages which it will afford. The Agricultural College was organized in 1857, and it has now been in existence for ten years. It has cost this State $238,320 in money. It has graduated within that time, eighteen students, costing the State over five thousand dollars each. Eighteen students graduated in ten years. I ask the members of this Convention, thgse who are acquainted with the facts, what must be the standing, as educa ted men, of those who have graduated from that institution, judging from the course of study pursued there? As laid down in their report, the educa tion they receive from the course of studies pursued, barely qualifies them to be competent to transact the ordi nary business of life. It is not a sci entific or liberal course of education. The annual expense per student in the Agricultural College now, after it has had an organized existence of ten years, is two hundred dollars. About ninety students are taught there, at a cost of about twenty thousand dollars per an num. Now mark the difference; in the University, according to the catalogue, twelve hundred and fifty-five students were taught last year, at an annual cost of $53 25 each. The economy of ma king the Agricultural College a depart ment in the University, is obvious. Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentle man allow me to ask him a question or two? Mr. RICHMOND. Certainly. [ Mr. GIDDINGS. I would ask the gentleman if during the first ten years of the University, it was not quite as unsuccessful with its graduates as the Agricultural College has been? Mr. RICHMOND. The gentleman is perhaps better acquainted with the first ten years of the existence of the University than I am. I was not a citizen of this State when the University was in its infancy, at which time the State was also in its infancy. The people were poor then and had to struggle under great disadvantages. The State took from it its funds. But I am not going to discuss the early history of the University, for it has no connection with this question. Mr. GIDDINGS. Did we not have, ten years ago, the same character of discussion against the University that the gentleman is now making against the Agricultural College? I think we did. Mr. RICHMOND. I said that the University last year had within its halls twelve hundred and fifty-five students. It graduated of that number two hundred and ninety-two. -: MIr. LOVELL. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him one question? MIr. RICHMOND. Certainly. Mr. LOYELL. Does the gentleman, in his estimate of five thousand dollars for each graduate of the Agricultural College, mean to say that that was the individual expense of those scholars, without reference to those who were taught and did not graduate, and without reference to the buildings and improvements still on hand? -lr. RICIHMOND. I mean to say, the result of the ten years of the Agricultural College has been to graduate eighteen students. There were' forty thousand dollars appropriated by the Legislature at its last session for the support of the College for this and the coming year. Thefirst cost of thefarm was $10,413. I have estimated the improvements and unused funds at $119,116, which will leave the actual cost of instruction, and will show that it has been over $5,000 for each of the eighteen students which have graduated. Mr. LOVELL. None of that $5,000 for improvements? Mr. RICHMOND. I have estimated $119,116 for buildings and improvements; I hink that anybody acquainted with the college farm and improvements will consider that $119,000 will probably more than cover the cost of all the improvements and property there. By the report.which has been laid upon the tables of members of this Convention, it will be observed that the Agricultural College re quires a large outlay, and will probably ask of the ILegislature a large appro priation for improvements and enlarge ment of their buildings. It is stated i[ i s s I c t t 1 t t t DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. -" 5 .July 31,. 1867. -0 (CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIO. adN. that report that the laboratory is incomplete and insufficient for the purpose, that it is unhealty, and that there is an indispensable necessity that a new laboratory should be built. They also report that there is no geological department organized, only a meagre collection of geological specimens, and the library deficient in all departments. They also ask for five additional professors. Eight are already employed, I believe. Now, I ask this Convention whether it is for the educational and financial interests- of this State to maintain a school at the expense which is shown by their reports, and which is to continue without any hope of change, in fact which is to increase? Is it wise then for this Convention to so place this institution, by a provision in the Constitution, that it will be impossible for the Legislature to make any change with regard to it; -in fact, to make it obligatory upon the Legislature to maintain and support it under all circumstances, notwithstanding the expense? I would not deprive the agriculturist or his sonof any advantages in this regard; I would increase them; I would give them equal if not superior advantages. I regard the man who pursues agriculture as a profession, as a man who should be educated equal to or above other men. The professional man, after he has once mastered his profession, has but little to learn thereafter; practice makes him perfect, sD"to speak. But the agriculturist, even should he live to the age of Methusaleh has: something to learn every day of his life. If he be a man of education, the laws and operations of nature will be his constant study. I would give him therefore superior advantages; I would put -him in an institution which possesses greater advantages than -any other institution in the State; one which has the largest library in the State, and the best facilities for instruction and acquiring a knowledge of this particular branch in connection with all others. The State University has all these. advantages in a superior degree, and answers all these requirements.: The present location of the Agricultural College will condemn it, and render fatal its success under any circumstances. Thle dormitory system is the only one that can obtain there, and that has been abandoned all over the country. It has been asserted by the gentleman from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) that if the Agricultural College is made a department of -the University, it will be-made a" lean-to of the-University," and not be:placed upon an equal fboting with the other departments. Now I say that there is no distinction. made between the students of the University in the several fDepartments of literature, law and medicine; they all share alike in the privileges of the institution, and it would be the same with-the agricultural department, were it ad ded. The system adopted in the University is such that there is no class or caste. The young man is himself free to choose and compelled to acquire his own position. Everything is so arranged for the acquisition of knowledge, to plume the wings of enterprise and sustain the toil of honest industry, that there is no feeling of caste, or class created or existing among the students. I desire and design by my proposition to leave this question an open question with the Legislature; if this Convention is unwilling to make it a permanent thing in the Constitution, to leave it so that when- the time shall come,' if it shall ever come, that the people may feel that it. is best for the educational interests of the State-I would not touch it under any circumstances if it were not to unite these institutions, they may do so through their Legislature. If it shall be best for the educational and financial interests of the State, to leave these institutions both free, above political wrangling, that they may go on and prosper, united or disunited as-;the case may be, I would leave it so that when future experience shall have shed additional light upon the subject, the people of the State through their Legislature, may determine the matter of uniting these institutions or maintaining them separately as they may deem best, without having'the Constitution in their way. These are two institutions designedly, and in their intent, for the same object, in so far as the science of agriculture is concerned. A University formed like ours is intended to furnish the student with a complete education; that is the design of the University. And with this agricultural department there,.together with a military department, it will secure its design. Mr. President, I wish to say in regard to the endowment of the Agricultural College, that this rmagnifice~nt land grant which has been given by Congress to the agricultural colleges of this and the other States of the Union, has in other States been given to colleges already established. An agricultural college, as a separate college, has failed in every instance. The Agricultural College in this State has been and is an experiment; and it will, I believe, prove a failure, like all the rest. In the State of New York this umagnificent donation of land has been given or transferred by that State to the Cornell University, which is not a State institution like ours. In Rhode Island it has been given to the Brown 'University. Connecticut, Wisconsin, Illinois and Kentucky have foilowed the same plan; and, I am prompted by some one to add, so has Massachusetts. I think the result will be, in the end, that this State will follow the .wise example of these States, some of whom have tried the experiment of establishing institutions for education in agricultural science as a specialty, and failed. Two -hundred and forty thousand acres of land have been given to this State by Congress for the purpose of maintaining an Agricultural College, for instruction in agriculture, and the arts and sciences connected therewith. That two hundred and forty thousand acres of land is in this situation today; the board of commissioners appointed by the Legislature at its last session, has made the- selection of it. At least one-half of::it was selected by going to the land office and making selections, without further examination, Iam informed, from lands that had not been entered, and without knowing what kind of lands they were. The balance of the lands were.selected by persons authorized to make them upon examination; they are all of what are termed " wild lands;" the law of this State, I believe, fixes the minimum price at four dollars an acre. Mr. P. D. WARNER. Two dollars and a half. Mr. RICHMOND. Two dollars and a half is the minimum price per acre, the gentleman from Oakland states. Any gentleman who'has looked over the financial reports in the papers of the price of Agricultural College land scrip, will see that, with agricultural land scrip, he can buy land right alongside of these lands thus selected, at a cost of about sixty cents an acre. Mr. LEACH. No more agricultural scrip can be located in the State,f Michigan. The one million of acres, to which the amount to be located in each State is-limited, has already been located in this State. No more can be located here. Mr. RICHMOND. Be that as it may, the statement I have made is correct, so far as relates to the lands already located. Now, I ask, in that state of facts, where and how is the Agricultural College to receive any immediate pecuniary advantage or support from this land grant, under these circumstances? The probabilities are that these lands will not come into market for a great many years, not sufficient at least to maintain the Agricultural College. a 486 Wedlies4.ay, Jul 31 87 EAE - R(EDKS 8 I understand that within the last week there has been an architect over to the Agricultural College for the purpose of making plans and estimates for improvements, which they intend to present at the next session of the Legislature, if they do not use the fhnds already appropriated for that institution, and ask an appropriation of money therefor. The architect informed me that he estimated that such improvements as were contemplated and required there would not cost less than twenty or thirty thousand dollars. And these expenses are to go on continually under the present arrangement. Now, is it best, is it wise to place this institution in such a condition by a provision of the Constitution that the Legislature cannot take it in hand hereafter, and do what is best to be done, as the exigences at the time may indicate to be for the interest and welfare of the people? There should be but one feeling among the members of this Conven tion, and anong the people of this State, in regard to this institution. There should be no rivalry between the Agricultural College and the Universi ty. So far as my individual feelings are concerned, as I have already said, I have no feeling against the Agricul tural College. I would not remove it from where it now is, if it was, or I believed it could become, a success. If there was a disposition on the part of the Convention to place the University beyond the question of politics, - where it will no longer be the subject of dis cussion, then it should be placed upon a foundation where its success would be assured beyond question. There are rival institutions rising up in other States around us, and unless the Uni versity has some further pecuniary aid, it must decline. I do not mean it will go down; it cannot go down, but it will decrease in popularty and numbers, and decline in usefulness. Itl needs some further assistance. By taking the Agricultural College, and: the agricultural land grant, and uniting it with the University, you will place the institution beyond all contingency of ever being compelled to come to the State Legislature for any. further ap propriations. I say it without fear of contradiction, that the institution can be fully sustained and that the son of the agriculturist can obtain far greater advantages there under that arrangement than under any other. AMd theseutwo educational institutions of the State will not be obliged to come to the Legislature, or to the people for any further aid, either by appropriations of the publicwmoneys or by taxation. Permit me, sir, to read some ex tracts from a letter which I received 1 some time since from the President of the University. He says: " I wish to say first, that individually I do not wish to injure the Agricultural College. On the other hand, I have always endeavored according to opportunity, to help the State in all its enterprises; but if the people wish to know whether it would be more economical and wise to connect the Agricultural College with the University, then I must gIve my I candid judgment, as I would even if I was not connected with the University. There is not abranch of study pursued at the Agricultural College, that could not be pursued here just as well, and the most of them better. We have a large and excellent chemical laboratory, museums, libraries, lecture-rooms and Professors. Give us two more Professors, costing $3,000 a year, and we will agree to furnish better facilities for agricultural education than any agricultural college, so-called, in the United States. We Wvill charge Mich igan soldiers just what the authorities of the State think best. At present our charges are, (including all,) $20 the first year and $10 each subsequent year. "Why should we attempt to run two large institutions, when one, with little more than half the expense of the two, could be more efficient than two? "It is objected that we have no tarin. True -but experiment has unitormly proved, sooner or la-ter, that manual labor on a farm is not profitable to students when away from home studying for a year or two. The ex periments on the farm are of little practical value. We want to teach the theory; they have abundent time for practice all their life long. Again, if any, thought a farm abso lutely necessary, we would try to get one. It is objected that agricultural students would noti eel at home; would be regarded as a lower class, &c. I pronounce the objection false. I wish-to be emphatic upon this sub ject. This objection isfalse. It is'not made by men who know the facts. We have stu dents in our literary departments pursuing five different courses of study: the classical course, two scientific courses, a course in civil engineering, and a course in mining en gineering-and all are on one platform, equally respectable. "If we should add another course, (the agri cultural,) that would be equally respectable, Many of our students are the sons of farmers. Many of our graduates are farmers. What need I say more on the subject.? I have con dened into a few words the facts. Let me add; we have the largest University in the country, the pride of all educators in the na tion, an honor to the State. Will you help it? Will you concentrate your energies here? -You will certainly then be successful. Look at one other fact. The actual cost of running the University last year, including what was paid for debt on new buildings, ior repairs, for muiseums, library, care of grounds, and everything else, was $66,720; the whole number oi students was 1255; this make the expense per student less than $54. What other college can make such a showing? In these representations I have endeavored to be strictly correct." : Mr. President, I desire to have the members of this Convention place themselves on the record on this sub ject, that their decision may be placed before the people of the State. Mr. CONGER. It is recorded in Holy Writ, that an old patriarch in olden time, himself an agriculturist, when sorely pressed by his ene'mies, exclaimed in the bitterness of his heart -"Oh! that mine enemy would write a book.'?' The friends of the Agricul tural College heretofore, when pressed by their enemies all over the State, without"any particular plan of attack, without any particular record. in regard to the mode in which the warfare was to be carried on against them, might well have exclaimed —" Oh! that our enemies would write a book." That desire has this day happily been gratified. The gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. RIcHMOND,)- who represents the city in which the University of the State of Michigan is situated, who comes to this Convention from under the very drippings of the sanctuary, has not indeed written a book, but he has spoken a speech. And in addition to that, the President-of the University of the State of Michigan has condescended to interfere with the agricultural interests of the State of Michigan, and has written, not a book ex actly, but a letter which, if published, would equal in size a small book. His tory reproduces itself. The desire of the old patriarch, which could not be realized in his day-that he might place his enemies on the-record, and know where they were and how to meet them-is to-day fulfilled for the friends of the Agricultural College, for they have at least had written for them a book in the shape of a speech by the gentleman from' Washtenaw, (Mr. RICHMOND;) and sad to say, a long let ter from the President of the State University, attacking unwarrantably, unadvisedly, unfortunately, another educational institution dear to the peo ple of this State. Nsow, is it true that this Agricultural College is such a failure in the State of Michigan?- Is it so unworthy of the support of the people of Michigan? Is it so undesirable an institution for the farmers of this State, so useless in itself and so expensive? And does the president of the University desire to bring so useless an institution into the University? It would seem so. And in that same letter of the presi dent of the University-who has so unadvisedly and imprudently inter fered in a matter, in this Convention, with which it were not best he should have interfered-I say it as a friend of the University-he says in that same letter that if the Legislature will but give $15,000 a year more to the Uni versity, it can do something. The University, too, like the Agricultura!' College, has its "'daughters of the horse leach" abroad in the land, crying "give! give! give!" Now, why this attack of thle gentle man who pretends,-! say only who pretends to represent the University of Michigan upon this floor, because he happens to reside inlthe city where it is located —why this attack of the gentleman upon an institution equally I I t e I I e 0 t I t c c i i I i i i DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. Jiily 31 1867. 487 I I. i 488 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVEXTIOX. Wednesday, dear with the University to many of the people of this State? Why should he seek to spread upon our record, to go forth to the world, everything that can be said against a young and growing institution, in its early days of trial and difficulty? Is it to the credit of the State, that one educational institution should attack another? Cannot the two live together? Are universities and colleges in this State Kilkenny cats that they cannot live together, but must destroy each other? It would seem so. And yet, thank God, the gentleman does not represent the feelings of the people of Michigan in regard to the rivalry between the University and the Agricultural College. There is no real rivalry between them; there is no conflict of interest. They are both dear to the people; they have both been supported through the dark days of their early history, and they will both be supported hereafter. What is the motive for this attack? Men do not act in this world without a motive. What is the motive of the gentleman from Washtenaw (Mr. RionMpoD,) in this attack? What is the motive of the president of the University, in thus stepping beyond his province in this matter? Congress has giv en 240,000 acres of land to the State of Michigan for a particular and special purpose; that is, for an agricultural college, not for a university. What lands may be located in Michigan have been located. They are rich, valuable lands, and will hereafter bring in a vast fund for the support of the object for which they were given. And looking down through the vista of time, when the proceeds of this land will produce that vast fund, the gentleman from Washtenaw sees that glittering treasure which he would draw into Ann Arbor, and place at the disposition of the' State University there located. The president of the University sees a treasure there which he would seize and dispose of for the benefit of the University, that it may make the University great and prosperous, though the Agricultural College shall .be in ruins. Mr. RICHMOND. I rise to a question of order. Has the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoDGER,) the right to impngn my motives, after the declaration I have made? I feel it my duty also to state that in the letter which the president of the University wrote, and which I have read, he disclaimed any motive except a desire to promote the interest of all educational institutions; he disclaimed any feeling against the interests of the Agricultural College. I have deemed it necessary to make this explanation. Mr. CONGER. It is not necessary that the president of the -University should have any ill will towards the the Agricultural College, and still desire to grasp the treasure given to the State for the Agricultural College, and place it under the control of the University. He promises with that aid to render education to agricultural scholars cheaper in the University than it is in the Agricultural College. He assures this Convention that there is no caste in the University, that the agricultural scholar will be treated there as respectfully as any other scholar. Thank God, the sons of farmers in this State do not need the assurance of any president of the University, that they will be respected in Michigan according to their worth. They do not need the endorsement of a diploma of the University as to their merits, their worth and their relative standing on God's footstool. That is not one of the diplomas that can confer upon the farmers' sons of Michigan any additional honor or credit, or give them the entree into good society. Why this attack on the Agricultural College? Even with the proposition to make it a branch of the University, why this attack. upon it, if it be not to destroy it, which the gentleman disclaims? I say that the whole object of this assault, whether it be so in the intention of the gentleman or not, is to destroy the Agricultural College as a separate institution in this State, and to give certain means, or pretend to give certain means of education to the farmers' sons in the University, as a sort of recompense for seizing the grant of lands given by Congress to this State, for education in agricultural pursuits. When I was first in the Legislature of Michigan, in 1855, the A gricultural College was then in existence, having been established in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution of 1850. It was then engaged in struggling along for its existence. I have had the privilege, during six years of service in the Senate of this State, of voting at each of its sessions in favor of supporting the Agricultural College. Sometimes I have given my vote under protest in regard to itJs management, as other gentlemen on this floor have done, when they voted to appropriate the necessary funds to carry it on. I do not claim that that College has generally been managed as prudently as it might have been managed. I do not claim that it has done all the _ood it might have done, or graduated all the students it might have graduated. I do not know that those who have graduated there are of superior intellect; but I have never heard that they were not at least of equal grade with the generality of the graduates of our University. I had not supposed that the Agricultural College received in its bosom young men of talent, and turned them out idiots; the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. RICHMOND,) intimated as much, but it is new to me. I say this State has as a part of its policy supported the Agricultural College up to this time. It was started away off here in the wilderness; there was no house, no farm, no improvement of any kind there when it first commenced. Yet I say that if any one will go there to-day, and see the work of a few years, performed mostly by the students, in the improvements around that agricultural college and on its farm, if he will look at its hundred tons of hay, its many acres of wheat and corn, its garden, its orchard, its buildings, the stock that is there now, he will say that it has progressed as rapidly as -most institutions of that kind- have — progressed anywhere. I can remember the time when the University of Michigan had the most of its students in a little old building that stands on a little street back of the market in Detroit. The most of its students were huddled together in that building, as I saw them in 1837. That was not a very encouraging promise of the University of to-day; not as promising as the condition of the Agricultural College in its darkest days. I say the Agricultural College has probably not been conducted as well as its friends could have wished; but that affords no good ground for these attacks by its enemies. There seems to'- be a sort of chronic desire on the part of some persons in this State, not to support the Agricultural College, to encourage it, to give it character, to correct what is wrong about it; but to cry it down, until if possible they shall crush it from the face of the earth. The cry is raised here, in the very halls of our Legislature, that the farmers of Michigan are not in favor of that college. I tell gentlemen, that the farmers of Michigan, so far as I know anything about them, are in favor of the Agricultural College, and they mean to sustain it, and support it. I tell gentlemen that this Convention, or any other Convention, which shall attempt to destroy that school of the farmers, will be running counter to the views of the majority of the farmers throughout the State of Michigan, whatever may be thought of the College in the county of Branch, or the city of Coldwater. The gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LUCE,) shakes his head at me. The reason I speak upon this ques 488 CONSTR.UUTIONAL CONVENTION. W ednesda,y DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. tion at all-for I have no doubt how the vote will be upon it; I do not wish to argue it, or to influence gentlemen in their votes, even if my feeble voice would influence anybody-is to enter upon the records of our debates my protest as an individual against the attack upon this institution, made by the gentleman from Washtenaw (Mr. RICHMOND) who assumes to be, for the time being, the special guardian of the State University. I also desire to enter my solemn and earnest protest against the interference by the president of that University with this Convention in'the manner attempted here. I tell the friends of the University, the president, the regents, and every- body who assumes to have" any spe- cial interest in it, that the more they let the people of this State m'anage j their institutions aside from the Uni- t versity as they choose, the better the people will like the University, and the more will they be disposed to sustain it. It is with extreme reluctance that i the people of the State of Michigan consent to pay taxes. for the support of the University. Yet they have given some, and they are asked to give more and more and more. They are asked to have a perpetual tax fixed upon them by the Constitution beyond their t control, by which the University shall receive the money of the people of this State continually hereafter, although to-day it has enough for all the purpo- i es desired, enough in consideration of its present growth, with a fund continually increasing from the increasing sales of the University lands. Mr. President, if the friends of the University will take care of that insti- 1 tution, those who have it more especi- t ally in charge, if they will take care of i its welfare, and also lend a helpi'ng hand to the other educational institu- 1 tions of the State, I say, for one of the t people, that I shall be extremely gTati- [ fled; not that I much expect it, but it a would be gratifying to me. And I c believe I may venture to say, in behalf a of the people of the State, that they j would be extremely gratified if the special friends of the University would s exert their best energies in fostering fa that institution, and also in fostering h and encouraging other educational institutions, that are likewise dear to the C people of the State of Michigan. Mr. MIUSSEY. I do not feel willing c to allow this opportunity to pass, with- t out at least placing upon record my e protest against the attacks made upon f, the Agricultural College. That insti- s tution has very unfortunately always i met with' opposition from the day it was first organized. The cry has been incessant that it is a failure; that it k has not met the expe62 aton of its VoL 2 —No. 62,....... friends; and still more unfortunately, the gentleman who made this statethat cry has usually come from one ment, (Mr. RIcHMOND,) howfar had the and the same quarter. Now, I appre- University advanced at the time $238,hend that the Agricultural College has 000 had been expended upon it? The not met the entire wishes and expec- gentleman said in regard to that, that rations of its friends.. the State took away its fund. I believe The act organizing and creating the the record shows that they furnished Agricultural College was passed in the sum of $100,000 besides its endow1855. Very unfortunately it was lo- ment. They furnished it, in 1837; I cated in an entire wilderness, in the believe, by loaning its bonds, and the midst of heavily timbered land. That State paid those bonds. I admit that for I think was the greatest mistake that a number of years the interest on that has been made in regard to that insti- $100,000 was retained by the State. tution from its inception. But not- But in 1853 the Legislature passed an withstanding the difficulties it had to act requiring the Auditor General to encounter, those difficulties have in a pay over the entire amount, and ever great measure been overcome. And at since that time, although the State has the present time the Agricultural Col- paid the principal, the University has lege farm and its surroundings have received the interest on the entire arrived at that point where, in my amount of their fund. I think it was judgment,they ought to have been at the just; I voted for it; I claim that it was time the institution was located. They right. I claimed at the time that the have, from time to time, asked aij State had no right to take any portion from the Legislature in order to prose- 6f that fund and appropriate it for cute their work, in order to perfect the buildings, or for any other purpose; institution, and place it in a position but that the entire fund was to be kept where it might secure to its friends the a permanent fund, the interest on object which they sought to accomplish which was to be appropriated, annually by its establishment. to the University. I think the Legis But unfortunately there has come up lature acted justly and wisely in pay cry against it, that it ought not to be ing the $100,000 for the University., sllowed to have a separate existence, I think the attack upon the Agriculthat it ought to be connected with some tural College, in regard to its educaof the other institutions of the State; tional character, is unjust; I do not ad those who have fought it the most think it does justice to the institution. bitterly, have constantly claimed to be The gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. ts friends. I most earnestly pray to RICmO)ND,) says there have been be delivered from such friends; I do eighteen graduates from the Agriculaot think they would add much to its tural College in ten years. When the prosperity or its usefulness. College was organized, I apprehend it Originally the Agricultural College was not a part of its policy that every was placed under the control of the one of its students should be required board of education. And during that to pursue a regular course of four year's time, and continually up to this day, study. But ample provision was made .ts friends were very much dissatisfied for students to enter and pursue their and disappointed; so much so that at studies just so far as - they saw fit, and ast they insisted that it should be no further; they were at liberty to taken away from the control of that leave at any time, and very few stuboard and placed under the control of dents remained and went through the nother board. That was done; an- entire course. other board was created, the board of When~ the'Agricultural: College agriculture. And I submit to the good school was organized, they had all the udgment of every member on this students they could accommodate; in loor, whether the institution has not, fact it was found necessary toe make a succeeded better since then than be- provision giving to each county its pro fore. I believe that is conceded on all ratea of students. And it is so at the hands.' present vtime; the applications are And now there is an attempt not more than the school can accommoonly to take it fron the control of that date, and they have to be apportioned board, but also to place it under the among the counties pro rata. control of another board which has So far as the number of graduates been invariably hostile to its separate are concerned, how many graduates existence.'For my part, I would pre- were there from the University the fer at once to annihilate the institution, first ten years of its existence? I strike it 6ut of existence, and transfer know they have a very large number its funds and property to some other now, especially in the professions, institution. so many that there was an effort It has been said here that there have made here to provide for some been $238,000 expended upon the Ag- of those graduates by creating ricu.ltural College. Now, I would ask ofilces for them; for many of them, July 31, 1867. 489 a t 490 COSTUTIOAL COVENTIO. Wednesday, from what I know of them, must-have offices in order to obtain a living, for they have not brains enough' for anything else. An attempt was made to fuirnish offices for them by means of a.law. department, but the' effort d-'id not prevaiL -There has been no attempt made for the students inithe medical department; but I think there should be; for if they do not deal in little pills,'they deal in mighty small brains. I am not an enemy of the Universi — ty, or of any part of our educational system. But I say to the friends —of' the University here that if they continue to attack the other educational institutions of this State, as,' they have done for some years past, -the' time is not far distant' when there will be a feeling of hostility Xagainst the University, for they: will not be allowed to interfere with and control the entire educational in-' stitutions of this State. I find now' among' the people, much feeling against the University; I am sorry to see it, but such is the fact, because it is constantly pitching into all the other edu — cational institutions of the State. We need go back only to 1855, and see the feeling of hostility that institution exhibited against the independent col — leges. When a bill was introduced in the Legislature to provide for the organization of independent schools,-;colleges, and seminaries of learning' there' was the most despera'te contest over it, that I have ever seen in these halls. I will just refer those who h'ave any doubt about it, to the act which was finally passed, and ask them to examine the last section of it. Every means was resorted to to make th'e bill- odious and ridiculous, and this section was finally added to- it,'as a' monument to the wisdom and sagacity of its author:. I "Nothing in this act shall he construed as granting banking powers, or as:allowing the business ofbrokerage, or any other.pouwers. not usually granted to, or exercised by, in stitutions tbr educational purposes." That section was added to an edu cational act,, on' the'motion' of':'0one'. who was opposed to the Agriculturai' College, and in favor of the University. There it stands to-day, as any one:"can' see by examining the session laws: of 1855. Examine the journals' of- that' Legislature and of every' Legisl'atu~re:' since, and' see who have been th:e' friends of education, of universal education, not by means of the University: merely, but the Normal'School,0a.ndallmour our- other educational institu,-. tions; and then see who have:opposed those-other institutions,'and see wliere' those opponents have resided," and what their personal interests:have been: ''ow, I-W apprehend that- the:- Jniversity belongs to all the people'of Michi'gan, that all the people of Michigan have -an interest in' it, whether they live in Washtenaw county, Or'Branch county, or Macomb county., We have felt an interest in the Unmversity; we have received very' great benefit from it; more than from any other institution in the State; we feel proud of it. And I claim that in proportion to our population,' there is no county in the State, except Washtenaw, that has had a larger number of graduates of that .University than Macomb county. We are not disposed to cripple the University, or to kill it. But we are opposed to its swallowing up all the other institutions of the State.: We have been told that the Agricultural Colleges in the other States have proved failures,' and that this will 'prove a failure. I believe this.was the first Agricultural College of the kind in<, the United States. I have yet to -earn that'in very many of the States, 'the Agricultural Colleges have made very much advancement any way, that they-are more'than barely organized, if that. Some of the States I am aware, have appropriated the funds, which have accrued from the land grants — made by Congress to some institution of the'State, and as they claim are intending to connect with those institutions agricultural departments. If they in their wisdom see fit to adopt that-course, we certainly have no right to object. I will not say that it iS not a wise course; I am not pre pared, and do not wish to sit in judgment on their action. It is a matter I am not very much interested in. I only hope that whatever course they 'may adopt will prove successful. A" [great deal has been said- about the 'cost' of thfis Agricultural College; about the:$237,000 which has been expended ::on it. I agree with what the gentle-'man from' St. Clair (Mfr. CONGER,) has ' said' in that regard;'I do not think-the institution has been'managed remarkb:'ly well, so far as regards its finances. I have never thought that there has -been the most rigid economy exercised i'n them anagement of our'State'insti tutions. But I have yet to learn that the Agricultural College is an exception in that regard; that its expendi:'tures have been" more reckless and ::unwarranted that those of any other :institution of the State. I certainly :think we have received a better equiva:lent~ for the money expended upon the AgriCultural College, than for the -— money'expended'" upon the Normal School... I ask why the'gentleman from Washtenaw,' (Mr.- RIHosn,,) while he is about it, does'not propose to connect the Normal School -'with''the University? I will go with him in that direction. I think we have.received a great deal better equivalent for the. money expended here, than we have for the, money expended at Ypsilanti. But the gentleman does ndt see fit to ask to remove that institution to Ann Arbor. Yet it seems to me that it would be more appropriate to unite with the University'the institution at Ypsilanti than the Agricultural College. In addition to their fund, the institution at Ypsilanti has had about half as much from the State as the institution here has had. Some gentleman on this floor the other day undertook to make a'statement in regard to the comparative number of teaehers that the school at Ypsilanti had furnished of the whole number of teachers in the State. I thought then the number was small; I think so now.' If'the gentleman will change his tactics and go. for,,the school at. Ypsilanti, I will go with him heart and hand. I hope the Agricultuiiral College will be allowed to breathe easy for a little while, in order that the people may be allowed to decide fairly and candidly whether it is calculated to mneet their expectations; that it. may not be attacked in every Convention, and in every Legislature, and in every other place where the subject of education is agitated. In my judgment,' it has suffered more from these attacks' than it has from its bad management. I enter my protest against gentlemen getting up here and claim'ing to be friends of that institution and friends of education, while the legitimate effect of all they say and all' they do is to cripple and' hamper this institution. I hope the amendment of the committee of the whole will be concurred in, and that the Agricultural College will be left an independent institution, as independent of the University as the University is independent of the Agricultural College.''' Mr. LEACH. There is only a single point in the remarks of the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. tolilomn,) to which I wish to call the attention of this Convention. In referring to the 'lands which have been granted to the Agricultural College, and the selections which have been made, he intimated that those selections have not been made with care; at least that a portion of them were lands which could not be sold for a long period of time, inasmuch as there were lands alongside of them which could be bought cheaper. There'are more than a hundred thousand acres of those Agricultural College lands in the district which I represent. I kn6w that many thousand acres of those lands will sell as soon as t I 6 t CONSTITUTION,AT, CONVENTION. 490 Wedliesda - - Y) J 1.... E D. IS... they are offered in market. Almost every day, when I am at home, I am applied to by strangers for information as to whether they can purchase Michigan Agricultural College lands. I know there are large tracts of those lands which will sell readily as soon as they can be reached. I am assured that as soon as the balance of those lands have been selected, and I understand that arrangements have been perfected for doing so, the whole will be patented to the State, and the State will at once put them in market. So that the time is very near when a large fund will be derived from the sale of those lands. I am not speaking unadvisedly upon this subject, because I know that in the region of the.State which I represent there are large tracts of these lands which will find a ready sale as soon as they are placed in market. The people in many neighborhoods there are becoming impatient to get hold of these lands. And I have sometimes been applied to for information as to whether they could safely enter upon them, in advance of their being brought into market, and pay for them afterwards. M1r. CHAPIN. I do not desire to protract this discussion; I wish simply to call the attention of the Convention to one or two positions taken by thegentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. RIcHmoND.) He has read a letter from President Haven, of the University, in which that learned gentleman quite earnestly, and at some length, argues in favor of the consolidation of the Agricultural College with the State University, upon the ground that a better and less expensive agricultural educa tion could be afforded to the young men of the State, than if the Agricul tural College were continued as a sepa rate institution. In reply to this point made by the gentleman, I wish to cite the opinion of President Haven on this,same sib ject, expressed under somewhat differ ent circumstances in 1863, and thus offset the views of Senator Haven of Massachusetts, in 1863, against those of President Haven, of the Michigan University in 1867. And I will here remark, should there appear to be a slight discrepancy in the opinions of the learned President on these differ ent occasions, it may possibly be ex plained by reference to the opposite stand-points which he occupied. At any rate, sir, it is not for me to recon cile-these apparent contradictions. I leave the congenial task -to the gentle man from Washtenaw, through whose agency they are ventilated on this floor. '1n1863 Dr. E. O. Haven was. a member of the Massachusetts State Senate, and chairman of a special com mittee on the Agricultural Collge. His report takes strong ground agsain uniting the Agricultural College-with any other institution, and contains a report of a sub-committee, expressi the opinion,;" that it (the college) should recognize the principle of dailymanual labor by its students, as essential to success." Not a word is said in the report of any other plan, while the law proposed by Dr. Haven's commit'tee, provides for a farm of at least one hundred acres, and that the board of trustees of the College should make such provision for the manual labor of the students: on said farm, as th:ey may deem just and reasonable."' I submit, sir, whether the opinion of Dr. Haven in 1863, aschairman of the joint committee on the Agricultural College of Massachusetts, and having the interests of that institution at heart, as he must have had, is not of more force and authority with us here, in the consideration of this subject, than the opinion of President Haven, of the Michigan State JUniversity, having a particular regard. to the prosl erity of the institution over -which' he presides, as read to us, from his letter by the gentleman from Washtenaw? The gentleman charged that the Agri cultural College had been in existence for ten years, and had only graduated eighteen students in that time, at an expense of five thousand dollars -each. In reply to this, I wish to call the at tention of the Convention to the report of the president of the Agriculttural College for 1859: The college has been in opperation every-. year and every term, from the start, with va-. rying numbers of students, fifty-one being the lowest, and the average for the ten years be-. ing eighty-seven, an average much greater than the University had in the first ten years of its existence. "The total number of students has been one hundred and eight; filling our rooms com pletely full, and obliging us to turn away over thirty applicants, besides giving out word before the middle of the term, that we could accommodate no more." It has been stated on this floor on good authority, that last spring, over one hundred students were refused,admission to the Agricultural College for want of room, and other accommodatiots. There is no doubt quite a disproportion between the graduates, andthose who have, taken part- of the course of instruction prescribed at this institution; but this disproportion. is no greater than was the case during the first years of the existence- of the University, and most of -the other colleges of the State. -And:to urge this as an objection against the; Agricultnral College, evinces that lack of candor andfairness, which has heretofore characterized the attacks made by -its opponents. : The gentleman from Washtenaw 'also made disparaging remarks in regard to the character of the scholarship of the students graduating from that m~stitution, as well as the smallness of -the number. Iwish to read an extract from the' report of 1866, referring to that point. President Abbott says: The college at this time loses the services of ProfessorG Clute. He was graduated at this college. After servin- some time in the army, and pursuing the studies, calculus and industrial drawing at the University of M'ch igan, he was elected Professor of Mathematics in this - college, where he has given the 'best of satisfaction. Albert J. Cook, another graduate, supplies his place. Four of the graduates of the college, are employed in the college." * * * * * * " A class of six was graduated in the au tumn of 1861. All but one of them joined Gen. Fremont's corps of the army, as engineers. Two of the number died'in the United Utates' service. One of them is Professor of Botany, andanother is foreman of the farm at- the college.: Five young men were graduates the nextyear, 1862. One of them has held the Professorship of Mathematics an this college, and his place made vacant by resignation, is to be supplied by another of the graduates of the same year. Five more were graduated in 1864, and two in 1866. One of the grad.uates of 1864 is now assistant Chemist in this .college; he has held this position for twoyears, spends the winter in the Laboratory of the Scientific Schopl of Harvard University, and will return to the college in the spring./'l he services of our graduates are widely sought. Applications for graduates to serve as col lege officers, have conie from three at least, of the other.States. Two of those connected withthis college have been employed as ag ricultural editors in Detroit or Chicago, du. 'ring the winter vacations, and unsuccessfully tempted by the offer of larger salaries to aban don. their college for permanent places else where. Several of our graduates are farm ers, standing high in their calling, while all the graduates hold an honorable position in. society. They have contributed to the cor-. respondence of the Department of Agricul ture in Washington; have delivered educa:tional: addresses,' and participated, in other -States, in the discussion, through citypapers, of agricultural education. Whatever their employment, they show that the peculiar character of the instruction imparted here .was:strongly [impressed upon them. Many who have not graduated have left our higher classes, afterqualifying themselves for schools of mining or medicine, or other professions. Not a few have come for our Chemistry, our Botany,.and Physiology alone, so that the benefits of'our peculiar course are not-to be measured solely by our number of gradu ~ates.": : It appears to me, sir, that these facts deduced from official documents, most completely/answer all the objections made by the gentleman from Washtenaw against this young institution struggling for existence, and sought to be crushed, not only by the University and its friends, but by the influence of most of the other colleges of the State. These facts, it strikes me, sir, afford :an unanswerable argument in favor of placing that institution upon a Secure and permanent basis, by Striking out -the —clause empowering thle Legislature to attachit to'the University, and thus making it'what its founders mtendeda it should be, "an Agricultural College, July 31, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 491 4 I CONSTITUTION A l CONVENTION. for the encouragement of agriculture, and the scientific pursuits connected therewith." Do this, sir, and you settle "forever and for aye," the question of the existence of the Agriculutral College. You remove from it an incubus which has well nigh weighed it down, and you effectually prevent its enemies from making it a subject of agitation and discord with future Legislatures, as has been the case in the past; and thereby enable it more speedily to become one of the great and beneficent educational institutions of our State. I hope the amendment of the committee of the whole will be concurred in by the Convention. Mr. LUCE. I would inquire very respectfully, what is the question before the Convention? The PRESIDENT. The first question is upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole, by striking out the words, "support and maintain," and inserting in lieu thereof the words, "provide for the support and maintenance of." Mr. LUCE. My recollection was that that was the question before the Convention. But my mind had been so led astray by listening to my agricultural friends here, those hard-fisted farmers who have been discussing this Agricultural College, and other State institutions so mich, that I had almost forgotten what was the question before us. I think this amendment of the committee of the whole is a firstrate amendment, and I hope we will -have a vote upon it, and then by and by, in two or three days, or, at least, before the Convention finally adjourns, when the, motion is made to strike out this section, the whole question of the Agricultural College will come up properly for consideration. I trust the vote will now be taken upon this amendment; it is a good one, and should be adopted. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon concurring in the first amendment of the committee of the whole to this section, being to strike out the words "support and maintain," and to insert in lieu thereof the words "provide for the support and maintenance of;" so that the section will read: "The Legislature shall provide for the support and maintenance of an Agricultural Colleges' etc. The amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in. The PRESIDENT. The next question is upon concurring in the other amendment of the committee of the whole to this section, to strike out, after the words?' Agricultural College," the words" and may make the same a department of the University." Mr. PRINGLE. In the discussion which has taken place here, the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. RicHMOND,) and the other gentleman, representing the institution located at Ann Arbor, who has sent his letter here, seem to be totally oblivious of the purpose for which a separate Agricultural College was founded in this State. We have a State comprising territory extending through many parallels of latitude, and with greater differences in climate than the latitude would seem to call for; with great diversity of interests upon every parallel, with oak openings, beech and maple lands, pine lands, hill lands, and valley lands, with all varieties of soil, indeed; there seems to be more variety in Michigan than in most of the other States. There is a great variety in the products of our farms, a great variety of animals, insects and other things, which are a trouble, an annoyance, a detriment, and a curse to our agriculture. Here' in such a State as this, under such circumstances, it was judged proper, twelve years ago, with a view to studying the natural laws which affect these different things, to found an institution of learning; and upon that idea, as I understand it, the Agricultural College was founded. Now, although it has escaped the attention of the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. RIcHMoND,) and the attention of the President of the University, yet the farmers of this State, a great many of them, understand pretty well that should the investigations which may be had at such a college as this add a single pint to the produce of each acre of wheat in the State, or an ounce to each fleece of wool, or deduct a penny from the cost of raising ant acre of wheat, or the keeping of a sheep a year, this saving or addition will far more than compensate for the expense of keeping up the Agricultural College. I am aware that this Convention is somewhat weary of this discussion; but I am aware that the idea suggested by the gentleman from Washtenaw is the idea which, more than any other, perhaps, has weighed upon this Agricultural College, and retarded its advancement; that idea is pretty well understood throughout this State. It-is pretty well understood that, totally oblivious of the great purpose of developing the sciences connected with agriculture, and, whether they khow it, almost entirely selfish in the motives which lead them to make the proposition, this attempt has been "frequently made in our Legislature, and has been as often repulsed. I think the'attempt winl be again repulsed, and that we will not put in our Constitution a provision which will invite this attempt to be made everyyear in the Legislature for the purpose of overthrowing this institution, or connecting it with another, which would amount to its overthrow. All time and all history teaches us that if a science has been developed rapidly, whether law, medicine, the exact or the natural sciences, instruction in the languages, or anything else, if any department of knowledge or of science has been developed rapidly, it has been done by institutions devoted more particularly to that particular subject. They were such institutions which for a long period kept alive what knowledge there was in the world. - It was from the laboratories connected with the schools in the world that have come nost of the improvements in the sciences there taught. And- yet the President of the University of Michigan seems totally oblivious to the idea that it is by just such means that science was developed. I was surprised when I read the report of the committee- on education; I was surprised that.. any committee should make a report containing any such clause as this, having no particular importance in itself, except as it was a thrust at the Agricultural College. And I was surprised that the gentleman from Washtenaw (Mr. RIcHaMOD,) should renew that often repulsed attack upon the Agricultural College. But I was more greatly surprised when I found the president of the University, disregarding what t supposed every scholar knew; what I supposed every president of the University knew; entertained as a cherished idea what would sweep away an institution designed for the development of a particular science. I have reverted to facts enough to show that there are particular sciences which ought to be developed in order to make our agriculture what it should be. But I rose to revert to this idea which has been neglected by the president of the University, which has been neglected I think, by the committee which reported this section, containing this thrust at the Agricultural College. Mr. WILLARD. Is the gentleman aware that substantially the same provision exists in the present Constitution? Mr. PRINGLE. I was aware that there was something of the kind. But I had supposed that the twelve years -idependent existence of the Agricultural College, founded upon an idea which we are wont to be proud of when we are out of the State, might have led us to dismiss that old provision from our Constitutio/, and dismiss all fear from the minds of those who are favorable to that development, which would 492 Wednesday, o, July~~~ 31 87 EAE N R(EDN- 9 make our agriculture better, and our State richer as well as wiser? Mr. WILLARD. I rise simply for the purpose of removing any nimpression which might obtain in the Convention in regard to the action of the UJniversity, or the feeling which prevails in the University in regard to the Agricultural College, or any other institution of the State. I repel the charge entirely that the University has any other feeling than kindness and generosity towards any other institution of the State. -Neither has there been, so far as I know, any action for many years past-I do not know that there has -ever been any action on the part of the board of regents of the University looking towards the absorption of the Agricultural College, or the removal of the Agricultural College to Ann Arbor. -I would sa, that individual members of the board of regents have been of the opinion that such a thing would not be desirable; and there are members of the faculty of that institution who entertain the same opinion. Not long ince, in conversation with an eminent member of that faculty, I learned that it was his decided opinion that an ag ricultural department would be rather an incumbrance to the University than an advantage to it. I say this to re move any impression which the Con vention might obtain in regard to the action of the board of regents, or of the faculty of the University, in regard to this matter. I would say, however, that when it was found that the State of Tllinois was devoting her land grant appropria tion for the purpose of establishing one industrial university, when it was found that the-tate of New York was doing the same thing, many gentle men having the interests of education in this State at heart, indulged in the opinion that it might be best for Mich igan to take the same course. For myself~ I would say that having given considerable attention tp this subject, I am of the opinion that since the Agricultural College has been es tablished and has been fostered thus far as an independent institution, it might be well for this Convention to decide at this time whether it should be the policy of this State hereafter to discontinue that institution or not. I am satisfied that the prevailing opin ion in this Convention is that that in stitution should not be discontinued. And I am of the opinion that a large majority of the people of this State are of the opinion that that institution should not be discontinued. And since permanency in all these institutions is so desirable, I think it best on the whole that the amendment made by the committee of the whole should be concurred it. Let it be made a fixed fact that the Agricultural College must be sustained; let us take hold and- make a united effort to put that institution in a condition where it may be prosperous under the large grant which has been made to — the institution. Of course the State will have to provide the buildings, but that is about all that we will have to provide. I think the grant of land, with the provision which will be made- for buildings, and with perhaps some slight appropriations for a few years, will be sufficient to place it in a condition of prosperity, and of increasing usefulness. I believe that Michigan is large enough for these two institutions to flourish in it. And since the industrial interests of the State are so great, and since education in regard to those industrial interests is somewhat different from a professional educatioln, as the Agricultural College has already been established, it seems to me it would be good.pollcy to give it all the encouragement within our power. I say this in order to disabuse the Convention of any wrong opinion in regard to the position which Imight appear to have in relation to this subject, from my present official connection with the University. - Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I rejoice to hear the noble sentiments ut tered by my friend from Calhoun, (Mr. WT,T,^ARD,) who is so deeply interested in the University. I rejoice to hear him endorse the amendment made by the committee of the whole to this sec tion. I feel some interest in the suc cess of that amendment. I feel a deep interest in the welfare of the Agricul tural College. It is claimed by some gentlemen on this floor that the Agri cultural College had its commencement in 1855. I will disabuse these gentle men, by telling them. that the founda tion of that college was laid in 1850, when I had the honor of being a mem ber of the committee that reported the article in which was contained the pro vision establishing that college. I then urged the establishment of an agricul fur/1 college; and I therefore feel a deep interest in the success of this amendment.' I hope the amendment of the com mittee of the whole will be concurred in. I claim in part the paternity oi the section in the present Constitution, under which the act organizing the col lege was passed. I was a member of the committee that reported the sec tion, and I urged its adoption in the Constitution. I hope to see the Agri cultural College prosper. I feel a deep interest in the University, and I hope it will prosper. It does prosper, and it has obtained a high eminence among the literary institutions of the country. I delight in it; I rejoicein it. And I hope to see our Agricultural College take a foremost stand, as it now has, among the agricultural colleges of the country. - I visited that college soon after its commencement; it was then in a rough, rude state. I have visited it occasionally since; I have visited it within a week or two past, and now, instead of the forest that I saw when I first went there, there are three hundred acres of land under cultivation, all well fenced; the crops are looking finely, and everything- appears to be in a prosperous condition. I rejoice in it. I hope to see this amendment of the committee of the whole concurred in. Mr. LONGYEAR. Itis perhaps entirely unnecessary to consume any further time, or to have consumed even as much time as there has been consumed, in the discussion of this subject. I apprehend there can be no doubt as to what the result of the vote will -be upon this question. Still, situated as I am, I cannot let the question pass without at least, in a brief manner, placing my self upon the record in regard to it. Neither do I feel satisfied to let it pass entirely without some remarks in relation to some attacks which have been made upon the Agricultural Col lege. The gentleman from Washte naw, (Mr. RICHMOND,) like myself, re sides in a city particularly interested in the institution which he advocates, and therefore should be entitled to credit only for such argements as he may make, and not for any personal wishes he may express, the same as myself. I propose to make an equal set-off, so far as that is concerned. I do not expect my own personal wishes to have any influence here upon this question. The gentleman tells us, as the meas ure of the success of the Agricultural College, that it has graduated eighteen students in the last ten years, as he says, at an expense of five thousand dollars each. From some answers L which he made to some interrogatories which were put to him, I conclude that b in that he includes the'entire expense of all the instruction given in that col lege during the time mentioned; he puts it all upon the eighteen students L who have graduated and received their f diplomas.} Does the gentleman sup, pose this Convention is blind to the act, a fact at least which I personally [ know, that a large number of young -men have been educated in that institution, who have never graduated - or received their diplomas? A large number of young men have received [ valuable edu cation there, and havegone h a c I 0 c ir t I .t c s t DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 493 July 31, 1867. 0 494 COSTITUTIONAL COVETIO. Wedlleday, from there accomplished students, but have not graduated, and have not received diplomas. With what is he to offset all those advantages and benefits, the expense of which he includes in the five thousand dollars each for the eighteen who have seen fit to graduate and take their diplomas? Those young men have thus been educated there by the score, who have not received diplomas. That institution has been filled to overflowing from its' commencement. It was filled last year, and three hundred applicants were turned away for'want of accommodations. Is not the Agricultural College a success? After ten years of existence only, spending its infancy, not in developing an old improved farm, not in using tools and instruments, and all the paraphernalia of such an institution furnished ready to hand, but in making - them, is it not a success? Who is there, who has had anything to do in any connection whatever with clearing wild land, who does not know that a farmer under any circumstances cannot begin to thrive and get rich until after ten years at least of toil in clearing away the forests, until after the timber has been cleared away, and the land has been bronght into a' proper state of cultivation? He who supposes that the mere clearing, off the timber is to bring the land into cultivation knows nothing About such matters. I profess to personally know something about such things, for I am something of a farmer myself. I have myself been engaged, during nearly the whole period of the-existence of the Agricultural College, in clearing up a farm. And I know it takes years of good cultivation to bring land into a proper state to develop its capabilities. And that is not all this infant institution has had to contend with. During that whole period it has had to contend with just the kind of attacks which have been made upon it here. Is it right to place an institution in the condition-that was -in at the start, with'everything to contend with in regard to the material furnished to it, and then attempt to beat it upon the head at every-opportunity, and cry out, "no success," especially when it has succeeded so well, in spite of all its disadvantages? I say it is most ungenerous treatment, and if applied to an individual, it might be called unchristian. The gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. RIcHMOND,) developes the motive and the animus of this whole controvery, when he says that the University needs aid, -"needs aid." -Yes, Mr. President, that is it. It is not for the purposes of increasing the facilities of agricultural education; not for the purpose of affording to the farmers of this State the facilities and advantages of educating their sons in the sciences peculiarly adapted to their pursuits, that this change is asked.' It is for aid to the University; it is that the University may grasp the whole of this munificent donation to the Agricultural College; that is the animus of this whole movement. The gentleman says-and but for his declaration I think it would have been difficult for any one to have come to that conclusion that he is a friend to the Agricultural College. The President of the University in his remarkable letter-more remarkable by the side of and in contrast with the statements made by him when he was chairman of the committee on the Agricultural College of Massachusetts, in the Massachusetts Legislature, and which were read by the gentleman from Gratiot, (Mr. CHAPIN.)-the President of the University says that he is a friend of the Agricultural College. It strikes me that they are about as mucli the friends of the Agricultural College as the Quaker was to the robber whom he met while he was crossing the stream. The robber attempted to rob him, but the Quaker, being a powerful, athletic man, seized the robber by the hair, and thrust his head under the water, saying as he did so- "Friend, I will neither hurt thee nor harm thee, but I will make thee so that thee cannot kick;" All the arguments made here in favo.r of retaintinig this clause in this section, look towards making the Agricultural College at once a branch of the University. Now, the question before this Conventi6n is, whether that institution shall be longer held in suspense, or whether that suspense shall now be terminated by the action of this Convention; that is the question. It isnot whether it shall be made a branch of the University now or at any future time, but whether this controversy in that regard shall be resumed hereafter. For one, knowing what I do about the effect of this very suspense upon this institution, I regard it better that the institution be wiped out at once- for that will be the ultimate effect of what is here proposed-and its funds and property given to the University now, than that it should be held longer in suspense. And if the alternative were presented now —I will not undertake to say which horn of the dilemma I would choose. But my impression is that it would be better to have it aligo to the University at once, than to have the matter held longer in suspense. - It was well to place such a provision as this in the Constitution of 1850; it was wise to place it there, for up to that time an agricultural school or col!Lege, as a separate institution, was an antried experiment. As has been truth fully stated here, our Agricultural College was the first experiment of the kind. And I say it was wise to place such a provision in the Constitution of 1850, so that in case it should not prove a success as an independent institution, it might be made a branch of the University. But after the ten or twelve years of trial which the Agricutural College has had, cannot we now determine whether it shall or shall not take that course? So long as this provision remains in the Constitution this controversy will continue. And, here let me say that, from my own personal knowledge and observation, from my almost daily intercourse while at home with the professors of the Agricultural College,.I know that the very fact that this controversy has been pending, and has been pursued so inveterately and incessantly from session to session'of the Legislature, has proved one of the greatest drawbacks of the prosperity of that institution. They have always been in doubt, always in suspense, not only in regard to the continued existence of the institution, but in'regard to the aid absolutely necessary to its continued successful existence. This controversy has been waged not only in regard to the main question of the transfer of the College to the University, -but, as ancillary to that, the controversy has gone to the extent of seeking to deprive the institution, as far as possible, of its necessary sustenance. I do not speak unadvisedly when I make that declaration. This controversy is not yet at'an end, so far as the University is concerned; and unless we end it here one way or the other, it will be continued hereafter. I make this declaration upon good evidence of the fact. The very letter ofrthe Presidcent of the University, sent here to be interpolated into our proceedings and debates upon this subject, is the best of evidence that this controversy has not yet been given over. It is true that the success of the Agricultural College has been so great, in spite of all its disadvantages, and it has gained such a hold upon-the affections of the people of the State, that at the last session of the Legislature, as I am told, the controversy took a much milder form than it had before assumed. The issue was not made at the last session of the Legislature upon the direct transfer of the college to the University, which is an evidence of the hold-the institution has obtained and is maintaining upon the confidence of i ,(-,'ONSTITUTIONA'L CONVE.WTION. Wedliesday, 494 0 Juy3,16.DBTS \ RGEI~ 9 the people. But the controversy is not given over, nevertheless, although it was not raised in the last session of the Legislature, except incidentally. It comes up here now in a direct, positive form, from the President of the University himself. I said the controversy was not raised directly at the last session of the Legislature. But I am informed that it was raised incidentally, by opposition to the sustenance of the College, and the continued maintenance and support of it. Appropriations to it were opposed and fought with -the same degree of ran cor as in former Legislatures. That is one of the branches and forms of the controversy, one of the means by which the controversy, is carried on by the University. I do not wish to be understood as saying anything here against our Uni versity. WVith the whole people of the State, I amn proud of that institution. At home or abroad, wherever I may go, our University is spoken of in glowing terms; it is a pride and an honor to the State of Michigan. As one of the friends of the University, I do not wish to see it belittled and dragged down into controversies of this kind with other institutions of the State. Let it occupy its own sphere; let it continue to stand upon the high pedestal where it has been placed; and let it permit other institutions to gain and occupy equally high positions, and add luster to the honor and fame of this State abroad. Sir, I desired to say this much mainly for the purpose of urging the proposi tion which I have stated. Release this Agricultural College from the suspense in which it has been and is now placed; relieve it from the controversy against which it has had to contend; relieve its hands from this burden, from this bondage, if I may so speak, and give it freedom to rise to its full develop ment and capabilities, and then we shall be able to see what it may do, and what it may accomplish. If it has been able to accomplish what it has under all these restraints, under this burden, against this continued in veterate controversy, what may it not do when relieved from this burden? Believe it then and give it freedom; or end its existence at- once. - Mr. NORRIS. I desire to be heard somewhat upon this matter. But asit is now after twelve o'clock, I will move that the Convention now take a recess. Mlr. TURNER. Will the gentleman withdraw that motion for a moment? MIr. NORRIS.- Certainly. PETITION. VIr. TURNER. I ask unanimous consent at this time to present a petition which I did not have ready this morning when petitions were called for. It is the petition of James R. Cook, James Marshall, C. P. iJudson, Robert McKnight, Dr. E.G. Beckworth, William S. Maynard, Jr., and 515 other citizens of the Saginaw Valley, praying for a well secured system of license for the sale of wines and liquors. I ask that the petition be received and referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. No objection was made, and the petitfion was received and referred accordingly. Mr. NORRIS. I now renew the moti6n that the Convention take a recess. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at ten minutes past twelve o'clock p. m.,) the Convention took a recess until half-past two o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at halfpast two o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PEESIDENT. The roll was' called, and a quorum of members answered to their names. EDUCATION-AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE. The PRESIDENT. At the time when the Convention took its recess, it had under consideration the article entitled "Education," and the pending question was on concurring in the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, striking out in section nine, the words, "and may make the same a department of the University," so that the section will read — "The Legislature shall provide for the support and maintenance of an Agricultural College, for instruction in agriculture and the natural sciences connected therewith." Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, I do not desire to go at length into the disCussion of this particular question; but during the debate this morning, so far as I heard it, there were several criticisms, unfair, as I deemed them, in regard to the educational institution located in our county. I therefore deem it advisable to say a few words on the main question now before the Convention. I know, Mr. President, that it is almost impossible to discuss a question of this character in the manner in which it ought to be discussed. It has so'long and so largely entered into the politics of this State, exercising so wide an influence upon the legislative bodies that have met at various times in these halls, that whenever the ques tion is presented in any form or shape, some ancient member of the Legisla. ture rises, and recalling all his old prejudices, recollecting all the battles which he has fought over, he drags them into this Convention, going per haps far out of his way for the purpose of reviving those old questions, when, as a matter of fact, they have nothing to do with the subject under'consideration. There are two classes of prejudices which we have to meet upon this question; or,/to speak in other terms, we are called upon to meet two classes of combatants, both having been fitly represented upon this floor this morning. One class comprises those who speak for "Buncombe"-who desire to make some little capital in -tleir own peculiar localities: out: of this great question of education, or rather'out of this'great interest of the farmer, which, as some gentlemen seem to suppose, is rudely assailed.@ Therefore,- these gentlemen rush into: the arena to -defend the hard-handed -:farmers, who' desire that this grant shall be appropriated for the education of their.:children. Gentlemen of this- class never discuss the merits of the question. They never come exactly to the point; but they talk around it-they feel it, as-it were, in a gentle, quiet way. - — They illustrate sometimes their own learning, and sometimes the opposite. They are fitly characterized by the language of Gold smith when he describes a character who doubtless subsequently became in public life a member for "Buncombe," but who was at that time a schoolmas ter. If I can recollect the lines, I will repeat them: "The village all declared how much he knew; 'Twas certain he could write and cipher too. *, * * * * * * In arguing too the parson owned his skill, For e'en though vanquished, he could argue still While words of learned length and thund'ring sound, Amazed the gazing rustics ranged around. And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew, That one small head could carry all he knew." There is another and a different class, representing the prejudices of the com munity. They are not perhaps as intel ligent as "the member for Buncombe." They have not the same capacity, the same play of words, the same admi rable manner of adapting themselves to the various phases of human life and action, with a witticism for one and an anecdote for another. They represent the strong, broad, robust prejudices of the community. They represent men who have the same dis taste and aversion for a man of educa tion, that some of the "roughs" of New York have for a clean shirt-men who cannot recognize in: any one who has had the misfortune to receive a University education, either knowledge or intelligence, or merit of any kind. They hammer away with their preju dices on every occasion; and because an institution occupying the position of the University of Michigan, not surpassed in some of its departments (for instance, the astronomical depart ment) by any other institution in the July 31, 1867. .DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 496 OOSTITUTIOAL COVET~O. Wednesday, world, has turned out some poor scholars, they attack the institution. Now, sir, the men of this type are, I think, so aptly described in a poetical quotation which I remember to have read, that I have sent to the library for the volume, and will read it for the benefit and amusement of the Convention: "One man there was-and many such you might Have met-who never had a dozen thoughts In all his life, and never changed their course;But told them o'er, each in its'custom'd place, From morn till night, from youth till hoary age. Little above the ox which grazedthe field His reason rose: so weak his memory The name his mother called him by he scarce Remembered; and his judgment so untaught That what at evening played along the swamp, Fantastic clad in robe of fiery hue, He thought the devil in disguise, and fled With quivering heart and winged footsteps home. The word philosophy he never heard Or science; never heard of liberty, Necessity, or laws of gravitation; And never had an unbelieving doubt. Beyond his native vale he never looked, But thought the visual line that girt him round, The world's extreme, and thought the silver moon, That nightly o'er him led her virgin host, No broader than his father's shield He livedLived where his father liveddied where he died; Lived happy, and died happy, and was saved. Be not surpirised: he loved and served his God." Now, sir, the gentlemen of these two classes, the very moment a great educational question arises here,-get up and illustrate their own peculiar views. But, MIr. President, I beg pardon for having been betrayed into remarks which have not, perhaps, a very close connection with the question before the Convention. What is that question? Allow me to brush aside all these cobwebs with which the subject has been enveloped, and come directly to the question before us. Let us try to avoid these little matters of detail, and rise to the level of a great principle; for there is a great principle underlying this question a vital principle which this Convention is to settle, and I trust settle properly, for a long period of years. The United States gave to the State of Michigan a grant of land-for what purpose? It has been assumed upon the floor of this Convention, that this grant was given for the purpose of founding an Agricultural College. Sir, that is not true. The government of the United States did not make this grant for the purpose of founding an Agricultural College, as such. -The government of the United States was too wise tot impose upon this State, comparatively in its infancy, the burden of founding and forever fostering and protecting an. institution devoted to any single specialty. What was the language of the act making this grant? It provided that the net proceeds of a quantity of land, equal to thirty thousand acres for each senator and representative in Congress to which the State might be entitled, should be "inviolably appropriated to the endowment, support and maintenance of at least one college, where the leading object shall be without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts." That grant was bestowed on the State as a trust. Under that grant, the Legislature in its wisdom has seen fit to organize our Agricultural College. I for one have no attack to make on that institution. I wish it were greater, nobler, more pqwerful than it is; and the reason it is not greater, nobler, and more powerful, is simply because it has been founded in the pursuit of a principle which cannot prevailin the present condition of society in the State. It is devoted to the development of one particular speciality. Now, I say that the State should enter upon education in its widest and most noble sense, not simply education in agriculture, or in any other single special branch, but the general development of all the powers of the mind, and a11 the powers of the body, the buailding up of a harmonious and wellbalanced man. This is education in its true sense; and in this sense the State ought always to foster and pro-' tect the interests of education. With this view, believing it wrong in prin ciple for the State to enter upon education in any special branch, I would, if I were a member of the Legislature, vote against any such undertaking, in whatever form or shape it might be presented. Now sir, the agriculturists of this State, although their number may exceed that of any other class —although they may exercise great political power (and here lies the secret of this whole thing,)-are no more entitled to any special advantages by the creation of an institution particularly set apart for their benefit,-than are any other classes. Nor do they rask it. If it is the duty of the State to provide for the education of the agriculturist, it is equally the duty of the State to provide for the education of the carpen. ter, the cordwainer, and the mechanic of whatever class or gTader It is-as much the duty of the State to provide for the special education of one class, as for the special education of another. But sir, I maintain that it is contrary to all correct principles for the State to enter upon any system of special education; and when a Legislature or a Constitutional Convention enters upon any scheme looking in that direction, every step taken leads farther and farther into error, until eventually it reaches such a result as we now see exhibited in the Agricultural College an institution which is.no credit to, its friends, and almost-but, sir, I will not characterize it as emphatically as my feelings would prompt; I will merely say that I look upon it as one of the most stupendous humbugs of the State of Michigan. Why is it so? Because it has been carried on in disregard of the only correct principle upon which the State can proceed in the work of education. If it were possible for the State to enter upon two systems of educationgeneral education; if it were possible for the State. to support two universities devoted to general education-I would join heart and hand in carrying out such an undertaking. I would be willing that we should expend the last dollar of available means, and even load the State with taxation, if she could afford it, in order that the Agricultural College might be converted into a general educational institution and become an honor to our Commonwealth. But it is not possible for the State, fostering as it must the University of Michigan, an institution of which we are justly proud-and I shall enter upon no special defense of it-it is not possible for the- State to build up three miles from here, out in the wilderness, a rival institution; for that is what it should be made, if we make it anything. The narrow prejudices of the Legislature will not allow this question t6 be viewed in that body as it ought to be viewed.' Members of the Legislature are disposed to regard the University of Michigan as simply an institution belonging to Ann Arbor. But, sir, Ann Arbor has nothing to do with it. By the accident of its location it is situated at Ann Arbor; but it belongs to the State; and when the State pursues a course calculated to injure that University, it adopts a course which is injurious to its own interests, weakens its own power, wastes its own revenue, and destroys its own influence at home and abroad. I say then that it is impolitic to undertake to raise lip any general institution which shall be a rival to that University; and it is equally impolitic to sustain and perpetuate an institution devoted to a special branch of education, because it cannot be made to flourish. There are doubtless a very large number of young men throughout the State who desire to obtain a thorough education; and it is the duty of the State to assist them as much as possible. But those' young men who are properly constituted, who have the right feeling in regard to the matter, will desire to receive an education where they can meet the largest number of minds. Education does not consist merely in what a man gets from his books; it consists in large part of what he derives in the conflict of mind with mind-the attrition of thought CONSTITUTIONAL CONVFNTION., 496 Wednesday, Jul 31 187 EAE - RCEI~ 9 with thought. The idea which seems to prevail with some members of this Convention, that the University is an aristocratic institution-that students graduated there put on airs," on account of being better clothed and bet-ter fed than some others, is altogether fallacious. Sir, there is not a more democratic institution in the world than a rightly conducted university or college. There is no place where a young man is obliged to stand more exclusively upon what he is, and not what he pretends to be, than in a university. There is no place where pride and pretension are more quickly put down; there is no place where true merit is sooner recognized. The principle of democracy prevails amongst all young men, when collect edtogether in such institutions; and to him who has merit, to him who has the strength to run best the race that is set before him, will be awarded the palm, I care not whether he be the son of a millionaire or the son of a me chanic. Sir, I do not believe that the agri culturists of this State, who have by bhard labor acquired some little compe tence, desire, in edubating their sons, to seclude them from the world, in an institution out here in the country an institution conducted on the dormi tory system, which has been abandoned by all sensible institutions for the last twenty-five years. I believe that the intelligent agriculturists of this State desire that their sons shallbe educated in an institution where the conflict of mind with mind may develop character, and prepare the student for the conflicts of actual life-where he may be qualified to become an agri culturist, a physician, a lawyer, or to enter upon any other branch of life which he may select. Now, sir, as I have already intimated, I believe it to be eminently wrong for the State to enter upon a system of special education. The agriculturists to-day outnumber those of other occu pations and professions. They wield greater political power. If they so de sire, they might as a political body say, "We want this institution to go forward and succeed." Such is not their wish, or we should hear their demand thus ex pressed. But men of other classes, who think probably to cater a little to the feelings of the agriculturists, make this claim for them. Sir, among the large number of agriculturists on this floor-intelligent, sensible men-men who have acquired not only a compe tency, but what is better, that educa tion which is best acquired in the ac tive pursuit of their particular profes sion, (for it is a profession, and a noble one) not a single man have I heard. Vol. 2-No. 63. to-day, asking that we shall in the State Constitution, make it imperative upon the Legislature for years to come, to maintain this Agricultural College. On the contrary, every gentleman whom I have heard advocating this idea,represents some other profession. Most of them represent that profession which has the reputation-I do not pretend to say how the fact is-of being inclined ofttimes to misrepresent its own sentiments with the view of catching the breeze of popular favor. How can we account for this? Why does not every agriculturist in this Convention spring to his feet and say, "We, the agricultural people of this State, wield,ing the political power of the State, demand as our right that this institution shall be fostered -and cherished, not in the small feeble way in which it has been for the last few years, but that year after year a grant of at least fifty thousand dollars shall be bestowed upon it by the Legislature, so as to make it an honor to the State, instead of what it is." There is no such demand from the agriculturists of this Convention, because they perceive that it is not such an institution as they desire, and that it is not for the best interests of the State that it should be continued. Now, sir, the provision that wasproposed by the committee, declaring that the Legislature might hereafter make the Agricultural College a department of the University, was, I infer, (I do not pretend to be in the secrets of ~that committee,) proposed with this idea: that the State itself could in a better manner, could more economically, could with greater good to the greatest number of the people, carry out the designs of this agricultu ral grant, by making that College a branch of the. University, than by continuing it as a separate institution. Has this proposition been met on this floor at any time during this discus sion? Not at all. The position' that the State can better and more econom ically carry on an agricultural depart ment, or any other special department, in connection with the University, than by attempting to sustain a single spe cial institution, has not been met, and cannot be successfully met. Why, sir, all the experience of the country is against those who would attempt to question this principle. Are we any wiser than the people of the State of New York? I apprehend not. It used to be in years gone by, that when New York took snuff, Michigan sneezed. But, gentlemen, New York with all her wisdom-with all her worn-out lands needing for their reinvigoration all the: resources of scientific agriculture-has transferred her magnificent grant, much larger than ours, not to a State institution, but to a close corporation, after having spent some two hundred thousand dollars a year in an experiment which has resulted in a failure to establish a separate institution. Mr. LOVELL. I would ask, the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIS,) to state the name of the institution to which that grant has been transferred, and where it is located. Mr. NORRIS. It is the Cornell University, and is located, I think, at Ithica. Mr. DANIELLS. I ask the gentleman to state what was the proposition of Mr. Cornell, which induced the State of New York to turn over that grant of land. Mr. NORRIS. He offered to give a certain amount of money to carry out more effectually the object of the grant, and he did give it. Mr. DANIELLS. He said be would give $350,000, and establish a model institution; and under this inducement the State of New York transferred the grant. Mr. NORRIS, Suchi, Mr. President, has been the history all these grants. Is there a gentleman on this floor who can point to a single instance in the United States, in which an agricultural college has been successfully estab lished and maintained as an indepen dent institution. Mr. DANIELLS. How is it with Massachusetts? Mr. NOtRRIS. Massachusetts has given a part of her grant to Harvard College, a sectarian institution; and another portion of it has been appro priated to a mechanical institution in the neighborhood of Boston. Mr. DANIELLS. I have been in formed to-day by Mr. Howard, secre tary of our agricultural board, that the State of Massachusetts is building an agricultural college at Amherst, two or three miles from Amherst College, entirely separate from that College, as much so as our Agricultural College is separate from the University at Ann Arbor, and that the grant from the United States is to be bestowed or has already been bestowed upon that insti tution. Mr. Howard is, I think, good authority, being a native of Massa chusetts and very well acquainted with matters in that State, and especially educational matters. Mr. NORRIS. I think the. gentle nan will find that a portion of the grant has been given, as I have stated, to Harvard College, and a portion re servevd for another institution of a differ ent character near Boston. It may be the institution at Amherst, or it may not. Mr. DANIELLS. Mr. Howard told DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 497 July 31, 1867. 498 CONSTITUTIONAL COVETIO. Wednesday, me that the grant was to be entirely devoted to the agricultural college which is in course of erection; and said that I could refer to him as authority. I think that he is good authorityquite as good as the gentleman from Washtenaw. Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, I think that with reference to this Agricultural College, the State has been pursuing a wrong policy. As I before remarked, the State ought not to allow itself to come into competition with itself. I think that it has done this by the manner in which it has managed the Agricultural College. Now, sir, one word as to the University of Michigan, which has been so unfairly attacked. I state here, without the" fear of successful contradiction, that no institution in the United States has ever exhibited a more miraculous growth and development than this University. I know something of its early history. I was the first student that ever entered the institution. I wasthere two weeks before any other pupil came near it. I know the difficulties and struggles which that institution experienced during the first few years of its existence. I know something of the history of the institution and its gradual growth no, not its gradual growth, I am wrong; it sprang full-armed upon the literary world, like Minerva from the brain of Jupiter. It is to-day a power in the State, a power in the nation. It has a reputation throughout the Union; and; Harvard, Yale and the other older institutions, are satisfied to rank side by side with it. Sir, this University is, not an aristo cratic institution. Five out of seven of its students are self-made men. They are not the sons of rich men going there to spend their money. They are young men, possessing an ambition to make themselves useful in the world, who, having by hard labor accumulated some little money, go there to obtain that education which they so much covet. That' institution is to-day one of the first common law schools in,the world; and its other de partments arb constantly gaining for it increased distinction. How has this institution attained its present posi tion? Simply because the wisdom of its founders among whom were Isaac E. Crary, and the gentleman from Wayne,'(~.r. MOCLELLAND,) who,now sits beside me-placed the institation wholly and entirely apart from politi cal control-placed it almost wholly in the hands of the regents, appropriating the funds by which it was established in such a way as to yield the greatest advantage to the institution. It is now desired that one step far ther shall be taken in behalf of this institution; and this Convention, if it could only rise to an adequate conception of the power which this University may become in the State and in the world, would see that all that is necessary is to separate the institution from further political control. We of the minority have attempted various measures to this end. We have sought to make the regents appointive officers, removing them from the sphere of political influence. We have sought to put the revenues of the University in such a position that the institution may be placed above the necessity of annual beggary in the halls of the Legislature. What is our object in this effort? Not that we may aggrandize Ann Arbor and Washtenaw county not that we may benefit' any little town or neighborhood. Our purpose is to place a worthy State institution above and beyond all political control, that it may go forward in its march entirely free from any such influences. We desire that the institution shall receive such support as will give it a permanent position, and make it, if let alone, an engine of usefulness. It is the only State institution of the kind in the United States that has yet succeeded. The William and Mary College has gone down. The University of Vermont has followed in its footsteps. Almost every other general State institution has from some cause or other declined, or gone under sectarian control, simply because it could not be removed from the domain of politics. Politics and education cannot go side by side and work harmoniously. If this Convention shall take any step which shall reduce the University in its present situation to become an annual beggar in the halls of the Legislature, five years will not pass before the influence of the institution will be largely weakened. It will be attacked in the legislative halls. It will be denounced as an aristocratic institution, squandering money on matters of no practical utility. Its influence will be weakened and destroyed. Sir, for one, I would rather see it go on with its six hundred pupils and an annual income of a few thousand dollars, its friends never darkening the doors of the Legislature to solicit pecuniary aid, than to see the institution compelled annually to beg appropriations from a reluctant and backbiting Legislature. I think the University would have a better chance for usefulness if it should go on with a small income than if it should be compelled to solicit aid under these circumstances. If this clause now under consideration be adopted as a part of the Constitution, we simply provide that the Legislature may at some future time, if in its wisdom it should deem it necessary, make the Agricultural College a branch of the University. Our object in desiring the insertion of such a provision is to aggrandize the University -we admit it-but not to aggrandize Ann Arbor. The object is to ag,grandize the State of Michigan in all its parts, and throughout its whole extent. We hope that some day or other the Legislature may be induced to carry out the measure, when the people shall have grown sick of the experiment'of attempting to support an Agricultural College as an independent institution. Reject this clause, and you continue the Agricultural College as a separate State educational institution as a possible rival of the University. If you continue it, you must take one of two courses: either you must make every year an appropriation of fifteen or twenty thousand dollars so long as the institution may live, making it still the sickly thing it now is; or you must further tax the people of this State to appropriate to the -institution fifty or seventy-five thousafid-.dollars a year in order to make it something near what the people of the State desire to have it, if they desire to have it at all; that is, eminent in its particular speciality. I do not know that there is strength enough in this Convention to carry the proposition as originally reported by the committee. I know the prejudices that exist in the popular mind on this subject. I know that those prejudices are unfounded; but they may be so strong, in view of the history of the past as to succeed in striking out the clause now under consideration. But I do sincerely trust, that if this clause be stricken out, if the section should remain in such a form as to make it imperative upon the Legislature to maintain a separate Agricultural College, (and the adoption of the section in that form will be regarded as a matter of instruction-as expressing the wish of this Convention that the institution shall be containued by annual appropriations for all time to come,)-I do hope that if the pending amendment should prevail, some member of this Convention-not one of the lawyers, but some one of those who are really the hard-handed agriculturists, who know that when I utter these sentiments here, I utter the sentiments ot the fariners of this State, will introduce a motion to strike out the whole section, leaving the Legislature to act upon this question hereafter, as it may deem best. I know Mr. President, that the agriculturists of this State, are not as a body in favor of this institution; and if this section with the amendment shall be adopted, and be incorporated t s i CONSTITUTION.AT'I CONVENTION. Wednesda 1. I Y) 498 I July 31, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 499 in the Constitution of this State, it will be but one more nail in the coffin of that Constitution, which will be nailed tighter and tighter as the day approaches for the people to decide upon the fate of the instrument which we submit to them. So confident do I feel on this question that I invite some of my brother lawyers to come into my county and canvass with me this question. We will take this section of the Constitution, if it should be adopted, continuing this Agricultural College, and fixing it upon the shoulders of the people, as the old man o the sea was fixed upon the shoulders of Sinbad the Sailor; we will go before the people, and if I cannot get a clear majority of two thousand in the county of Washtenaw upon that question alone, I will pay the gentleman's expenses, and pay him for his time besides. I tell gentlemen that this is a question in reference to which the people feel deeply. They do not desire that any institution shall be segregated, set apart, or shut up in any particular enclosure, so that a single class of our citizens may say, " That is our school, that is our college." They desire to have an interest in all the public institutions of the State; they desire to have them so conducted as to be an honor to our commonwealth. But when I point the prominent agriculturists of this State to the Agricultural College, and ask them, "Is that institution an evidence of the intelligence and the ability of the State, and of the interest which the agriculturists of Michigan feel in the subject with which they are more immediately connected?" it is a sore subject, and they prefer that it should not be mentioned; and whenever the agriculturists of the State shall have an opportunity to give a vote which shall put an end to the system which has heretofore prevailed in regard to that institution, I feel very confident that that vote will be emphatically given. Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I would like to occupy the time of the Convention for a couple of hours in discussing this proposition; and I hope that the Convention will indulge me in the same latitude in which the gentle man who has just taken his seat, (Mr. NoRRis,) has been indulged. I shall not undertake, sir, to say what motive has actuated different members of this Convention in the exercise of their right of expressing their sentiments upon questions coming before the Contention. I am willing that the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIs,) should place me in the category that he has created in his own imagination, of membert speaking for "Buncombe." But, sir, I am not willing that he should condemn me without giving me a trial and an opportunity to make my defense. By some unknown agency I am in flie published list of members classed as a lawyer. But, sir, I also claim to be a farmer-not a hard-fisted or hardheaded or hard-hearted farmer, [laughter,] but I claim to represent a class of intelligent agriculturists, who not only value highly the University of the State of Michigan, but prize the Agricultural College, notwithstanding the slurs which have been thrown out against that institution in this Convention, and in the Legislature from se~ sion to session. The gentleman who has just taken his seat says that we propose to build up an institution as a rival to the Uni versity. We propose no such thing. In our view, the Agricultural College has an object entirely different from the legitimate and practical objects of the University. The design of the Ag ricultural College is to give to young men who desire to follow the vocation of farmers an agricultural education. It is a well known fact that but a very few men in this State who follow agri culture as an occupation are able to give their sons an education in the Uni versity, whose benefits my friend from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIs,) has been able to enjoy; and I am very glad that he has been able to enjoy them. Mr. NORRIS. If the gentleman will allow me to ask him a question, I wish to inquire whether carpenters have not just as much right to special education at the expense of the State as agricul turists. Mr. HOWVARD. I was not speaking of carpenters, but I may come to that point after a while. I propose, in the first place, to get my farm before I build my house. When I come to the construction of my house, there will then be need for the carpenters. But I say, "Yes! the carpenters have just as much right to claim the privileges of those institutions that have been created by the munificence of the peo ple of the United States and of this State, as the agriculturists or as those individuals who seek to acquire simply a literary education." Were the prop osition practically presented to the people of the State of Michigan, I doubt not that their voice would be raised in favor of conferring the benefits of education upon the carpenter, upon the mechanic, upon the agriculturist, and upon persons of every occupation or profession. Mr. NORRIS. I mean special edu cation, not general education. Mr. HOWARD. I ask, sir, whether there is any branch of education that can confer greater benefit upon the people of this State or any other State than an agricultural education. The Father of his Country pronounced agrlculture the most useful, the most healthful and the most noble employment of man. That sentiment was enunciated before the University of Michigan was established-before Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti was discoveredbefore the Agricultural College was endowed, or before its establishment had been thought of. I wish, sir, to ask the members of this Convention whether it is proper that a member should rise here and say that we who propose to lend the influence of our votes to throw around the Agricultural College the fostering care of the people -whom we represent, are actuated by a view to " Buncombe," or any other such design. A large majority of the people of this State demand that there shall be afforded to the young men of this State an opportunity to receive an agricultural education; and I say without fear of contradiction that the larger portion of the people of this State are unable to educate their sons at Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti, if they desire to give them merely a scientific or a literary education, or an education in any profession. But, sir, almost every farmer'of the State who has sons that have attained an age when it is deemed necessary to give them a better education than can be obtained at the ordinary schools in the different localities of the State, can take advantage of the Agricultural College. When certain men-whether they are actuated by any local spirit of jealousy, whether they are influenced by partiality to the University or any other institution, or whatever may be their motives cease to make this war fare upon the Agricultural College, and are willing to allow it the same privi leges and the same opportunities that they claim for their own pet institu tion, then will this Agricultural Col lege become firmly established; then will its professors and all connected with its management feel a confidence in its perpetuity, and go on successfully in the good work for which it was es tablished. Mr. NORRIS. If the gentleman will allow me to interrupt him, I desire to ask what ground he has for refer ring to the University as a "pet insti tution." Mr. HOWARD. I make the charge here directly, that the course of the gentleman and his colleagues, in assail ing the Agricultural College in the manner in which they have done, call ing it a "humbug," and lauding to the very skies that University of which we all feel so proud, together with the other arguments and insinuations .I i .j I 50. $IT~~L CO ETO.Wdedy which have been employed from the beginning of this discussion, authorizes me to say, without fear of contradiction, that the University is not only his pet institution, but that he is bent on absorbing and taking from the Agricultural College that which properly belongs to it, and devoting it to the aggrandizement of his own favorite institution-that he is willing to ignore the claims of those men who seek to educate their sons in the noble profession of agriculture, and who do not desire to garnish and polish them with the advantages of which the gentleman himself is a standing monument before this Convention and before the people. ' Mr. NORRIS. The gentleman will allow me to make one correction, personal to myself. I am not a monument of that institution. I am not one of its graduates. Mr. HOWARD. Well, I suppose the gentleman came so near being a graduate, that there is no difference, practically, between him and a fullfledged graduate who comes out of the institution with his diploma in his pocket. Now, sir, thee gentleman, perhaps with no unkind intention, has attributed to gentlemen taking the position which I do, motives which I feel bound, as one, to repel. Is he to say that I am actuated by the unmanly motive of speaking for "Buncombe?" Why, sir, I do no such thing. The gentleman himself is the only man I have seen that does that. We all have our peculiarities. My friend from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) brings to his aid quotations from Scripture which no other man can find there. [Laughter.] My genial friend from Eaton, (Mr. BURTCH,) is, as members have doubtless remarked, somewhat scattering in the forces which he brings to bear in support of his prositions. [Laughter.] But I apprehend that we all reptesent different constituencies and are controlled by different influences; and because this is so we are not to be charged with speaking for "~Buncombe:' The gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NoRRIs,) told us the other day that he represented on this floor a constituency "second to any in the State." Now, I would like to know whether that secondary position is owing to the University. [Laughter.] The gentleman from Jackson (M/r. PRINGLE) may be influenced in the course which he has taken by that school of moral reform which is located in his city; while the position of the gentlemen from Kalamazoo, or at least the position which one of them has taken upon the prohibitory law, may be attributed to the influence of the insane asylum. In the same way, I suppose that the silence of the delegates on this floor from Genesee county may be attributed to the influence of the asylum for the dumb. I cannot say how these things may be; but they may all have their influence. I presume that members here are as much controlled by the feelings of their constituents and by the influences of their early education or their early associations as they are by any other influences. Now, sir, the gentleman from Washtenaw told us that any man in the State can educate his children at the State University; that it is not an aristocratic institution. I do not claim that it is an aristocratic institution; but I claim that there is room enough for both institutions-the Agricultural College and the State University; that there is good to be accomplished by both in their legitimate spheres. A man may get an education at Ann Arbor and still maynot be able to perform any offthe practical duties devolving upon the agriculturist. I haveknown some young men who have graduated from that University who have not been as wise as Solomon nor as virtuous as Joseph; and if you should put them on a farm where it was necessary to drill out of the ground a livelihood, they would doubtless show the benefits of that education to which the gentleman seems to be so partial. Why, sir, a full-fledged graduate of the University at Ann Arbor would know as little about the pedigree of a black Galloway bull," (of which the gentleman so eloquently spoke the other day,) as he would of the genealogy of Julius Coesar. He would know as little perhaps about the chemistry of a certain soil, or its adaptation to a certain crop, as a blind man would know of the interior of a huge waterfall worn by a lady passing him on the street. It is perfectly absurd to say that because a man is educated in the University at Ann Arbor, he is qualified for any position in life. I deny it. It is very well for any man, if he is able, to give his sons an education in that University; but my hope for the education of the masses in this State does not rest entirely upon the University of Michigan. Our security is in the virtue and intelligence of the people; and for these our hope. rests upon our primary school system, upon our Agricultural College, and upon our University, as a grand scheme of education, although all may not be able to enjoy the advantages of each-and every department. The gentleman has referred to the farmers of the State. Here let me ask the farmers upon this floor whether, if they wish to give their children a boon which shall be a lasting ben efit to them, they would send them out here to Ann Arbor, to graduate in kid gloves, and wearing a nice mustache, and possessing all those acquirements that the gentlemen seems to have obtained at Ann Arbor or elsewhere. Or would they send them here to the Agricultural College, where they might acquire a practical education? Lansing is a standing monument of the wisdom of the State of Michigan, in establishing the Agricultural College here. Who knows but that the ability which enabled the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) to push from the track the arguments of the gentleman from Washtenaw this morning, effectually clearing the way for the progress of the Agricultural College, was not begotten by the fact that he has not only been flanked by the Reform School and the Agricultural College, but that the'centre of his line has been filled up periodically by members of the Legislature, composed mostly of farmers, who have been educated, either in agricultural colleges, or by their own hard toil, in the profession of agriculture. Now, sir, I admit that I came here with a prejudice against the Agricultural College; and this grew out of the discussions which have been had in the Legislature from session to session, in regard to this institution. I ask the members of this committee to compare candidly the two institutions, the Agricultural College and the University; to consider their relative positions, the comparative embarrassments that have been thrown around them, and the advantages which have been received, and which we may reasona-, bly hope to receive, from each institution. I ask any gentleman to say in candor, whether the Agricultural College, considering the disadvantages under which it has labored, has not done more to prove the practicability and utility of an agricultural education, than the University of this State, of which we so proudly boast, has done in its peculiar sphere. Now, sir, I insist that what may be beneficial and desirable for one man or one class of men of this State may not be for the advantage of the State at large; and while we are constantly doing everything to foster and nourish the University, while we are building up and seeking to perfect our common school system, let us not forget that, by educating the farmers of our State, we are doing a noble and necessary work. These two institutions should be separate and distinct. I would as soon think of placing the asylum for the deaf and dumb, or the asylum for the blind, under the charge of the University, as of placing CONSTITUTIONAT, CON VENTION. Wediiesday, - 500 . I DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. the Agricultural. College under such no charge. I would as soon place the co University under the charge of the C Agricultural College as place the Agricultural College under the charge vo of the University. What reason is sh assigned for merging the Agricultural st College into the University? It is cc said, "The Agricultural College is a o failure." If it is a failure in its present ti position-a failure under the circum- se stances under which it exists- I ask g gentlemen whether they wish to graft t that failure upon the University of the o State. I ask whether the professors and p the regents of the University are any s more competent to carry on success- c fully the Agricultural College than the e men now in charge of it, who have f been selected with a view to their prac- b tical and theoretical knowledge and all v the other qualifications desirable in b those who attempt to teach the science p of agriculture, or any other science, as a branch of education. Would you s think of sending a man to the i University to make an agriculturist of him-to make a practical, hard-fisted s farmer of him? No man would do a that. If any man desired to give his son a finished education, practical as h well as theoretrical, it might be desirable r to send that son to both institutions. o But, sir, the time, I believe, has come a when we should either say, as the gen- tleman from Washtenaw does say, that this Agricultural College is a failure, and must necessarily be a failure be- t cause it has not the inherent elements i of success; or else we should stop c this back biting, this slandering, which I has at different periods been hurled against the Agricultural College. I be lieve that the time has come when' we should stop this warfare upon that in stitution, and say not only what this amendment proposes to say, but go further and say that the Agricultural College shall not be placed under the control of any other institution. IX hope some gentleman will offer a prop- ~ osition of that kind. This institution E should either stand or fall upon its own merits. 1 Now, sir, I do not intend to go into, an argument to show the success of' one institution or the other, by compu- 1 ting the amount of money that has been spent upon each; but I apprehend that, if the University of Michigan had been planted in the depths of the forest '-if its professors had been continually slandered, and compelled to labor un der a feeling of insecurity as to the per petuity of their institution, by reason of constant threats that it was to be dis continued-if its enemies had attacked it from every direction, as has been the case with the Agricultural College-I apprehend that the University would at to-day make so good a showing omparatively as does the Agricultural ollege. i Now, sir, I, for one, am prepared to a te-and I believe that in so voting Ili sall express the sentiments of my con- ituents against placing this Agri- t cltural College under the control of, r connecting it with, any other instituon. I go against aggrandizing the ection of country represented by the entleman from Washtenaw, by locang there an agricultural department, i r expending any more money for the urpose of building up that particular ection of country. When the Agri- ultural College shall have been fairly stablished, I will, if it should prove a ilure, raise my voice to abolish it; ut I will not lend my influence or my ote for the purpose of allowing it to e absorbed, at the dictation of any rofessor of any university or other nstitution of this State. It is urprising that a gentleman so atelligent as, the President of the University of the State of Michigan hould have experienced such a remark- able change as the evidence presented n this Convention this morning shows im to have undergone. It is the most remarkable instance that I ever knew, of a man being metamorphosed from a friend to an open and interested opponent. He comes here well backed lp and appropriately supported by gentlemen who not only challenge us o this c6nflict by throwing in our teeth imputations of personal - and mercenary motives, but bring to the support of this proposition all the vehement sarcasm, doubtful poetry and worse logic that they can command. Now, sir, whether I am speaking for " Buncombe" or for four dollars a day, does not make anyidifference. [Laughter.] If the gentleman from Washtenaw, with his strong ally, the President of the~ University, has frightened any member of this Convention from his support of the Agricultural College, or satisfied any one that -the institution which they represent so eloquently, is the only one entitled to the fostering care of the people of the State of Michigan, they certainly have failed to satisfy me or frighten me from my propriety. I hope that the vote that will be given upon this question will not be misunderstood. I trust that it will be understood as a condemnation of the president of any-college or other institution, who undertakes to use the influence with which he is endowed to sway this Convention by threats or sophistry. While we undertake to cherish and foster the Agricultural College of this State while we seek to enlarge the area of usefulness for which it was designed — while we propose to open its doors to he sons of the farmers of the State, iviting them to enter the institution nd receive its benefits, I hope and beieve that we shall not, as a Convention r as individuals, abandon one iota of the interest which we feel in the Uniersity, or withhold our hands when we can advance its prosperity. Mr. DANI-ELLS. It is charged, Mr. President, that the farmers of this Convention are not advocating the nterests of the Agricultural College, and that the lawyers are doing it all. Now, I supose that, if a farmer had a sit in court he would not be charged with indiscretion because he did not appear personally in court as his own advocate. It is a wise client who gets good counsel; and I think that in this case the farmers have probably done well in allowing the professional men, who have seen the advantages of the Agricultural College, to defend it. But, sir, farmer though I be and unaccustomed to speaking, I want to say one word to the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIs.) He has read to the Convention an extract from the Course of Time. And by-the-by I thought that that description ended very well, because the character is described as one who "loved and served his God." That was a very good ec-nding. I do not propose to read to the Convention anything so long as that; but in the same poem immediately preceding the passage which the gentleman read is another description which I think it would be well for the Convention to hear: "There was another, large of understanding, Of memory infinite, of judgment deep: Who knew all learning, and all science knew, And all phenomena in heaven and earth Traced to their causes; traced the labyrinths Of thought, association, passion, will, And all the subtile, nice affinities Of matter traced; its virtues, motions, laws, And most familiarly and deeply talked Of mental, moral, natural, and divine. Leaving the earth at will, he soared to heaven, And read the glorious visions of the skies, And to the music of the rolling spheres Intelligently listened, and gazed far back Into the awful depths of Deity; Did all that mind assisted most could do; And yet in misery lived, in misery died, Because he wanted holiness of heart." I suppose loving others as we love ourselves, constitutes "holiness of heart;" and I trust that the result of my friend's life will not be an exempli fication of the passage I have just read. Before I take my seat, I wish to refer to some remarks which the gentleman from Washtenaw made the other day. As I understand, that gentleman commenced, if he did not finish, his collegiate course at Ann Arbor, in the University-an institution of which I am as proud as he is. And here let me remark, that when the proposition was before the Convention yesterday to raise a State tax of one-twentieth of a mill, as a fund for the support of the Uni versity, I voted for that proposition; ,-Yi-i-ly 31 1867. 501 t 502 OTITUTJONAL COVETIO. Weduesdy, and I would be glad if the Convention would reconsider its action and adopt that measure. The amount of the tax is of no moment to the people of the State, compared with the assistance it would be to that institution. The gentleman from Washtenaw, in his remarks a few days ago, told us that he lived in a county in which were two State educational institutions, and that his county was " the second county in the State in population, wealth, virtue and intelligence." tHe told us that there was another educational institution which could exhibit nothing but a "black Galloway bull." This is a specimen of the fairness of a gentleman who has graduated at one of these learned institutions, towards a State institution that happens to be located outside of his own county. Now, sir, I do not look upon that remark as fair logic. If the Agricultural College turns out students who do not argue upon public questions in any fairer or more gentlemanly way than that, then I think it would perhaps be as well to discontinue the institution. I hope that no students graduating there will ever be guilty of so great a want of fairness. IMr. NORRIS. Did the gentleman expect any better from the "second county in the State?" Mr. DANIELLS. I want to ask the gentleman what is the first county in the State in virtue and intelligence? Mr. NORRIS. Oh, Clinton county, of course. Mr. DANIELLS. Another gentleman from the same county, (Mr. RICHMOND,) said in his remarks today that he was a friend of education, but the tenor of his remarks was such as to lead me to infer that he is a friend of education when it means fostering the college at Ann Arbor, and if it does not, then he is not so friendly to education. The course of the gentleman made me think of a man in Indiana who was a member of a convention similar to this, organized for the purpose of framing a'constitution for the State. This man had been absent nearly the whole session, and when he came back, the Constitution being about completed, the other members told him he must come in now and sign the Constitution, because they wanted to get away. He hesitated somewhat, and still they urged him to sign it. "Well," said he, "I go for it if it goes by my door; if it does not, then I am against it." I think it is in just this way that the gentleman is a friend of education. If an educational institution is located in his county, he is in favor of education; but if is located somewhere else, he is not so favorable to education. For my part, I think there is room enough in this State for the University, for the Normal School and for the Agricultural College; and I hope these institutions will all be kept separate and distinct; hence I trust that the Convention will concur in the amendment made by the committee of the whole. The question being upon concurring in the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, Mr. NORBIS called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordred., The question was taken, and the amendment reported from the committee of the whole was concurred in; there being yeas 50, nays 21, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Birney, Bradley, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Crocker, Daniells, Duncan, Duncombe, Estee, Germain, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Hull, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, McConnell, McK~rnan, Miles, Murray, Mussey, Pringle, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Winsor, Witbey, Williams, Woodhouse, Yeomans and the President-50. NAYs-Messrs. Alexander, Blackman, Corbin, Elliott, D. Goodwin, Hixson, Lawrence, Lothrop, Luce, McClelland, Morton, Norris, Pratt, Rafter, Richmond, Root, Sawyer, W. A. Smith, Stockwell, W. E. Warner and Winans-21. Mr. LEACH. I move to amend section nine by adding to it these words: "cand said college shall not be made a branch or department of any other institution." I do not care, to discuss this proposition; it proposes simply to carry out the view which the Convention has indicated in the vote just taken. In the section as it stands, the question is perhaps left somewhat uncertain; and I desire that the matter shall be placed beyond all dispute, so that the removal of the Agricultural College need not be agitated in the Legislature from time to time. Mr. LUCE. I really trust that this amendment will not be adopted. What good reason is there for tying upthe Legislature, and compelling it to sustain this institution exactly where it is, whether it should prove in the future to be judicious and beneficial or not? Does the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH,) or any other gentleman suppose that the Legislature will ever be entirely devoid of wisdom-that it will be so deficient in judgment and discretion as not to know what it may be best to do in regard to this institution? Is the gentleman afraid to trust the Legislature with any discretion on this subject.? Now, sir, I propose, when the opportunity shall arise, to move to strike out this section; but as the section now stands it would certainly not be so objectionable as if the amendment of the gentleman from Grand Traverse should prevail. So far as the Agricultural College is concerned, even if we say the best for it, if we view it in the most favorable light, it is nothing but a costly experiment. It has been thus far a very expensive experiment, and probably will be in the future. That it will ultimately fail as an Agricultural College, I do most confidently believe. I have not a particle of doubt on that point. Hence I would leave to the Legislature some discretion in reference to the matter, so that it may, should such a measure become necessary, attach this college to some other institution. I hope the amendment which is now propose'6d will not prevail. The section is bad enough as it stands. It will be immeasurably worse with this provision attached to it. Mr. CONGER. The opposition of the gentleman from Branch (Mr. LucE) to this amendment makes me think that perhaps the section as it now stands would be construed as leaving the Legislature at liberty to make this Agricultural College a branch or department of another institution; and the argument which the gentleman uses makes me very anxious to record my vote in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Grand Traverse. I think that it would be best to adopt such a provision as this, and stop the almost incessant wrangling which we have had in the Legislature heretofore, in regard to the removal of this Agricultural College. I do not expect to be again a member of the Legislature; but I have some consideration for those who will be compelled hereafter to be members of that body. We all know that this question has been a subject of continual wrangling; that it has taken more of the time of the Legislature than any other one subject; and I think it is the duty of this Convention to settle this question now, once and forever. If the time should ever arrive when tlhis institution, in order that it may live, must be made a branch or department of any other institution, I think~ that then it had better die. And its friends will gather round its funeral with not very long or mournful countenances. Mr. DA.NIELLS. I hope that this amendment will prevail. It will settle this question effectually. When my friend from Branch (Mr. LUCE) arose, I supposed it was for the purpose of sustaining this proposition; I supposed that he wanted to "stop the floodgates" that have heretofore been opened to let this question in upon the Legislature. This is a subject of wrangling which I think might as well cease; and as the gentleman is, I believe, a member of the present Legis CONSTLTUTIONAL CONV.UNTION-. Wediiesday, 502 July 31, 1867. DEBATE AD PROGEEDIG. 503 lature, and will be a member, I hope, for some time to come, I am anxious to relieve him of one very troublesome subject. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will prevail. Mr. RICHMIOND. I call for the yeas and nays upon this amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and the amendment of Mr. LEACH was not agreed to; there being yeas 26, nays 41, as follows: YEts-Messrs. Aldrich, Andrus, Birney, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Duncan, Estee, Harris, Howard, Hull, Leach, Longyear, Pringle, Sheldon, Sutherland, Turner, Tyler, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, Williams, and Woodhouse-26. NAYs-Messrs. Alexander, Barber, Blackman, Corbin, Crocker, Duncombe, Elliott, Germain, D. Goodwin, Hazen, Henderson, Hixson, Holmes, Holt, Lawrence, Lothrop, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Morton, Murray, Mussey, Norris, Pratt, Richmond, Root, Sawyer, T. G. Smith, W. A. Smith, Stockwell, Thompson, Walker, P. D. Warner, W. E. Warner, F C. Watkins, Willard, Winans and the President -41. Mr. LOVELL, (when his name was called,) said: I desire to explain my vote. I am very certain that the Agricultural College ought not to be joined to, or be made a department of, the University. I think it best for both institutions that such a measure should not be adopted. I am not so certain, however, that the Agricultural College might not be made a branch or department of some other school-a school of mechanics, for instance. I am willing to leave this question to be decided by the Legislature. I therefore vote "no."' The result of the vote was announced as above stated. Mr. LUCE. I now move to amend by- striking out section nine. I do not propose to prolong this discussion, which has already extended to a great length. I have offered this amendment with unfeigned reluctance on some accounts. I am indisposed to provoke debate; but I understand very distinctly that at least this much is demanded of me by those who elected me to represent them on this floor. But while I do not wish to make any threat, I must say that I know that if this section be adopted as a part of the Constitution, whole townships in my county will vote against the adoption of the instrument. In saying this, I know whereof I affirm. I am well acquainted with the feelings which exist in my county against pay ing this tribute to an institution which our farmers believe has never benefit ed and never will benefit them, to the extent of one dollar. I insist that they ought not to be compelled by this Constitution to forever pay tribute to that institution. I simply desire to present this proposition, and upon it I demand the yeas and nays. Mr. BRADLEY. It is with very great reluctance that I oppose the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LUCE,) as I did the other day on the question of libraries. If what the gentleman states in regard to his constituency be true, as I have no doubt it is, then I think this Agricultural College ought to be continued long en6ugh for that constituency to be s6 far enlightened as to be led to understand that there is some excellence in this institution. Mr. SAWYER. I desire to state the reason for the vote which I shall give on this question. I fully appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LuCE,) and I would say to the gentleman last on the floor, (Mr. BRADLEY,) that we have down our way one or two graduates of this Agricultural College, and they constitute one of the strongest reasons why a large portion of my constituents go against this institution in every form. Air. BRADLEY. Are there no other graduates? Mr. SAWVYER. We have got three from this agricultural school; and they are all we want. [Laughter] Mr. LUCE. I wish to say one word in reply to the gentleman from Kala mazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY.) I claim to represent on this floor as intelligent and enlightened and liberal and Chris tian a community as any other gentle man, the gentleman from Kalamazoo not excepted; and my constituents do not believe in the practical utility and benefit of this Agricultural College. I say no more than is true when I say that they are decidedly opposed to it. Mr. MORTON. With some reluc tance I shall suport the motion of the gentleman from Branch. As a merm ber of the Legislature I have hereto fore voted for appropriations to sustain the Agricultural College, because those appropriations have each time been urged on the ground that no more appropriations would be called for. I support this motion because I know that a majority of my constituents are opposed to taking the revenue of the State and giving it to this college, which they-believe is of no public ben efit. I think, also, that on this point, I can safely speak for the entire southern tier of counties. I think that without regard to party, a vote of more,than three-fourths would in those counties be given against the insertion of any 'such clause in our Constitution. In re gard to matters of this kind, we should accept facts as they are, and not as we expect to force them by putting words into the Constitution. I believe it will be found, the world over, that these agricultural colleges, wherever they have been attempted, have proved failures. This has been the fact in older and wealthier States than ours. Why is this? Because such instituLtions are not needed for any practical purpose connected with farming. Our union schools, if you will add agricultural chemistry to the list of studies,. give all the educational advantages that can be obtained from this muchboasted college. Sir, it does appear to me strange that intelligent men-professional men too -should come here to sustain an institution which they cannot show has been up to this time anything else than a failure attempt to sustain it too when the agricultural community are almost unanimously against it. In view of the fact that such colleges have uniformly been failures in the past, we should act with prudence, and not frame our Constitution in such a way as to compel the Legislature to continue this institution, whether it should prove a public benefit or not. It looks to me very much as if the friends of this institution were aware that it is to be a failure; as if they in their own consciences feel it to be unnecessary, and therefore they de sire to ensure its continuance by a con stitutional provision, so that the tax burdened people of the State may be obliged to maintain a useless institu tion. I have no personal feeling against this college. It suits me just as well that it should be at Lansing as at Ann Arbor. But I know that my constitu ents believe this institution to be a failure; and I think we ought not to tax people against their wishes to sustain an institution which it is hardly possible can produce any good results. I shall cast my vote in "favor of striking out this section; for the effect of the section is to compel the Legislature to sustain the institution nolens volens, although their experience and better judgment should declare it useless to continue it. Mr. PRINGLE. Mr. President, if the gentleman from Branch (Mr. LUcE) and the gentleman from Monroe (Mr. MORTON) had urged in support of the pending amendment some such reason as this-that the Agricultural College has again sustained and again repelled an attack upon it; has defeated that attack by a vote of more than two to one; that it has in any event to run the gauntlet of the Legislature here after for its support; that it is safe in such hands, and hence that the section is unnecessary-if this had been the argument, perhaps I should have voted for the proposition. But when gentle men base the argument upon the ground that the college is worthless, .July 31,. 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 503 501 OOTITUTIOAL COVETIO. Wedneay, good for nothing, and ought to be abolished, I must vote against the proposition. Mr. LOVELL. I am unwilling to detain the Convention with any lengthy remarks forthe purpose of defeating or trying to defeat the motion which the gentleman from Branch has been pleased to offer. Since I have been a member of this Convention, I have heard from certain quarters too much of this kind of argument: "If you put this provision into the Constitution, your Constitution is not going to be adopted." I suppose, sir, we came here to try the experiment of making an improved Constitution; and I object altogether to gentlemen rising here in their places, whenever we choose to change a line or a phrase in the present Constitution, and saying: "If you attempt to do that, your Constitution is gone up; it can never be adopted." Mlr. LUCE. Did anybody make any such remark? Mr. LOVELTL. Language of that tenor I have heard on this floor and about this hall, week in and week out, since the first time we passed an article or amended a section, contrary to the views of certain gentlemen. The spirit of this Convention is in favor of sustaining the Agricultural College; and it will be sustained by the vote. But there is another institution that is more in danger, I fear, than the Agricultural College. It has indiscreet friends on this floor. It has friends here who have talked when they should have been silent. That institution is the University of the State of Michigan. It is represented on this floor by champions who choose to war upon other institutions, that they may aggrandize that University; and this course is pursued, too, against the dictates of common prudence, which should induce them rather to join hands with those who are seeking to disseminate through the State educational influences, that the two institutions may grow stronger together. That species of warfare upon institutions with which gentlemen do not happen to sympathize is unwise and unjust. In making these remarks, I may be taking upon me more than I have a right to assume. I have been more than once reminded, since I came upon this floor, that I am comparatively a stranger in this State. The University of Michigan is not my alma mater. But I have an alma mater; ad God knows that I would desire, if she were in danger, that she should be protected from any such friends as the University of Michigan has upon this floor. But I have cast my lot in this State. I expect to remain here, and hope to rear children who will graduate at the University of Michigan; and if they should do so, I hope they will graduate at an institution which will confer upon them an honor unsurpassed by that which any other institution in this Union, or in the world, can bestow. But I recognize the fact, that if the University of Michigan, or any other institution in this State, is to prosper, it must prosper, not by warring against other institutions which are dear to the citizens of this State, but by acting upon the motto, "live and let live." Suppose, gentlemen of this Convention, that some of you do believe that the Agricultural College is a humbug; there are a great many people in this State who do not believe any such thing, but on the contrary, have a more intense hatred against the institution which you love than you have for their pet institution. Now, sir, the Agricultural College of Michigan is not, in my judgment,' an institution tobe lightly spoken of. I do not give to it the full sanction of my approval, for I know but little of it; but I am compelled to respect the judgment of my constituents. I find that the highest legislative power in this land has, at the solicitation of citizens of this and other States, made most munificent donations in land to the different States of the Union, for the very purpose of fostering and building up institutions of this kind. I am not the man, sir, to fly in the face of this judgment —this deliberate and approved judgment of the citizens of this country. But we are told that we are proposing to legislate for a class. I deny it. This institution is not a farmers' college. It is a citizens' college, where people may go to learn agriculture. What is the University of Michigan but an institution where men may go to learn, among dther things, law? If the farmers are a class, are not the lawyers a class? Mhen go to the University of Michigan to leara medicine -to acquire skill in the practice of physic. Are not doctors a class? Men go there to learn the science of civil engineering. Is that general education, or is it class education? So you may take up each and every department of that University. But while we promote the study of these particular branches, we are not legislating for classes. Why? Because the institution is open for persons of every class in.the State to go there and enjoy its benefits. So, too, the sons of lawyers, the sons of doctors, the sons of farmers, may all, if they choose, go to this Agricultural College and study agriculture. Hence legislation in support of this institution is not legislation for a class. But it is proposed to strike out this section, and thus to strike a blow at the Agricultural College -to declare, by the action of this Convention to-day, that the institution is a humbug. Now, I do not believe that we came together for this purpose. We find in our present Constitution, a section similar to this; and whether we individually believe it to be the best and wisest thing or not, a large portion of the people of this State do believe it to be wise to foster this institution. The General Government has endowed it munificently; and the amount of taxation which will be imposed upon the property of the State, in order to maintain the institution, to put it invigorous operation, is very small. Gentlemen talk about the large amount of money which it is going to cost to run the Agricultural College. I ask them to remember that when the institution comes into possession of its endowment it will need scarcely anything from the State. The University of the State of Michigan, if it is to be supported as it ought to be, — is bound to ask a hundred dollars from the people of the State during the next fifty years, where the Agricultural College will ask one dollar. Now, I say let the friends of classical education, the friends of professional education, and the friends of literary education, deal, if not generously, at least justly, with the friends of agricultural education. I want to call the attention of the Convention to section four of the law of the United States by which this Agricultural College was endowed. It provides that, under the care of the Legislature, the interest of the fund shall be inviolably appropriated by the States which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classic studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts." I call attention to the fact that this endowment is made for the establishment of just'huch an institution as we have -an Agricultural College; and that when you undertake to divert the fund from that direction, and appropriate it to the maintenance of anyother institution, by making that Agricultural College a branch or dependency of such institution, you are violating the spirit and the letter of this act which says, that "the leading object" of the institution enjoying the benefit of the grant shall be to "teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts." We as a State have accepted this trust: let us execute it faithfully. 50-i CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Wednesday, Jul'31 187 EAE AD,POEDNS Mr. BIRNEY. Mr. President, I have sat here to-day, a quiet listener to this debate, hoping that it would long since have come to a close. I have noticed that the chief cause of interest and excitement in reference to this subject, seems to be local or sectional feeling. The debate does not seem to have grasped what appears to me to be the main reason why members of this Convention should feel bound to encourage this institution. I have heard the merits of various institutions canvassed. We have been told that in one, there is a good law school; that another has some other meritorious features; and thus comparisons have been made between different institutions. Now, all this, I apprehend, has nothing to do with the question. I am glad to hear of the prosperity of any institution locatedl at any place in this State; but I.do not think that the prosperity of one institution, or the want of prosperity of another institution determines the merits of this question. It has been said that "he is a benefactor who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew before." Now, I take it, that the great object in establishing the Agricultural College was to apply science to agriculture. Agricultural science had been in a rather undeveloped condition. Those engaged in the pursuit of agriculture, had not pursued it in a scientific and systematic manner, and failed to derive from it the advantages which an application of scientific principIes would enable them to obtain. Now, sir, we have a State covering an: area of, I believe, more than fifty-six thou sand square miles- a State capable, when its resources are properly devel oped, of sustaining a vast population a State which, in point of geographical extent, is larger, I believe, than the State of New York, although that has been ranked as the Empire State. Now, of what consequence is a trifling expenditure in sustaining an institu tion of this kind, if thereby we can ed ucate men who will apply science to the development of the agricultural re sources of this State in such a way as to supply most fully the wants of its population, and make it emphatically an Empire State. This I take to have been the main object in establishing this institutions Deprived, as the in stitutfn has been by its location, of those facilities which similar institu tions, situated in older and more thick ly settled regions, enjoy, it is not strange that it has not succeeded bet ter. Now, sir, my understanding has been that the endowment already given by the State to this institution, together with the very liberal endowment Vol. 2 —o. 64. granted'by Congress, ought to be sufficient, if well expended and properly managed, for the suitable support of an institution of this kind-not upon the largest scale, but upon a scale sufficiently large for all the purposes contemplated; and I have supposed that hereafter the institution will not require any large amount of assistance to keep it in proper condition and enable it to accomplish the end for which it was designed. I think this will prove to be the fact. I am therefore opposed to the inmotion of the gentleman from Branch to strike out this section, because it would give encouragement to those who are endeavoring to blot this institution out of existence. I think that it ought to go on, with the means which it now has for its support. Ever since I have had any acquaintance -with the Legislature of this State, I have observed that the question with reference to this Agricultural College has been a continual subject of controversy, and has constantly disturbed our legislative councils. One object which I have had in view in my votes upon this question, has been to bring that controversy to an end, and to have this question settled. I hope that this will be the result of the vote which we shall give,and that we shall not protract discussion by disputes about sectional interests, and comparisons between one institution and another. I trust we shall, as men called upon to frame an organic law for the State, indicate emphatically our conviction that agriculture is an interest which ought to be cultivated and encouraged by the State. Mr. McCONNELL. I move to amend section nine by striking out the word "shall," and inserting the word "may," so that the section will read, "The Legislature may provide for the support and maintenance of an Agri cultural College for instruction in agri culture and the natural sciences con nected therewith." Mr. McCLELLAND. I am in favor of this amendment; and if it be adopted, I shall be opposed to striking out the section. From 1850 down to the present time,'I have thought as I do now, that an Agricultural Col lege such as we have been endeavor ing to maintain, is an experiment which has never been fairly and fully tested in any portion of the world. Still, it is an experiment which ought to be tested fully; and notwithstanding the objections which have been made, I would, if I were a member of the Leg islature, vote to appropriate the money of the State liberally, so far as circum stances would allow, for the prosecu tion of this experiment. This has been my position ever since the section on this subject was inserted in the Constitution of 1850. I do not believe the experiment has yet been fairly tested. Until it shall have been fairly tested, I would sustain that institution. Instead of connecting it with the University of the State of Michigan, I would connect it with the Normal School. As to the location of the institution, I think that, it not the best, it is perhaps as good as any other that could be selected in the State. Entertaining these views, I shall cheerfully vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. McCoN-ELL,) because it will give the Legislature the entire control of this subject. Mr. LUCE. I rise to support cordially the amendment of the gentleman from Oakland. It meets my entire approbation; and if it should be adopted, I shall be perfectly satisfied with the section, and would gladly withdraw my motion to strike it out. Mr. HENDERSON. I would like to ask the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. M'CCLELLAND,) and the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LUcE,) in what respect the authority of the Legislature would be changed by the adoption of the section with the amendment now proposed. Mr. LUCE. It would not be changed at all. Mr. -HENDERSON. That is just what I thought. The Legislature, if the section were stricken out, would have just the same authority as it would have under the section as proposed now to be amended. Mr. McCLELLAND. I will say in reply to the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HENDERSON,) if I understood his inquiry correctly, that the section in its present form is imperative and mandatory, while if the amendment of the gentleman from Oakland be adopted, the matter will be left dis cretionary with the Legislature. Mr. CHAPIN. Mr. President, I am sorry to differ with the gentleman from Wayne, (MIr. MCCLELLAND,) and the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LacE,) on this subject. I am most decidedly opposed to the amendment of the gen tleman from Oakland. I believe that the section in its present form should be permitted to remain intact. I be lieve that the word "shall" should be used, in order that the Legislature may understand it as an imperative duty to sustain this institution. The very rea son urged by my respected friend from Wayne, in favor of adopting the amend ment, is the very reason why I would oppose i-because this institution is an experiment-an experiment as yet undecided. I would make it imperative upon the Legislature to foster and cher ish this institution until the experiment DEBATES "AND PROCEEDINGS. July'31, 1867. 505 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. shall have been fully tested; until the question shall have been settled whether this institution will or will not answer the objects of its establishment. If we take the ground of the gentleman from Wayne, that the institution is simply an experiment, I believe that the necessity is just as pressing that we should make it mandatory upon the Legislature to sustain the institution, as if it were a well-settled fact that the institution will become a success. Mr. McCLELLAND. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him one question? Mr. CHAPIN. Certainly. Mr. McCLELLAND. Suppose the experiment should fail, then what power will the Legislature have in the premises, if the section should be adopted in its present form? Mr. CHAPIN. I do not fear that the experiment will fail; I do not apprehend any such result. Besides, the Legislature will have control over the amount of money to -be apportioned for sustaining this institution; it may appropriate more, or it may appropriate less. The statistics embraced in the reports now before this Convention, (or which might be before the Convention, if members would take the trouble to examine them,) show conclusively that the institution in a very short time will require no aid from the State for its support; that it will very speedily become self-sustaining; so that by the adoption of this section, we shall not impose upon the Legislature any great amount of expenditure towards sustaining this institution. Mlr. LUCE. Mr. President, I am astonished at the ground taken by the gentleman from Gratiot, (Air. CHAPIN.) He manifests a distrust of the intelli gence of the people, a distrust of the intelligence and ability of the Legisla ture, that I did not expect to see man ifested on this floor. By striking out this section, or by adopting the amend ment of the gentleman from Oakland, we shall leave this whole subject with the Legislature. We shall not blot out the institution; we shall not take from it one dollar that properly be longs to it; we shall not do anything to detract from any merit which it may have. We shall simply leave the whole subject to be regulated ac cording to the will of the people expressed through their Legislature. Could anything be more fair and just? Could we in any way make a wiser pro vision for the future than by leaving this matter entirely within the discre tion of the Legislature? This is all I ask. This I all I have asked from the beginning. If this institution should prove a good thing-if it should- pros duce such good results as will plant it within the hearts of the people of the State, they will take care of the child of their affection. If the institution, on the other hand. should prove a failure, why should we not, in the name of common sense, leave in the hands of the Legislature power to make whatever arrangements may be necessary in that contingency? I beg that this Convention will not tie up.the hands of the Legislature on this subject, and place this institution beyond the control of the people acting-through the Legislature. It has been the crying evil of our Constitution heretofore, that the hands of the Legislature have been tied up with regard to too many subjects. Our attention has been called to this evil; we have been warned from various sources against attempting to bind and fetter the Legislature within the legitimate sphere of,its duty. Now, I ask this Convention to pause right here, and where there is so excellent an opportunity for showing that we have profited by the lessons of the past, let us leave the Legislature a wide discretion so that it may discriminate fairly and justly and honestly and wisely for the benefit of this institution, and for the benefit of the State. I am surprised that a gentleman so demo cratic in his principles as the eloquent gentleman from Gratiot, should rise here and manifest such a distrust of the ability and integrity of the people when acting through their Legislature. It is a matter of profound astonishment to me to see him rising to advocate such doctrines as he has just presented. Mr. CHAPIN. Perhaps, Mr. Presi dent, I may be able, by a word or two more upon this subject, to lessen the surprise of the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LucE;) I will, at any rate, endea vor to do so. Now, sir, in voting in this case for the word "shall," rather than the word "may," I do not understand that I am voting to incorporate any legislation in this Constitution. I simply vote to make it the imperative duty of the Legislature to take care of this insti tution. I do not propose that we shall say how or to what extent the Legis lature shall take care of it, but simply that that body shall discharge this duty. I would incorporate in the Con stitution this mandatory provision, for the very reason that I am aware that gentlemen holding the sentiments of the gentleman from Branch have here tofore been in the Legislature, and have opposed this institution. Hence I would make it imperative upon such gentlemen, and upon the whole Legis lature, to take care of the institution, leaving it to the discretion of the Leg islature to determine the amount of means which shall be furnished for its support. That is my view. I do not wish to shackle the Legislature; I simply wish to make that body understand by this mandatory clause in the Constitution, that it must take care of the Agricultural College. Mr. BIRNEY. I acknowledge, MIr. President, that if this institution cannot stand upon its own merits it ought to fall; but it appears to me that the adoption of this amendment leaving the maintenance of the institution discretionary with the Legislature, will re-open the entire controversy which has occupied so much of the time of the Legislature heretofore, and will keep open that controversy until this institution shall be entirely destroyed. Such will be the effect; and if this Convention wishes to drive this college out of existence, or to provide means for its destruction, we shall do so by making this matter in the future, as it has been in the past, a constant subject of discussion before the Legislature. It appears to me that if the amendment of the gentleman from Oakland bb adopted, the section will be rendered altogether nugatory, and may just as well be stricken out, be cause the Legislature will at any rate possess this discretionary power which gentlemen say they are anxious to bestow upon it. Mr. COOLIDGE. Mr. President, I have listened very patiently to the dis cussion of this subject, and have con sidered the question, I believe, without a particle of prejudice. I have had no connection, either as a member of the Legislature, or in any other way, with this Agricultural College; nor have I ever formed until I came here to this Convention, any very definite opinion about it. My mind is now, however, perfectly clear as to the vote which I shall give on this question. I shall vote against the amendment. If this question had come here quietly —if a storm had not been raised against this agricultural institution, as it has been in the most violent, and I think I may be permitted to say, the most uncharita ble manner, I might perhaps have voted differently upon the subject. But, sir, gentlemen on this floor who have been members of the Legislature-gentle men who will vote for the amendment, and who would vote to strike out the entire section-have given me more information as to the difficulties in the Legislature on this subject than I ever before possessed. They have stated again and again, that a great portion of the time of the Legislature has been devoted to the consideration of this question; and the transactions, it would appear from the manner in 506 WednesclayI DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. which they have been stated, have no been very creditable to the Legislature Now, sir, I have been surprised t hear sensible gentlemen declare o this floor, that this whole institution i. a humbug. What facts have they de tailed, upon which they have formed so positive an opinion? What fact have been presented upon which gen tlemen having no feeling or prejudic about the matter, con come to any such conclusion? I had supposed that there was some wisdom in th Legislature that established this insti tution. I did not suppose that its es tablishment was a mere boyish freak, mere idle speculation. I had supposed that able and judicious men had deem ed it wise to establish this institution I find that the site for the institution was only selected in 1855. Wha can gentlemen expect from an institu tion established so recently and con ducted under the circumstances in which this institution has been placed One gentleman from the southern par of the State has here declared that he forms his opinion of the utter worth lessness of this institution (I do not re member his language, but he gave no other reason for his opinion) from having seen three young men who had been some time in the institution. Now sir, is it creditable to this body, is it creditable to members here, that such facts as this should be given as the foundation of so grave an opinion as this? Are members to cry down this institution because one member has seen three young men who had been within the walls of the institution he did not say how long and whom he did not like? There has never been an educational institution in the world that could stand at all upon the char acter of the graduates which it sent out during the first few years of its ex istence. This institution has been from its very infancy beset with difficulties, and I think from appearances, (for I went out and looked at the institution,) with very serious difficulties. This institu tion must have experienced severe struggles in the beginning of its ca reer; and when I have visited those premises and made inquiries as to what the institution has accomplished, I say soberly that I have' been convin ced it has accomplished all that any sensible man ever could have expected it to accomplish up to the present time. Yet these violent, and I say uncharita ble and groundless denunciations have been heaped upon this Agricultural College. I entertain no such feelings as those which have dictated these at tacks; and if I am not mistaken, some gentlemen on this floor who have made these denunciations, have been under t the influence to some extent of bitte e. ness against that institution, from wha o ever sources that bitterness may hav , arisen. This is not a question to b is decided under any such influences. - is not a matter of feeling or passion o dprejudice; it is a matter affecting th s interest and honor of the State. - Sir, can any gentleman on this floo etell me why an Agricultural Colee y may not be of immense benefit to d State or a people? When we take ix e. to consideration the extent to whic the occupation of farming is carrie on, when we take into consideratio athat all the people are dependent upon d the prosperity of that branch of busi ness, would it not strike any rationa . man that an agricultural college, -de a voted particularly to this departmen t of industry, might be a benefit t the community? I had so supposed L- and I think, whatever may have bee: the result of experience upon a sma] ?scale in other States, the time is com ting when these agricultural college e will be the most valuable institu tions in the land. I can hardl - think that gentlemen seriously cal have any doubt on this point a Hence, I think that institutions of thi 1 kind have claims on us for patronag , and support. The future interests o t agriculture depend, in my view, upon the support which we give to such in stitutions. Yet, sir, within twelve s years from the time when the site fo s this institution was selected out her in the woods, during which time there have been small and sparse appropria tions made by the Legislature, the in stitution during the whole period having been beset with difficulties, as it must necessarily have been from its location and surrounding circum stances-within twelve years from the initial steps for the founding of this in stitution, sensible men in this body condemn the whole concern and wish L it to be blotted out of existence. I have no particular personal knowl L edge in reference to this institution. ] . had none when I came. here, and ] have acquired but little since. I know . that young men from the county of Berrien did come here and attend the , institution. I know their parents, and I do not know but that the boys came back as sensible as they went, and I think a little more so. I certainly sup posed that both they and their parents were in favor of this institution. I certainly heard nothing against it until my arrival here. I do not like very well the manner in which this institution has been treated in this Convention. I do not like very well for gentlemen to come here and make a "drive" for the purpose of taking this institution from Lansing and r- placing it at Ann Arbor. Gentlemen st-say that there is land down there ve which could be purchased, and that it be would be desirable to put the instituIt tion under the control of the Univerr sity; that if it were connected with ethat institution it would flourish. I understand that to have been the argur ment this morning. The argument e was, not that the Agricultural College ais necessarily a humbug; that it is not l- a necessity and that it cannot prove a h blessing to the State, or to any of its d people; but that the institution had n better be put under the guardianship nof the parent University of this State, i- that in this way greater advantages would be derived from such an institu - tion. Conducted in this way, as gen t tlemen say, as the President of the oUniversity says, this Agricultural Col; lege would be much cheaper as well as n more advantageous to the State. * That was the argument used *-this morning. When it is found s that the Convention will not consent - to remove this institution, to annihi y late its identity, and place all its inter ests in another institution of the State, then a "drive" is made earnestly, and as I say passionately, to blot the insti e tution out of existence, to take from it )f every particle of State patronage. In n view of these things, sir, I think the - history of this debate will not be re — emarkably creditable to this body. That ris my opinion sitting here as a specta etor and auditor. e Sir, if any facts had been adduc -ed here from which I could have -come to a different conclusion from that to which I have arrived, I certainly sshould have been glad to yield my s judgment to the weight of evidence. * I have come up here uninstructed by e my constituents in regard to this mat ter. I have come here with very little y knowledge of the institution. And I i believe, if gentlemen here discuss it much longer, I shall not know half as much about it as I did when I came. [ [Laughter.] My opinion is that it is [ due to the honor of our State that this institution should have an opportunity f to prove its usefulness; and I believe 3 that a sufficient length of time has not I yet been allowed for that purpose. Gentlemen object to making this sec [tion imperative upon the Legislature; - but, sir, what will be the effect of the ~ section? As has been remarked by the able gentleman from Gratiot, (Mr. CHAPrI,) the Legislature will be com pelled to do no more than its sober judgment may deem proper and neces sary. Th~ Legislature will, however, be * compelled to let the institution live. The hands of the Legislature will be , withheld from putting an end to the L existence of the institution; that is all. July'31 —- -1867. 'L C0OCONSTeUTION AT, CONVENTION. But, sir, if in five, six or eight years, the people of this State come to the conclusion that a change in reference to this matter is desirable and wise, such a change can be accomplished very easily, without much trouble or expense, although this section may now be retained in the Constitution. It does not follow that because the provision is now retained, it must remain in the Constitution for twenty years. The power of amending the Constitution through the medium of the Legislature can be exercised whenever the people deem it necessary. I cannot come to any other conclusion than to vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. McCoNNELL,) and to vote for the section as it stands. But I say, sir, that had the question arisen in a different way, I should have felt very differently about it. If I should vote for that amendment, I should be understood by everybody who may read these debates, or know what has occurred here on this question, as voting against this institutions and as signifying by my vote that the sooner it comes to an end the better. I hope that the amendment will not prevail. Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, my object in reference to this matter is to leave the subject to the Legislature, so that it may exercise a complete control over the institution, sustaining it if the public interests appear to demand that course, and refusing it all appropriations if the institution should prove of no public utility. Members have alluded to the attacks which have been made in the Legislature upon the Agricultural College. Now, sir, I have heard no attacks. All the attacks which I have known to be made in the Legislatureconsisted in voting every appropriation that was asked for. If that is "attacking" an institution, I presume that all of our public institutions would be willing to be "attacked" in the same way. Sir, this discussion commenced wrong this morning. It was wrong to start out by attributing improper motives to the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. RICHMOND,) when every man knows that, even if the Agricultural College were made a branch of the University, students would, by their access to the U~Jniesity, and by the general facihi ties of study, have advantages which they cannot now have in the Agricul tural College as at present located. I do not mean to advocate the annex ation of the Agricultural College to the University, unless such a step should appear to be demanded by the public interest. But I~ desire to leave the subject under the control of the Leg islature, so that it may act for the interests of the public, not for the interests of individuals who may wish to fasten this thing upon the State, right or wrong. Mr. BLACKMAN. In the votes which I have given upon this question, my aim has been to leave this matter to the discretion of the Legislature. We are now told by the the gentleman from Gratiot, (Mr. CHAPIN,) and the remark is quoted with approbation by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) tbat if we leave the section as it now stands the Legislature will be bound to do no more than it may please; that it will not be bound to appropriate to the institu tion any larger amounts than it may deem proper; that, if the institution should be regarded as having proved a failure, the Legislature will not be bound to sustain it. If this is true, then-I ask gentlemen what is the dif ference whether the word "may" or " shall" be inserted in this section, or what is the difference whether the sec tion be stricken out or-retained? Mr. LONGYEAR. Mr. President, when I occupied the floor this morn ing, I said all that I desired or intend ed to say upon the general question. I propose now to make a remark or two upon this particular amendment. I wish to call attention to it in the light of surrounding circumstances in the light of what has been done and what has been attempted, and what is desired and designed by the enemies of the Agricultural College. In the light of these circumstances and these facts, let us vote upon this amendment. Now, sir, if this were presented here as an original question-if it came here entirely relieved of all these surrounding circumstances; if there had been no such declaration on this floor of hostility to this institution, then the question would be presented in a very different light from that in which it comes before us at the present time. In the first place, the gentleman from Branch (Mr. LUcE) moves to strike Lout the entire section; and he states as his reason for the motion that, in his opinion, the institution is a failure, and ought to come to an end; that is to say, he proposes to strike out the , section for the purpose of destroying the institution. I admire his boldness _ in the attack, and his frankness in the avowal of his motives.'Then the gen-rteman from Oakland, (Mr. McCON SELL,) who, I find from a list before - me, voted also in the negative upon e the main question as involved in the [ amendment already decided, moves c to change the phraseology of the sectionfrom'shall" to "may," so af ,- to leave this question to the discretion e of the Legislature. The gentleman from Branch who deems the College an absolute failure, and who, occupying a position as an honorable Senator in the Legislature; is committed to its discontinuance, cordially supports the proposition of the gentleman from Oakland, and says that if it be adopted, he will withdraw his motion to strike out the section. How, then, are we to regard the opinions and motives of the gentleman from Branch in respect to the effect of this amendment? He evidently regards it as accomplishing his purpose just as well as striking out the section. Is not this a-common sense view of the case? Looking at the question in the light of surround ing circumstances, in the light of what has occurred' in the Legislature and in this Convention with regard to this subject, does not an amendment of this kind open the door to a continua tion of the very controversy which we have once declared by a decisive vote of this Convention shall cease? Most assuredly it does.' Mr. LOTHROP. W1ill the gentle man allow me to ask him a question? Mr. LONGYEAR. Certainly. Mr. LOTHROP. In view of the permanency which the gentleman de sires to impress upon this institution, I wish to ask him this question: as this section now stands, does he under stand that the Legislature will be com pelled to maintain this College where it is, and substantially as it is? Mr. LONGYEAR. Not at all. MIr. LOTHROP. Does the gentle man understand that under this sec tion it would be competent for the Legislature to remove the College from its present location to drag it out of the woods and place it here, for instance, in the midst of this city? Or does he understand that the Legisla ture must keep it where it is? Mr. LONGYEAR. I cannot see the force of the gentleman's inquiry. Mr. LOTHROP. No matter whether it has force or not; I wish to know how the gentleman understands this matter. Mr. LONGYEAR. I know that we. here are regarded as being "in the \ voods," and we were so for many , years. And I believe that Detroit did not aid us much in getting out. Mr. LOTHROP. That is not the as point. I do not desire to call the gen tleman's attention to that at all. I only - want his construction of this section e as a legal question. Mr. LONGYEAR. Then I hope the gentleman will put his question to me s without any of those qualifications. e Mr. LOTHROP. I ask the gentles man then, can the Legislature under a this section remove the Agricultural a College from its present ~location three I a i r t s i i W ednesday, 508 July- 31, 1867 D]BAE Aa-D PRCE IrS 500d i- — I miles from here, to the city of Lansing for instance? Mr. LONGYEAR. Most certainly. Mr. LOTHROP. Very well; that is all I want to know. Mr. LONGYEAR. But when the gentleman talks of " dragging that College out of the woods," I propose to qualify my answer. Mr. LOTHROP. I did not speak of this place as being "in the woods." I spoke of the present location of that College. Mr. LONGYEAR. Well, I will ask the gentleman simply this question: hias he visited the State Agricultural College lately? Mr. LOTHROP. Well, I have been there. Mr. LONGYEAR. Lately? Mr. LOTHROP. Well, I really cannot state the time with accuracy; it was about two or three years ago. Mr. LONGYEAR. "Two or three years ago!" Now, Mr. President, that illustrates very well the character of the knowledge which gentlemen upon this floor who are opposiig this College have in regard to it. They are talking here without really knowing what is the condition of this institution and what it has done. I will guaranty that, if the gentleman from Wayne should visit that College, his frankness of character, his good judgment and the reasonableness of his disposition, would impel him to acknowledge his surprise at the ad vancement which has been made even since the last time that he visited it; and if, after that he should, in putting a question to a gentleman on this floor, speak of "dragging that College out of the woods," I should be very much sur prised. Now, MIr. President, I wish to speak of the effect which this change of phraseology would have. I said that it would open the door to a continua tion of the controversy which has been going on ever since the inauguration of this College down to the present time, and is going on now-a controversy which we have already determined by a decisive vote shall come to an end. To reopen that controversy is, it seems to me, in the light of surrounding cir cumstances, the object of this motion. Such would be the effect of its adop tion; and I charge it to be the object and purpose, to open the door to the continuance of that controversy. Now, as to the propriety, as an inde pendent question, of using the word "shall," instead of "may," let me in the first place call the attention of members to the fact that when this project was started in the Convention of 1850, similar language to that con tained in this section was used. That Convention provided that " the Legislature shall encourage the promotion of intellectual, scientific and agricultural improvement, and shall as soon as practicable provide for the establishment of an agricultural school." WVe propose now simply to continue that same peremptory language. Again, Mr. President, a donation of 240,000 acres of land has been made to this State by the General Government, with the express condition annexed to the grant that it shall be devoted exclusively to the maintenance of a school, the "leading object" of which shall be education in agriculture and the mechanic arts, not excluding other sciences and military tactics. Now, in view of that donation and the purpose for which it was granted, should we not make the language of this provision peremptory? Should we leave the subject in such a position that this donation might be frittered awa!y by being appropriated to some other purpose? It cannot in accordance with the grant be devoted to any other purpose. The Legisla ture cannot under the grant appropri ate it to any other purpose. The Leg islature cannot appropriate it to the maintenance of any school of which the " leading object" is not to teach ag riculture and the mechanic arts. Do those who urge the transfer of this grant to the University, or the abolition of this College and of course the diversion of this donation of lands to some other school or to some other purpose-do those gentlemen pretend that a diversion of this land to the University would be in compliance with the terms of this grant? Do the friends of the Univer sity agree that if this donation of lands he diverted to the use of that institu tion, they will make the University one in which the " leading object" shall be instruction in agriculture and the me chanic arts? I apprehend not. Do they then propose to keep faith with the Governmentiin this respect, or do they propose to open the door for bad faith in this regard? I say that, in view of this fact, in view of the terms upon which this donation has been granted, we should make the language of this provision peremptory. One word further upon this subject. Gentlemen have seen fit, upon this mo tion, to spread upon the records of this Convention, to go forth to the public, epithets in regard to this institution epithets unfounded in fact, and unsup ported by reason and logic. Epithets, as every man knows, prove nothing, They simply show that the person using them is either in a bad humor, or that he is bound to make an attack, and has no good ground upon which to found it. No person who has visited this institution and knows anything about its merits-no person who is unprejudiced and acquainted with the subject upon which he speaks-will make any such attacks upon -this Agricultural College. But, sir, I have neither the time nor the disposition to answer attacks made in this spirit, or to bandy epithets with any gentleman in relation to this or any other subject. Mr. LUCE. Mr. President, I rise to reply to a single remark which has been made. I understood the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) to inti iate in the course of his harmless and innocent little speech that I was actua ted by personal hostility or enmity to this College. If that was the imputation, I wish to say that, so far as I am con cerned, it is entirely unfounded and untrue. I have no enmity towards this College, or anybody connected with it. As a member of the Legislature, I last winter voted for an appropriation of $40,000, to pay the running expenses of this institution. Mr. W. A. SMITH. iIr. President, I am in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Branch, to strike out this section. I do not think that the adoption of this motion will be equivalentto the annihilation of this Col lege. If the section be struck out, this subject, as the gentleman from Branch has well said, will be left entirely to the Legislature. This institution is ad nmitted on all hands to be an experi ment. If this experiment should result in showing that such an institution must necessarily be a failure, then is it not better that the Legislature should be free to make some disposition of the rmatter other than to continue to foster and cherish an institution which has been demonstrated to be useless? The best friends of the institution do not claim that any benefits have been re ceived from it thus far. The benefit is all in expectancy. They anticipate that it will prove beneficial. This institution, as I understand, is intended entirely for the benefit of the arming community; yet, as a general thing, the farmers are against the in stitution. Now, it appears to me that the farmers are intelligent enough to know what is for their own interest. Yet if the question were submitted to-day to the farmers of this State, they would vote this institution out of existence. That is my opinion, and I think I am pretty well acquainted with the sentiment of the farmers in relation to the subject. They claim that if the two hundred and thirty thousand dol lars already appropriated to this insti tution had been applied to the-support of the common school system, or any other school system, the people would -July 31,.1867. DEBATES A WD PROCEEDINGS. .509 I 510 CO~~STITUTIO~~AL CO~VE~TIO~~. ~ edne~day, have received from it four-fold more benefit than they have received from the Agricultural College. All that we ask is simply that this institution shall not be fastened and fixed in the Constitution of the State; that the subject may be left in such a position, that when the experiment shall have failed, (as I expect it must fail at some future time,)' the Legislature may not still be compelled to foster and support a worthless institution. For my part, I would be glad if the institution should prove a success-if it should prove a benefit to the community. And should the institution prove successful, the Legislature without any such provision as is contained in this section, would still be able to make such appropriations as might be necessary for the continuance of the institution. - Gentleman claim that, if this section be stricken out, we shall leave too much room for legislation on this subject. Now, sir, if the section be retained, there may be just as much legislation at every session of the Legislature in relation to how much money shall be appropriated to the institution, as there would be if the Constitution should contain' no provision on the subject. The Legislature must in either case determine what appropriations shall be made to the institution; and members of that body may as well talk for months over that as over anything else. For these reasons, I am in favor of striking out the section. Mr. DANIELLS. Mr. President, I think that when the debate of this day shall have been published, members of this Convention will generally be disposed to acknlmowledge that it has been one of the most unfortunate debates that has ever taken place in this State, and especially in this-Convention. The subject of discussion has been the educational institution of this State, while the m:aterial of the discussion has been for the most part crimination and recrimination. I hope that when we shall get through, our actions will appear a great deal better than our talk. I hope that we shall yet reconsider and adopt the proposition which was voted down a few days ago to raise an annual tax'of one-twentieth of a mill for the benefit of the University. I hope that that proposition will yet be carried unanimously through this Convention. If I am correct in my calculations, that tax would amount to only one dollar on each twenty thousand dollars of the assessed valuation of property. Now, is there any farmer, is there any profession- man, is there any citizen, whatever his pursuit, in this State who would not be willing to give one dollar on every twenty thousand dollars to sustain and strengthen that noble University? Mr. THOMPSON. If the gentleman will yield to me a moment, I desire to ask what is the question under discussion? The PRESIDENT. The question under discussion, is the motion of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. IMcCoNNELL,) to strike out the word " shall," in the first line of the section, and insert the word may." Mr. ALEXANDER. The gentleman from Clinton seems apprehensive that some of us will be ashamed of this day's discussion. Now, I would suggest to the gentleman that, if he is ashamed of his talk on this question, he had better quit before his constituency get hold of any more of it. [Laughter.] 4 Mt. DANIELLS. I am very much obliged to the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) for his advice. I shall endeavor to take so much of it as may be good, throwing away the rest. I will, however, say that there is one maxim which I do not always consider it wise to fo]low-Fas est ab hoste doceri. I do not always take advice from my enemies. But, Mlr. President, our refusal to authorize that small tax for the benefit of a great institution like the University of tlie State, one that we all, I trust, love and revere, justly aroused, I think, the feelings of the friends of that institution. But I believe they have done wrong in permitting the influence of that feeling to induce them to make an attack on the Agricultural College, which I hold to be just as useful an institution as the University. I had even proposed, in my own mind, to introduce an amendment that the Legislature might make the University a department of the Agricultural College. [Laughter.] But as the feeling of this Convention appears to be opposed to connecting the two institutions, I have concluded not to offer that proposition. Mr. President, I think that it would be a very suitable atonement for the work of this day, which has been so badly spent, if we should go on and vote in the first place that the Legislature shall take care of the Agricultural College, and in the next place reconsider our former action and vote to authorize a tax of one-twentieth of a mill for the support of the University at Ann Arbor. I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. MCCONNELL,) will not prevail. I regard it as a most insidious attack upon the Agricultural College. Should it prevail, the action of this Convention would be cited in the Legislature as showing the sentiments of the Convention against the Agricultural College.- For this reason, I much prefer the proposition of the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LucE,) if either. of these amendments is to be adopted. The gentleman from Branch is known as one of the bitterest enemies of the Agricultural College, and he makes a bold and manly attack. But the amendment of the gentleman from Oakland is an insidious attack, a side-blow, which would be full of mischief to the interests of this Agricultural College, because of the influence it would have upon the action of the Legislature. IMr. CONGER. Mr. President, we have had much rambling discussion upon this subject. I propose now to invite the attention of gentlemen of the Convention to a consideration of the obligation which the State of Michigan has solemnly — taken upon itself, in regard to this subject; and- if, after having looked at this question in its true light, gentlemen of the Convention shall be in favor of adopting the amendment of the gentleman from Oakland, I shall have no more to say on the subject. If, after a fair exhibition of the obligations resting upon the State in this regard, the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LUCE,) with all his hostility to this institution, should still be in favor of striking out this section, then I have mistaken his character. Mr. LUCE. I would like to understand what the gentleman from St. Clair means by attributing to me "hostility to this institution." I have denied emphatically having any hostility to this College, or to any man, woman or child connected with it. MAr. CONGER. Mr. President, the United States a few years ago proposed to give to the several States of this Union a large amount of land upon certain~ conditions. One of the conditions, as named in the act making this proposal to the States, was that every State accepting the trust should appropriate forever the interest of the funds arising from the land granted, for the support of a school for education in agriculture and the mechanic arts. That proposition was tendered to the State of Michigan among other States; and the Legislature of this State solemnly accepted the trust, the gentleman from Branch being a member of that Legislature. Now, I propose to read the obligation which the State of Michigan has taken upon itself in its covenant with the United States in accepting these lands; and then I shall ask gentlemen qf this Convention whether they are willing to leave the fulfillment of this CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. :'W ednegdav Jul: 31 187 DEAE N R(EDfS 1 obligation to the freaks of the Legislature. Mr. LUCE. The good sense of the Legislature. Mr. CONGER. The freaks of the Legislature; for it has its freaks. Its members unfortunately have freaks as well in the Legislature as in other deliberative'bodies, as we too well see. I propose to read the conditions under which this grant has been accepted, and then I propose to submit to my friend from Oakland and to my friend from Branch whether, in view of this solemn agreement on' the part of the State of Michigan, we should in this Constitution. make it binding upon the State to fulfill its covenant agreements. After a fair exhibition of our obligation in this regard, no further agrument will be necessary on this subject. The act of Congress, after making this grant, and giving certain directions in regard to its management, distribution, etc., contains the following provisions: SECTION 4. And be it.further enacted, That all moneys derived from the sale of the lands atforesaid by the State to which the la. ds are apportioned, and from the sales of land scrip hereinbelore provided for, shall be invested in stocks of the United States, or of the States, or some other safe stocks, yielding not less than five per centum upon the par value of said stocks; and that the moneys so invested shall constitute a perpetual lund, the capital of which shall remain forever undiminished, (except so lar as may be provided in section fifth of this act,) and the interest of which shall be inviolably appropriated, by each State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support and maintenance of at least one college, where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classic studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the Legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in iife. SECTION 5. And be it fur,ther enacted, That the grant of land and land scrip hereby authorized shall be made on the following con ditions, to which, as well as to the provisions hereinbefore contained, the previous assent of the several States shall be signified by legislative acts: First. If any,portion of the fund invested, as provided'by the foregoing section, or any portion of the interest thereon, shall, by any action or contingency, obe diminished or lost, it shall be replaced by the State to which it belongs, so that the capital of the fund shall remain forever undiminished: and the annual interest shall be regularly applied without diminution to the prrposes mentioned in the fourth section of this act, except that a sum, not exceeding ten per centum upon the amount received by any State under the pro visions ot this ac,, may be expended for the purchase of lands for sites or experimental farms, whenever authorized by the respective, Legislatures of said States. Second. No portion of said fund, nor the interest thereon, shall be applied, directly or indirectly, under any pretense whatever, to the purchase, erection preservation or repair of any building or buildings. Third. Any State which may take and claim the benefit of the provilons of this act shall provide within five years at least, not less than one college, as described in the fourth section of this act, or the grant to such State shill cease; and said State shall be bound to pay the United States the amount received of ary lands previously sold, and that the title to purchasers under the State shall be valid. These lands, as appears by the provisions I have just read, were not given for any general and indiscriminate purpose. They were not received by the State of Michigan for any general and indiscriminate purpose. They were given for the purpose of establishing and maintaining an agricultural college; and it may be said to the honor of Michigan that she was the first State of this Union that provided for organizing and maintaining within its borders an agricultural college. And I may say further, that the project of this grant to the various States of this Union originated with the honorable members of Congress from this State. To their zeal and energy, we, and the other States of this Union, owe the munificent grant of land which has been made by the United States. The plan had its origin with them, and was carried through largely by their efforts, which were made with special reference to the agricultural College of the State of Michigan. The Legislature of the State of Michigan solemnly assented to the provisions of that grant, one of which was that the proceeds of the grant should be forever appropriated for the support and maintenance of an agricultural college. Yet here, to day, Mr. President,, we witness the wonderful and anomalous spec tacle of men who have joined in pledging the faith of the State to that object, desiring to strike out of the organic law of,this commonwealth an imperative clause which shall re quire the Legislature to maintain this trust forever untouched and untainted. Is it not wonderful? is it not marvel ous? Gentlemen say that this subject should be left to the cdiscretion" of the Legislature. If they mean the freaks of the Legislature Mr, LUCE. No; the discretion of the Legislature. Mr. CONGER. Why,l Mr. Presi dent, it is not long since the gen tleman from Branch (Mr. Lvucx) was unwilling to leave to the discretion of the Legislature the most unimportant matter in the world, for fear that that body might go astray. He was not willing that the Legislature should be allowed the discretion of providing, if in its wisdom it should deem such a provision proper, for an appeal from a board of supervisors in particular cases, where an appeal might without incon venience be permitted. It was the gentleman from Branch who then zeal, ously opposed leaving such a thing to the discretion of the Legislature. It was he who roused all the Goliath energies of his diminutive body to come to the rescue of the board of supervisors. Yet, when it is proposed that, after the faith of the State has been. pledged in the face of the nation, that pledge shall be protected and carried out by a clause in the Constitution providing that the Legislature "shall maintain an agricultural college," the gentleman would say "may maintain!" Aye, sir, he rises in his place and moves to strike out the only provision that can bind the Legislature to carry out the faith which the State has pledged. A grave and honorable senator of the State of Michigan, who has himself joined in pledging the faith of this State to the National Government, would now remove from our Constitu tion the guaranty for the faithful exe cution of that pledge. I am sure that the gentleman does not see what he does. I know he would not do wrong knowingly; but he is somewhat like my self; in the zeal and eagerness with which,when he once gets upon the scent, he follows the game, he doesnot stop to consider the consequences, but goes on greedily in the bloody pursuit. It is a fault of his nature as it is of mine. I repent of such things in cooler mo ments of reflection; and there is yet a chance for the gentleman to follow my example in that respect, apd to repent of his impetuosity. Age has some what tempered the zeal of my nature. It is a wise provision of Providence, that so long as we live in this world, we grow older, even if we do not grow wiser; and the gentleman cannot es cape the blessing which Providence is showering upon him in this respect unless he should commit suicide and disappoint the hopes of his friends forever. [Laughter.] Mr. LUCE. I shaell not do that. Mr. CONGER. Now, sir, leaving these appeals-pursuing no farther this pathetic vein, which my friend from Branch has aroused in this Con vention, and which has even affected me, cool and careful as I generally am -I submit tp gentlemen of this Con vention that it is our imperative duty to insert in the Constitution this section as it stands; that it would be unworthy of our fair fame as a State,; when the question affects a matter of State obli gation, a matter involving the honor and integrity of the people, to insert the word "may" instead of the word "shall." Whatever gentlemen may say about particular institutions however many "humbugs" may be fluttering through this hall!and from whatever source they may originate, and whomever they may anny —when there arises a serious question: tlike July 31,.i867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 511 I 512 OOSTITUTIOAL COVETIO Wednesday, this, affecting the honor and integrity of the State, there is enough states manship-.edl conscientiousness among our pealoe and among their represen tatives here, to maintain the pledge which;the State has made, and to place in the organic law of our common wealth a continuation of the same as surance which our Legislature gave to ,the nation when it accepted this magnificent endowment from the Gen eral Government. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Mr. -President, I do not rise to discuss this question; I have no desire to do so. I have already said upon the sub ject all I desire to say, and I am ad monished that it is nearly time for the 'Convention to adjourn for the day. -But I must raise my voice and enter .my protest against the amendment ,offered bymy colleague, (Mr. McCoN'SELL.) I cannot divine the motive by which he has been actuated in offering this amendment. Professing as he ,does, to be a friend of the Agricultu -all College, he proposes a measure which is calculated to sap its very foundations. I agree perfectly with the gentleman from Ygam, (Mr. 'ONGYEAR,) upn thais subject, He Ias expressed fully my views in de laring that such a measure will ectually,destroy this College. I gree also with my friend from St. I, (MT,'~o'GER,) that it is our dut.y, that we are bound in honor, to . - y out anl flfill the faith we have p i d on the part of the State. If th is section be amended in the manner pr, pnsed by my colleague, it will effectual,!F-destroy the efficiency of the provisik w; -it will undo all that we have befoi'e (done in striking out a portion of thi. section. I hope that the amendment - ~not prevail. Mr. T~i;,XANDfivR. Mr. President, I have n, ~ the slight st hostility towards the Ag ~cultural.Co llege, although it has not hen:so.suc~ essful thus far as itsfriend'mdhopedi~' might be. But, sir, I pr, Gheto.vot for the amendment of Se,sntlema~ from Oakland; and I she E do'it for.th3 simple reason that I am nosed to insp srting in the Constituti rm.ca:mamy -" ~ halls," and "shall not i~ "'-beause3ha~ e some confidence in i wfisdom and integrity of future Le'latres, and:in th e people of the St He who are to ele~ tthose Legislatu ma. I thin/k that w-e should allow sor ie,discretion in this r aspect, that the peo'ple acting flvoug~L the Legislatu; Me say govern themself es in accordanc 2 with Suture cireumstan'ces, as they m ayF from time to time arise. Mr. Pr s idlethe radi(al. fault of our Cons, Wmtion,j the great ground -of caomLpla i s annet it since if,s adoptio~., has beenr, th~ ~lmot endless quantity oil , shalls" and " shall nots" with which it abounds. The Legislature is constantly commanded to do certain things and prohibited from doing certain other things. I see no impropriety in striking out the word "shall" in this section and inserting the word may." I have great confidence in the people and the Legislatures which they shall elect. The members of the Legislature will be chosen by the same constituencies that have elected us. They will come fresh from the people. If this Agricultural College should in the future prove a failure, and should disappoint the wishes and expectations of its friends here, I want the Legislature to be at liberty to abandon the undertaking without an amendment to the Constitution. Mr. LUCE. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and the amendment of Mr. MCCON.NELL was not agreed to; there being yeas 27, nays 41, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Alexander, Barber, Blackman, Corbin, Crocker, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, D. Goodwin, Hixson, Lawrence, Lothrop, Luce, McConnell, Morton, Murray. Pratt, Rafter, Root, W. A. Smith, Stockwell, P. D. Warner, W.E. Warner, Winans, Yeomans and the President-27. NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Andrus, Bills, Birney, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Estee, Germain, Harris, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Hull, Leach, Longyear, Lowell, Mussey, Norris, Pringle, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner,. Tyler, Van Riper, Van 'Valkenburgh, Walker, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse and Wright-41. FEMALE COLLEGE. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I move to amend section nine,by striking out the words "an agricultural," and inserting "a female;" and by striking out the word "agriculture," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "the fine arts and belles-lettres," so that the section will read as follows "The Legislature mnay provide for the support and maintenance of a female college for instruction in the fine arts and belles-lettres." Mr. President, I suppose that I am fairly entitled to at least an hour and a half to illustrate the importance of this amendment; but I propose to yield most of that time for the benefit of other members. This section, as it stands, makes it imperative upon future Legislatures, if this Constitution should be adopted, to support and maintain this Agricultural College, now established. It may be entirely consonant with the wishes and interests of the people of the State that this institution should be thus supported and mamintained. I hope it may be; I desire to say here that I have no hostile feelings whatever toward that institu tion. It has struggled hard to main tain its existence, and has achieved already a reasonable reputation. But, Mr. President, from the experience which I have had in matters of legislation, I am well satisfied that the farming or agricultural interests of our State will be well represented in'all future Legislatures. It has been remarked that three-fourths of the members of our Legislature are supervisors and justices of the peace. If this be true, then the agricultural interest need have no fear that it will not be adequately protected in all its rights, at the hands of the Legislature. But there is another class of our people as deserving of consideration from this Convention and from future Legislatures as are the agriculturists. This class is composed of the wives and daughters of Michigan. While the farmers will always have their interests fully represented in the legislative bodies of our State, the women of our commonwealth cannot' be heard there. Mr. CONGER. -Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. P. D. WARNER. Certainly. Mr. CONGER. I wish to know whether the gentleman is not aware that, so far as the Convention has acted on this subject, we have provided that the women shall have equal rights with men, both in elections and in representation. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I am well aware of that fact; but I am aware of' another fact, that this Convention is, getting fickle; that it undoes to-day what it did yesterday; and it may undo to-morrow what it does to-day. I have not so much confidence in the stability of this body as to believe that the action of the committee of the whole on the article entitled "Elections" will be concurred in by this Convention, and that the halls of our Legislature will in future be graced by the presence of women as members. If these honors are to be conferred upon them, I would myself be very happy to meet them here. Mr President, I do not desire to occupy the time of the Convention, but I conceive this to be an important question; it is one in which we all have a common interest; and while I do not propose that by the adoption of this amendment, we shall strike at any educational interest in the State, I propose simply to leave the Agricultural College in the hands of its friends, from whom I am assured it will receive protection and support. I desire that this other class of individuals, who are as respectable, and as essential to the happiness and prosperity of our State as are the agriculturists, shall receive that consideration which is due to them 512 CONSTITUTION-A TL CO.NVFNTIO.N. Wednes,day, Jul 31 1. 7.EAE,N!RCEI'~ Ad from this Convention, and from the people of the State. Mr. NORRIS. I move thliat the Con vention now adjourn. The motion was not agreed to; there being ayes 18, noes 41. The question recurred on the amendment of Mr. P. D. WARNER. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and the amendment of Mr. P. D. WAD RNER was not agreed to; there being yeas 3, nays 58, as follows: YEAS-,Messrs. Morton, Norris, and P. D. Warner-3. NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Bills, Birney, Blackman, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Crocker, Daniells, Duncan, Duncombe, Estee, Germain, D. Goodwin, Harris, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hull, Leach, Longyear, Lothrop, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Murray, Mussey, Pratt, Pringle, Rafter, Root, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, W. A. Smith, Stockwell, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, W. E. Warner, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, Wright, Yeomans and the President-58. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH, (when his name was called,) said: I desire to explain the reasons'for my vote on this question. With my strong desire to aid the ladies on all occasions, I should be disposed to vote in favor of the amendment; but for the reason that I believe the adoption of this'amendment would be a violation of our good faith with the General Government, I vote (no." Mr. HOLT, (when his name was called,) said: If the proposition of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) were offered as a separate section, I should vote for it; but as an amendment to this section I am compelled to vote against it. Mr. LONGYEAR, (when his name was called,) said: Much as I am in favor of the endowment of a college for the education of females, I am not in favor of erecting such a college upon the ruins of another institution equally important to the State. I therefore vote "no." The result of the vote was announced as above stated. AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE. The question then recurred on the motion of Mr. LucE to strike out section nuine. Mr. CONGER. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and the motion to strike out the section was not agreed to; there being yeas 12, nays 47, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Blackman, Hixson,Lothrop, Luce, Morton, Murray, Norris, Rafter, W. A. Smith, Stockwell, P. D. Warner and Winans -12. Vol. 2-No. 65. -NAYS-Messrs.,Aldrich, Alexander, An.drus, Bills, Birney, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger Crocker, Daniells, Duncan, Duncombe, Estee, Germain,. D. Goodwin, Harris, Holmes Holt, Howard, Hull, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, McConnell, Mussey, Pratt, Pringle, Root, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Woodhlouse and Wright-47. Mr. BLACKMAN, (when hIis name was called) said: I desire to say aword in explanation of my vote. It has, I believe, been claimed here by some, that a vote in the affirmative on this question is a -vote to repudiate the faith of theiState pledged when this grant of land was made for this college. Did I:so understand I should certainly not vote in the affirmative, but should most certainly vote in the negative. Failing, however, to see how a refusal to enjoin the Legislature td support and sustain this school is a diversion of this grant, or an interference with it in any way, I vote " aye." Mr. McC"ELLAND not having voted when his name was called, Mr. CONGER moved that Mr. McCLELLiND be excused from voting. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. CONGER. -I trust I may be allowed to state my reason for making this motion. I have supposed the rules to be obligatory on all gentlemen composing this Convention. If that is not so, I would, if I had the power, withdraw the motion, which I made simply out of courtesy to the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) to relieve him from the position of disobeying the rules. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will again call the name of Mr. HMcCLFLLAND. The Secretary again called the name of Mr. MOCLELLAND, and he did not vote. The PRESIDE]NT. The Convention having refused to excuse the gentleman from Wayne from voting:on this question, he is, as the Chair 11derstands, imperatively required by the rules to vote. Mr. MoCLELLANID. I do not understand how it would Be possible for this Convention to compel me to vote. I saw that question tried once in the case of John Quincy Adams, when he was a member of the United States House of Representatives; and he could not by any possibility be compelled to vote. But, Mr. President, ] do not want to have any difiiculty with the Convention in regard to this matter;; and I will state the reasonwhy I have de clined voting. I did not want to vote: as my inclination would induce me to vote, td strike out the section, because I do not desire that any action of-mine shall influence the Legislature hereaf-. ter; and it has been stated here, that a vote of the Convention in favor of striking out this section, would be regarded by the Legislature hereafter as a sort of instruction to abolish this institution. Now, I say frankly, as I have often said heretofore, that if I were a member of the Legislaeure, I should vote to sustain this institution as long as I had the slightest hope- of its success. When there was no longer any reasonable hope of its success, I should be in favor of abolishing it. That is my position. I wish to do nothing that would in any way interfere with the action of the Legislature on this subject. Mr. WILLARD. In view of the explanation which the gentleman from Wayne has given, I move to reconsider the vote by which the Convention refused to excuse him from voting. Mr. MUSSEY. I shall vote against this motion to reconsider. I recognize all members upon this floor as equals, whether I am recognized as an equal or not. There have been one, or- two occasions-there was one to-daywhen I very much disliked to vote, and would have been glad to be excused from voting; but I-was satisfied the Convention was not disposed to excuse me, and therefore I voted. However much any gentleman on this floor may be disinclined to vote, I think we all should be treated equally. I want this rule of equality recognized, and therefore I shall vote against this motion to reconsider. Mr. WILLARD. I think that when any gentleman gives a'reason for not voting, and it seems to be sufficient, he ought to be excused. Mr.* DANIELLS. I hope, Mr. President, that the gentleman will be excused. It is very frequently the case with politicians that they do not want to put their names on the record, and I appreciate the position of the Governor. [Laughter.] I myself never had these fastidious feelings, but I have respect for such feelings in others; and I hope that we shall adopt the motion to reconsider. The motion to reconsider the vote by which the Convention had refused to excuse Mr. MCCLELLAND from voting, was agreed to. The question recurring on the motion of Mr. CONGER, that Mr. MOCLELLAND be excused from voting, the motion was agreed to. Mr. NORRIS, not having voted during the calling of the roll, his name was subsequently called, when he said: r. President, because I desire to leave this matter with the Legislature, I vote "aye;" and I am willing that my vote. may be considered as unriendly to the principle of the State taking upon-itself i n, n I r, I e t 0 e 8 t DEBATES.AND PROCIM'P.'nINGS. July 31, 1-867. 518 51 vO~TTOA COVNIN Tht r day, the support, by taxation, of the Agricultural, or an other special educational school. The result of the vote on the motion to strike out the section, was then announced, as above stated. Mr. ALEXANDER. I move that this Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to, and the Convention, (at six o'clock p. m.,) adjourned.) - FIFTY-SIXTH DAY. THURSDAY, AUgUSt 1, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mr. MCINTInE. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. D. GOODWIN. I asked leave of absence for an indefinite period, for the reason that public duties call me away. Leave was granted. Mr. STOCKWELL. I ask indefinite leave of absence for the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. SAvWYER,) who has been suddenly called home by sickness in his family. Leave was granted. Mr. WINANS asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for Mr. LAWRENCE. Mr. W. A. SMITH asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for Mr. W. E. WARNER. Mr. SUTHERLAND asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence after to-day. Mr. HAZEN asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence after to-day. Mr. I?UNCOMBE asked and obtained leave of absence until Wednesday next. EDUCATION. The Convention resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Education." The PRESIDENT. Amendments to the body of the article are now in order. OOMPULSORY ATTENDANCE AT SCHOOL. Mr. CASE. I move to amend section three by adding thereto the following: The Legislature shall provide for the regular attendance at a public or private school, for at least three months in every year, of every scholar between the ages ot seven and fourteen years, whose health will permit such attendance. Mr. President, I hope that this amendment, (which is similar to one that I offered in committee of the whole,) will now prevail, and be incorporated in the Constitution. We have already, I believe, adopted a provision whereby we expect to maintain in every school district of the State a free school for at least four months in every year; and it seems to me no more than right that we should require the children of the district to attend the school for at least a portion of the time. We know that, at least in the newer parts of the State, there is great difficulty in carrying on our schools on account of the nonattendance of scholars.- The children are running at large; and our schools dwindle and sometimes entirely die out for want of scholars. Most of the gentlemen of this Convention have, I presume, seen the rereport which the Superintendent of Public Instruction sent to us the other day. If we will but give our attention to one of the arguments which he presents, it will, I think, satisfy us of the propriety of such a system as this amendment proposes. He states that there are now about seventy-five thousand children in the State, of an age suitable to attend school, who-are not attending any of the schools of the State. We are now providing for the levying of a tax upon the people for the support of a free school in each district for at least four months in each year. Many of us who will pay this tax have no direct interest in the schools-have no children to send to school. Now, sir, as the Superintendent of Public Instruction remarks, it is but just to the. tax-payers that they should receive an equivalent for the money which they pay; and they certainly receive -no equivalent unless all the. children of suitable age attend the schools for the support of which this money is paid. I trust thatthe Convention will consider this question deliberately and thoughtfully before coming to a vote upon it, and I hope that the amendment may eventually be adopted. Mr. HOLT. I wish to offer al amendment in the form of a new section, embracing the same idea as the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Montcalm, (Mr. CASE.) The following is what I propose to add to the end of the article as an additional section: SECTION'-. The Legislature shall provide by law for compelling the attendance of children at school such length of time each Year, and upon suck conditions as may be deemed advisable, and make the neglect of such attendance a penal offense on the part ot the parents and guardians having the control of the children thus neglecting to attend school. The PRESIDENT. This proposition, not being an amendment to the amendment to section three, cannot be entertained unless the gentleman from Montcalmn, (Mr. CASE,) will consent to withdraw his proposition that this may be received. Mr. CASE. I do not know that I have any objection to this as a substitute for my amendment. I therefore withdraw the amendment. Mr. HOLT. I move then to add at the end of the article as a new section the amendment I have just read. Without detaining the Convention for any length of time, I will say that this is a provision which I would like to see embodied in the Constitution. It seems to me that it might be carried into effect, and prove a very salutary measure. If we had on our statute-books a law such as is indicated in this amendment, it would do more to prevent crime than any other law which could be passed by the Legislature. It may be objected that the system here proposed is impracticable. I think it is not. A law similar to that here proposed, is enforced in some countries, and not only proves practicable, but has a very benign influence upon the educational interests of those countries Mr. ALTEXANDER. I should be glad to vote for this amendment with a slight alteration. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the word "shall," and inserting in lieu thereof the word "may." I am opposed to inserting so many " shalls" in the Constitution. I would also be glad if the amendment were modified by striking out the latter provision which provides that the children's neglect of attendance shall be made a penal offense on the part of parents and guardians. I prefer to leave this whole matter to the Legislature. If the amendment be modified as I now propose, I shall be pleased to support it. Mr. ALEXANDER'S amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. BURTCH. I move to amend the amendment by striking out all after the word "advisable," - the portion which I propose to strike out being in this language: "and make the neglect of such attendance a penal offense on the part of parents and guardians having control of the children thus neglecting to attend school." Mr. President, I am.decidedly averse to fines and penalties where we can avoid them. I think we had better offer rewards. None are so good judges as the people themselves in regard to the circumstances that surround them. If penalties.of the kind here proposed were adopted, they might be very severe and work injuriously. On the other hand, if rewards were offered, they would stimulate men to obtain the C-0,NSTI'.VU.UlONAT'j,-CONVF,NTION. . Thurad4y, 514 Auu/1 87 EAE ~ R(ElIG 1 benefits arising from the reward; hence better results would be accomplished. Governments have always been trying to govern by pains and penalties. It is an error, and must always operate badly. The aim of government should be to arrange legislation so as to have no necessity for pains and penalties. This, in my judgment, is the true theory of government. We should aim, in the machinery of government, to avoid increasing the friction, and instead of enlarging the. machine, we should reduce it to proper dimensions. By diminishing the frtiction as far as possible, the machine will work along easily and quietly, and save the money of the people, instead of robbing them of it. r. BLACKMAN. lMfr. President if the amendment offered by the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT,) is to prevail-and I am inclined to favor something of that kind-I would prefer that the amendment of the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BuRTCH,) should be adopted. The last clause of this proposed new section, appears designed to compel the Legislature to carry out this system by means of penal statutes. Now, the Legislature, on a review of the whole field, might be of the opinion that some other method would be preferable. If the latter provision of the section should be stricken out, the Legislature would be at liberty to adopt the penal provision if they should deem it best, or they might adopt some other system if it should seem preferable. I am, therefore, in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Eaton. In regard to the principle embodied in-the section, I believe that the time will come when it will be necessary to adopt some such principle in order to preserve our republican institutions-when we shall be obliged to follow the example set by some other nations, and to require that all the children of the State shall receive a certain amount of education. We can get along tolerably well at present without any such provision, although there are a great many evils arising from the want of it. When the population throughout the whole country shall become dense, as it eventually must, something of this kind will, it seems to me, be required, though it may not become absolutely necessary in our generation. Yet it may, after all, be wise to inaugurate something of this kind now. I think that the idea is worthy of candid and deliberate consideration. Mr. BURTcH's amendment to the amendment of Mr. HOLT Wan adopted, there being ayes 36, noes 25. ; The question then recurred on the amendment of Mr. HOLT, as amended. Bir. PRINGLE. Mr. President, I do not propose to argue this matter at any length. I will only say that I consider a provision of this kind Lunnecessary in our Constitution, because the Legislature will at any rate have the power thus to legislate if it shall be deemed advisable. And I say, moreover, that in my judgment there is no occasion at present for a system of the sort here proposed. The facts cited from the report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, instead of proving the necessity of such a system, tend in the opposite direction. The children enumerated in that report, are between the ages of five and twenty years. Now, I believe that children do not ordinarily attend school until they are considerably more than five years of age, and they do not, and cannot reasonably be expected to, attend school for much of the time between the ages of fifteen and twenty. So that, for at least onbthird of the time between the ages of five and twenty, the same persons w6uld not ordinarily be attending school. Yet we find by this report, 'that ten persons out of every thirteen between these ages are actually attending our common schools. This does not include those who are attending our private schools, our colleges, our seminaries, andS'ur University. Hence I say, that according to every indication, there is such an attendance in the schools of this State as there is nowhere else; and there is no need for special legislation to regu.ate or en force attendance. I hope, therefore, that this amendment will not be adopted. Mr. BLACKMAN. If it were un questionable that the Legislature, with out a provision of this kind, would possess the power to pass such a law as is here indicated, then I might agree with the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. .PRINGLE.) And I do not know but such is the fact. But inasmuch as a law of this kind would seem, indirectly at , least, to involve some interference with personal rights, with the liberty of pa rents and children, it might be a very grave question, it seems to me, whether the Legislature, without an express constitutional provision, could effectu ally adopt such a system. At least, this question might stand in the way of accomplishing the result. Mr. DAkNIELLS. Mr. President, I hope that this amendment will not pre vail. We do not live in Prussia; and I do not believe it is worth while for us to enact in the fundamental law of the State, a provision savoring so much of imperial power. I believe thub the people of the State of Michigan, as a general thing, send their children to school wherever they are capable of doing so, and frequently send them when they should not. We often see in our schools, children less than four years old-a fact which, in my opinion, operates greatly to the detriment of both schools and scholars.. Hence I am opposed to a provision of this sort, which would aim to establish a system of espionage and tyranny for the purpose of enforcing attendance in our schools. Mr. BURTCH. Mr. President, I am glad to hear-the gentleman from Clinton (Mr. DANIELLS) speak against oppression; foi I hate that, and I love liberty. But, Sir, -there are many important considerations interwoven with this question. The perpetuity of our institutions is closely connected with the educational interests of the State and of the nation. Such has been the view of the best statesmen of this country, and of this age. My friend from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) speaks about the rights of parents. Now, sir, if parents have rights, children also have rights. I know that sometimes parents have exercised their authority over children in contravention of the rights of the children, with austerity and severity. I know that often parents, ini the exercise of their parental rights, have robbed their offspring of the opportunity of receiving an education; and thus they have deprived their children of one of the most sacred rights of man. They have by their own act, elected that their children should be cc hewers of wood and drawers of water." Sir, when the officer of the law undertakes to arrest children for some criminality, how few realize that the offense has arisen, not from the fault of the child, but from his ignorance of the laws and institutions under which he lives, his ignorance of the moral obligations which he owes to his fellows and to the community-an ignorance resulting in most cases from parental neglect! Such a one, instead of being a culprit, subject to pains and penalties, liable to incarceration or the punishment of death, is one deserving of our deepest sympathy. - Here, then, comes in the right of the State, which is superior to all other rightsthe right of the State to preserve itself-to preserve the children of the State from ignorance and vice. Now, sir, if I am not mistaken, very much may be saved in the expenses o~ governmen-very much may be saved of the money now expended in the prosecution and conviction of criminals —very much may be saved in the security of-the community c I August'1'1867. DEBATES AND PROCEP4])INGS. ,515 51.OSIUTOA COY.TO. lurd Mr. TURNER. I desire to ask what isthe question now before the Convention:? The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the adoption of a new section, which, as amended, will read as follows: The. Legislature shall provide by law for compelling the attendance of children at school such length of time each year, and upon such conditions as may be deemed advisable. Mr. TURNER. I insist that the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BURTCH,) is not speaking to the question. We are not discussing criminal law. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Eaton will proceed in order. Mr. BURTCH. As the gentleman does not make any point of order, I propose to proceed. Mr. TURNER. I did make a point of order, that the gentleman was not speaking to the question. Mr. BURTCH. I await the decision of the Chair. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the impression that the gentleman from Eaton was at any rate endeavoring to reach; the point under discussion. The gentleman will therefore proceed. Mr. BURTCH. The question under consideration, as I understand, is whether the Legislature shall be author.ized, by the Constitution which we are now framing, to enforce the attendance of children at the public schools. I am in favor of such a provision. I think it an important provision for the well being of the State, and that it would conduce to the honor and glory of our nation if every State of the Union should adopt this principle. I say that such a measure does not involve any disregard of the sacred rights of man, but that it is a measure of protection such as should be afforded to every citizen upon this Continent. It is a measure calculated to give additional security to life, liberty and property. When the community shall have become thoroughly educated, intellectually and morally, then instead of being obliged to keep a guard in every city, and a watchman at every four corners, we can lie down in perfect security. That, sir, will be a happy day-a day when we shall shine out as a nation more brightly than any other nation under the sun. Mr. CASE. I call for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. SHELDON. I move to amend the amendment, by inserting before the word "{children," the word "truant." Mr. BLACKMAN. It seems to me -that this amendment would destroy in a great measure the design of the proinsion. I suppose that the section is intended to apply to those cases where the parents are delinquent, as well as where the child is truant; and the former embraces by far the larger number of cases in which such a provision would be required. Mr. SHFELDON'S amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. RAFTER. Mr. President, I am opposed to this amendment,-because I think this subject is one more appropriate for legislative action than for a constitutional provision. If no provision on this subject be inserted in the Constitution, I think that the Legislature will have full power in reference to this matter. The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. HOLT, it was not agreed to, there being-yeas 17, nays 54, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Andrus, Bills, Birney; Blackman, Burtch, Case, Duncan, Elliott, Hazen, Hixson, Holt, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Sutherland, Tyler, and P. D. Warner, -17. NiYs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Barber, Bradley, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Cbnger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Divine, Duncombe, Estee, Germain, Giddings, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Henderson, Holmes, Howard, Hull, Huston, Leach, Longyear, Lothrop, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Murray, Mussey, Norris, Pratt, Pringle, Rafter, Root, W.A.Smith Stoughton, Thompson, Turner, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, F. C. Watkins, Winans, Winsor, Witliams, Yeomans, Woodhouse, and the President-54. Mr. ALEXANDER (when his name was called) said: If this amendment contained the word "may," in place of the word " shall," I would be glad to vote for it; but inasmuch as it is compulsory on the Legislature, I must vote "no." Mr. WILLARD, (when his name was called,) said: I feel inclined to favor, as a principle, the policy here indicated; but I believe the subject may most wisely be left with the Legislature. I therefore vote "no." The result of the vote was announced as above stated. TAX FOR SUPPORT OF PRIMARY scHOOTs. Mr. CHAPIN. I move to amend section three by inserting after the word "provide," the words, "by a tax upon the taxable property of the State," so that the section will read as follows: "The Legislature shall provide, by a tax upon the taxable property of the State, for a system of primary schools, by which a school shall be maintained in each school district of the State, free ot charge for tuition, at least four months in the year. The instruction shall, in all cases, be in the English language." Mr. President, I do not wish to make any extended remarks in favor of this amendment I simply wish to call the attention of the Convention to the question, and obtain a decisive vote upon it. I am decidedly in favor of this proposition; I think that those gentleman who have voted to insert in the Constitution the clause providing for the compulsory attendance of children at school, will find this amendmnent far more efficient than any other provision as a means of securing the attendance at our schools of the children of our State. Make your schools free, open wide the doors, and invite the children of the State to enter free of expense, and you will need no clause in the Constitution providing for compulsory attendance. Now, —sir, I have been informed by the Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, that by a tax of one mill upon every dollar of the taxable property of the State, free schools can be provided for all the children of the State, for five months in the year. Now, if this paltry sum is sufficient to afford every child in the State the advantages of a free school,'I submit whether it is not the best investment that can possibly be made. Where is the man within the boundaries -of this State who will object to this — expenditure, when he considers the vast benefits which are to accrue from affording free and universal education to the children of the State? Why sir, the return which the State would receive for this small tax in the way of suppressing crime, lessening taxation, and preventing pauperism, would repay the outlay a thousand fold. With these remarks I submit the proposition, and I would like to have the yeas and nays upon it. Mr. ALEXANDER. I call for the yeas and nays upon this question. Mr. BARBER. Mr. President, if I remember rightly, this same proposition has been voted on two or three times already. Ivery much regret that it appears we can never finally dispose of any proposition, however fairly it .may have been discussed, however decisive the vote may have been, but the same proposition must be offered over and over again. It seems to me that this subject is one which should appropriately be left wholly to the discretion of the Legislature. That body has full power on the subject. It may, under the section as it stands, provide for the maintenance and support of schools by such a tax, if it deems such a system proper. We have already had the yeas and nays once recorded here, on this very distinctive proposition, without any relation to any other subject whatever. With all due deference to the gentleman who has proposed this amendment, and others who may be disposed to second the proposition, I submit that it is very tiresome to go over the same ground again and again. The yeas and nays were ordered.. Mr. LOTHROP. This section, as it now stands, does not prohibit the Leg CONS, UTION ATj- CONTENTION. Th-ursd.ay, 516 A 1,1867............:..:: Di:. (_:.' 2.L 1.........:. — 5 islature from supporting these schools by a State tax exclusively, or a State tax partially; and in this form I think the provision is in the best shape in whichit can stand. I am not, I believe, second to any one in my friendship for free schools. In the county where I live I have constantly upheld them. In that community, (although it may not be known to this Convention,) I have in my humble way given signal proof of my attachment to free schools. But I think that this section now stands as it should, permitting the Legislature to provide for the maintenance of the common school system, either by a State tax exclusively, or by a State tax partially, or otherwise, as in, the judgment of that body may seem proper. Mr. CHAPIN. In reply to the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. BARBER,) I will say that I think a proposition similar to this has been before the Convention, yet it was not presented ex actly in this connection, or in precisely these'words. I wishto have thisprop osition presented to the Convention fairly and squarely. I desire a vote upon it for the purpose of ascertaining the precise views of the Convention upon this question. Now, it is doubtless true, as the learned gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTHROP) has remarked, that there is nothing in this article as it now stands which will prevent the Legislature from adopting a provision such as is propose in the amendment. But while there is nothing to prevent such a provision, there is nothing to require it. Now, I desire that it shall be made obligatory upon the Legislature to adopt means for providing in each district a free school for.at least four months of the year. Thus I wish to obviate all these difficulties in reference to the attendance of chil dren and in regard to furnishing the means for the maintenance of the schools. It is a well-known fact, that in very many districts of the State, the people have not the means to comply with the provision which requires the maintenance of a school four months in the year. If the estimate of the Deputy Superintendent of Public In struction be correct, a tax of one mill upon the taxable property of the State, will afford means for maintaining a school in every district in the State. Ii we could bring about this result, it would be attended with blessings inestimable. The question being taken upon the amendment of Mr. CHAPIN, it was not agreed to; there being yeas 25, nays 45, as follows: YEs-Messrs. Birney, Blackman, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Conger, Diyine, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Harris, Howard, Huston, Leach, Longyear, McKernan, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Sutherland, Tyler, Van Valkenburgh, P. D. Warner, Winsor, and Woodhouse-25. NAYs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Coolidge, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Duncan, Germain, Giddings, W. F. Goodwin. Henderson, Hixson, Holmes, Holt, Hull, Lothrop, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Miles, Murray, Mussey, Norris, Pratt, Pringle, Rafter, Root, W. A. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Thompson, Turner, Van Riper, Walker,F. C. Watkins, Willard, Winans, Withey, Williams, Yeomans and thePresident-45. Mr. LOVELL, (when his name was called,) said: I desire to explain my vote, as without an explanation it might be misunderstood. I favor the system of having our schools supported in part by the State, and in part by the districts. I would gladly vote to insert in the Constitution something to that effect. I had thought of moving such a provision; but I am constrained on the whole to believe that this matter must be settled in the Legislature, and, with my present views I am obliged to vote against this amendment, though I voted in favor of a similar proposition the other day. I vote "no." The result of the vote was announced as above stated. Mr. WILLARD. I move to amend,' by adding to the article the following as a new section: The Legislature shall provide for an annual assessment upon the taxable property of the State, of not less than one mill upon each dollar of the valuation thereof, for the support of primary schools. - Mr. PRINGLE. I wish merely to say that such a tax as is here proposed, would amount to more than three hun dred thousand dollars per annum upon the present assessment. The amendment was not agreed to; there being ayes 31, noes 37. PUBLIC INSTRUCTION IN HOMEOPATHY. Mr. HOWARD. I move to amend by adding at the end of the article, the following, as a new section: (-The Legislature shall provide for establishing and maintaining a chair of Homeopathy in the State University, or at such other place in the State as may be provided for by law." Mr. GIDDINGS. Would it not be well to add also a provision for a theological department? [Laughter.] The amendment was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. There being no further amendments, the article will be referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology for correction and engrossment, and will be ordered to a third reading. CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN MUNICIPAL. Mr. McCLELLAND. It will be remembered that some time ago the article entitled "Corporations other than Municipal," was recommitted with certain instructions.. That article was yesterday reported back, and was ordered to be printed in the journal. I find that it has been printed without anything indicating the amendments. I move that the article be printed-:in the journal of to-day's proceedings; the amendments made in committee of the-whole being indicated by italics, and those made by the standing committee by brackets. The motion was agreed to. INTOIATING LIQUORS. The PRESIDENT. Under the order of unfinished business the Convention has now before it for consideration, the article entitled "Legislative Department." The pending question, when the Convention last had this subject under consideration, was on concurring in the amendznent reported from the committee of the whole, to add to section thirty-one the following words "nor pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors as a beverage." To this amendment, the gentleman rrom Berrien, (Mr. ALExANnER,) had offered an amendment, t9 strike out e word "nor," and insert in hen thereof the words, "the Legislature shall not;" so as to make the clause read: "the Legislature shall not pass uy act authorizing the grant of license or the sale of ardent spirits or int6xi cating liquors as a beverage." While this amendment was pending, the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) offered a substitute for the amendment to the section as reported from the committee of the whole. That substitute will be read by the Secretary. The Secretary read as follows: At the election when this Constitution shall be submitted to the electors ot this State for adoption or rejection, there shall also be separately submitted to such electors the wo following provisions: The Legislature shall not pass any act au thorizing the grant of license for the sale of No. 2. The Legislature may provide for the regulation of the sale of spirituous or intoxicating liquors by tax, license, or otherwise. It shall authorize any city or town desiring so to do, wholly to prohibit such sale within its limits, and shall pass laws to enforce-such prohibition. No sale of such liquors to minors, paupers \or common drunkards shall ever be authorized; nor shall any place for the sale of such liquors be permitted to be kept open, or any such liquors sold therein, in any city or town, on any day when a general or special election is held in said city or town. The annual tax or license fee to be paid by venders of such liquors shall in no case be less than $100. A separate ballot upon each provision, may be given by any elector, which shall be deposited in a ballot box provided for that putrpome. On the ballots in favor of the adop DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 517 A —.,ug-ust 1, 1867. I CONSTITUTION AT, CONVENTION. tion of the ablave provision No. 1, shall be the words, "'Prohibition-Yes;" and upon the ballots in favor of the above provision No. 2, shall be the words " License-Yes;" and upon the head or outside of all said ballots, shall be the words "Prohibition or License," placed in such manner that the same shall be visible when the ballot is folded. If, upon the canvass of such ballots cast at said election, a majority thereof shall be found to contain the words "Prohibition-Yes," then said provision No. 1, shall become and stand as section -, of Article -, of this Constitution, ir it shall be adopted; but if a majority of such ballots shall contain the words, "LicenseYes," then the above provision No. 2, shall become and stand as section -, of Article -, of this Constitution, if the same is adopied." Mr. LOTHROP. I desire to correct a verbal error in this substitule-probably an error of my own. I wish to modify the amendment by striking out near the beginning of the last paragraph the words " each provision," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "the above provisions." The PRESIDENT. That modification will be made, if there be no objection. No objection was made. The PRESIDENT. The first question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole. Mr. WITT,LIAMS. As this seems to be a question upon which there is a wide difference of opinion, and as it is desirable to bring the question fairly under discussion, I hope that the amendment proposed bythe gentleman from Berrien will prevail, in order that the provision may be made an independent proposition. Mr. ROOT. In reference to this amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, I simply wish to say that I understood that gentleman to be very much opposed to inserting " shalls " in the Constitution. Mr. ALEXANDER. I will explain very briefly the object of this amend ment. It is to separate this provision from the other portions of section thirty-one, with which it now stands connected, and which relate to other subjects, having nothing to do with prohibition or the liquor question. I desire that this provision should be so arranged as to constitute an independent proposition. Mr. BILLS. The object of this amendment is stated to be to separate this provision from the matter with which it is now connected, and to make it a separate proposition. As it now stands, this provision would be read i connection with several previous pro hibition upon the Legislature. The provision, with its context, now read as follows: " The Legislature shall not pass any bill o attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; nor authoriz any lottery or permlt the male of lottery tick s; nor grant divorces; nor audit or allow iy private clalm or account; nor pass speal acts extending the time for the collection taxes; nor pass any act authorizing the rant of license for the sale ot ardent spirits . intoxicating liquors as a beverage." This seems to be correct in its pres- t ent form, as amended by the commit tee of the whole. I can see no reason whatever for the proposed change, as it is not a change affecting the merits of the question, nor does it make the language any better as expressing the design of the proposition. In fact, the amendment would injure the har- mony of the provision so far as regards t phraseology. I trust, therefore, that this amendment will not be adopted. Mir. ALEXANDER. I offered this ] amendment in consideration of the fact that there may be a necessity for making this a separate section, with a view to separate submission, should the Convention decide upon that course. Unless it were put in the form of an independent proposition, it could not be separately submitted to the people. It seems to me that there caa be no sound objection to the amendment. The amendment of Mr. ALExANDEr was not agreed to; there being ayes 23, noes 34., Mr. BLACKMAN. I move to amend the amendment reported from the r committee-of the whole by striking out the words "as a beverage." MVIr. President, it will be remem bered that I offered this amendment - in committee of the whole. At that time all parties seemed desirous of coming to a vote, and as I participated in the same feeling, I refrained from giving my reasons for offering the amendment. This together with the fact that I deem the amendment of more importance than might at first sight appear, must be my excuse for - renewing it at this time. It will be -observed, sir, that this pro - hibitory clause as reported by the com - mittee on intoxicating liquors and as - inserted in this article by the commit - tee of the whole, is precisely the same e as the clause in our present Constitu- tion, with the exception of the words t "as a beverage." If my motion to strike out these words should prevail, s the clause will then read precisely as e it now stands in our Constitution, and as it has stood for the last seventeen e years. Now, is there any doubt that v the provision as it now exists is pera fectly satisfactory to the friends of '- prohibition? Is there any intimation e that they desire any change, or if any, that they desire such a change as this? What, then, is the object of this def parture from the phraseology of the g clause as it now stands in our Consti. tution? W hat Arc the advantages ex pected to be derived from it? If no positive advantage can be shown, I think that this alone would be a sufficint reason for avoiding a change, on the principle that it is safer and better to "let well enough alone."' But these considerations, while they would be sufficient of themselves to determine my vote on this question, would not have led me to take the responsibility, by offering this amendment, of questioning the wisdom of the change made by the committee who have had this matter in charge; but I think I see, in addition this, positive objections to the change proposed by the addition of these words. By the present provision no license can be authorized or granted for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors for any purpose. But if the words "as a beverage" be added, then license may be authorized and granted for the sale of intoxicating liquors for every purpose except as a beverage. Now, is such a result desirable-especially is it desirable to. the friends of prohibition? If the Legislature should carry out the policy suggested and invited by this change, they must pass a law for licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors for all purposes except as a beverage. Let this be done, and then let all who -wish to sell procure such a license, as they most certainly will; and I ask what will- your prohibitory law be worth? Under the present law, if you prosecute a man for selling intoxicating liquor and prove that he sold such liquor, he will be convicted, unless he can bring himself within the exception specified in the law, by proving that he is a druggist and that the liquor was sold in accordance with the restrictions provided-a fact which is peculiarly within his own knowledge. But let him have a license to sell for all purposes except as a beverage, and however much liquor he may sell, you must, in order to convict him, prove not only the sale but that the liquor was sold as a beverage. Thus the burden of proof will be changed from the party within whose peculiar knowledge the fact must be, to the'other party who has no means of knowing. Thus you make the sale prima facie legal, and the illegal sale the exception; whereas, by the present povision the sale is made prima facie illegal and the legal sale is the exception. There is no hardship in this; for if the sale is legal and is made in accordance with the provisions of the statute, the party making the sale can easily prove this fact. But if the prosecution must prove, not only the sale, but that the liquor was sold as a beverage, how can the latter fact be proved? It is tEme that if the liquor were drank at Th-Lirsday, 518 August 1, 1867. DEA AD rociEDINGs. 519 the'time, that fact would be some evi dence that it was sold'as a beverage. But suppose that a man buys half a pint, a pint, or a quart, puts it in his bottle and- carries it away; is there any evidence in that case that the liquor was bought or sold as a bever age? I recollect reading, not very long since, in one of the public papers, an account of the proceedings of the6board of health in a certain city-I believe it was Louisville or St. Louis; I do not recollect which-where, by strict en forcement of sanitary regulations, the authorities were very successful last year in promoting health. In carrying out this system, they had made very strin gent provisions against the introduction of certain vegetables and fruits, prohib iting the bringing to market of all such things as cucumbers, melons; etc., with the proviso, however, that these might be sold for pickles. It was remarked that there was a very large quantity of pickles consumed-much in excess of any previous consumption of those ar ticles. We have heard of whisky be ing bought and sold for pickles; and I apprehend that under a provision of this kind, we should find the making of pickles very largely increased. We all know how every law of this kind has been and is contin ually evaded by every subterfuge and device; and we might just as well have no law —(I speak this frankly; perhaps the friends of license may view the matter in a different light)-we might just as well have no law as have one that can be evaded as easily as this might be. I think no one who has ever had any experience in attempting to carry out the present law and to procure the necessary proof, would desire to be placed in a position where he would have to depend upon the evidence of the parties concerned in the transaction. I have seen men occupying respectable positions in society, and who it would not do to say were not respectable, when called upon the witness-stand, and when it had been proved that they had drank at the bar on a certain occasion, assert positively that they did not know whether what they drank was intoxica ting liquor whether it was whisky, whether it was beer, or whether it was water. Now, do we want to place ourselves in a position where we would be compelled to depend on that kind of testimony? But there is another- reason why I would go against changing the present provision at all; and that is, that it has received a judicial construction. Gen tlemen are 11 aware how any law passed upon this subject is evaded, and how inefficient it is for the first few years, until it has received judicial con struction by the courts. It was feared at the time the present prohibitory law was passed, that any enactment providing for the sale of liquor for legitimate purposes, such as medicinal, mechanical and scientific purposes, etc., would be construed as a license law; and that consequently the sale could not be prohibited, unless we should entirely prohibit the sale for every purpose. Aid it was contended after the passage of that law that the provision for the sale of liquor for such purposes by druggists was'in effect a license law, and consequently unconstitutional., But that provision has received a construction by the Supreme Court to the effect that it is not a license law, and that it is not unconstitutional. The case in which this decision was made is that of the People vs. Thomas Gallagher, 4 Mich., 244. In that -case the court said: 'Before proceeding.to the main question, it may be proper to notice a position taken by defendant's counsel, that this law prohib its the sale of, liquors for all pur-poses, in sisting that the provisions of section fourteen .of said act, authorizing druggists, under cer-. tain restrictions to sell these liquors for me dicinal, mechanical, and sacramental pur poses, are in direct conflict with an express provision of the Constitution, enjoining the Legislature trom passing any law authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or other intoxicating liquors, and therefore, that the effect ot this law, when thus construed in reference to this constitu tional provision, whatever might have been the intention of the Legislature, is an abso lute and unqualified prohibition of thesale of all liquors, without reference to the use and purposes for which they are intended. "Now, we cannot well see how the defend ant can avail himself of this question, in as much as there is no plea or pretext on his part, that the sale for which he stands con victed was made for any of the purposes spec ified in said section fourteen. Nor is it by, any means certain what effect such a con struction would have upon the whole act; and the inquiry is useless, because we are clearly of the opinion that no such construc tion can be given to said section. "Up to the time, or near the time, of the adoption of the Constitution of 1850, the li cense system, gfo called, had been in force. It wasto some extent a source of revenue. It was strenuously urged by the advocates of the cause of temperance, that the govern ment were thereby giving direct sanction to the traffic, and were in a measure respon sible for the supposed public evil which re sulted from the use of intoxicating drinks. This was the evil complained of,-that the government, without any corresponding good, were sanctioning a great moral and public wrong. The object then, of the Constitutional Con vention, was to put an end to the license sys tem, and it can hardly be supposed that they thereby intended to restrain the Legislature from passing any law regulatinfg the sale of ardent spirits, and much less, that if any leg islation wasattempted, it could be no other than an absolute prohibition. Yet one of these ~alternatives must be the result of such a con struction-either that no restriction could be imposed, or one absolute in its terms. If it was the intention that one of these conditions of things should exist, they would have been very likely to have said so, in terms incapa ble ot misconstruction. "Nor can the provisions of section fourteen be construed into anything analagous to a e license. Any person may become a druggist, (that is the privilegeis open to all,) and by complying with the provisions of that section may sell liquor. It is not by virtue of any permission, but because the disability is not extended to persons engaged in that business. "Therefore, in the examination of this question we must regard this law as asimple prohibition of the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors as a beverage. The question is, is the law constitutional? This question has been very ably and elaborately argued by counsel, and nothing which was calculated to throw any light upon the subject, or to aid us in our deliberations, has been omitted. But for this, and the deep enxiety of the public mind, presaging so much good or evil as the result of this issue, we should not be justified in any very extended discussion of the subject; and we protest that we in no manner participate in this public feeling or public expectation, and have endeavored to decide the question upon the law alone."' The court there. decided that the provision of the present law is not obnoxious to the objection of being in fact a license law, and that the statute is constitutional. Thus we have a construction, not only of the present clause in the Constitution, but of the law which has been passed under it. In view of this fact, is it wise here to adopt an indefinite provision changing the effect of the clause as it stands in the present Constitution, and leaving it open again to judicial construction by introducing a term which has rio very definite meaning and one which will afford most ample opportunity for evasion? Mr. CONGER. I will ask the gen tlenan whether section fourteen of the prohibitory law to which he refers does not specifically use the term ",as a beverage," and whether that language is not contained in every section upon which the court made its construction in the case from which the gentleman has just read. Mr. BLACKMAN. That is true, and it is very proper that in the law those words should be inserted; that is the place for them; it is there that the phrase "as a beverage" should be in troduced. But as to the simple pro hibition in the Constitution, I have shown, not only that there is no need of introducing those words, but that if the Legislature should follow out the suggestion, it would operate very dis advantageously so far as the execution of the law is concerned. It may be an object to those who do not want the law executed, to have thdse words in serted. It is said, "We do not claim that it is wrong to sell liquor as a medicine, or for any other purpose, except as a bev erage." Very true; but is it therefore necessary that in placing a restriction upon the, Legislature, we should make an avowal of that principle? Is that absolutely necessaxyy? When we pass a law on the subject, we insert in it that provision as very appropriate. s 1 1 1 .1 August ly 1867. D.W.BA'I'hS AN b PROCEEDI-WGS. 519 s 520 CONSTITUTIONAL OOVENTIO. Thuraa7, It is said, however, that if this clause be adopted in the form now proposed, it would not be necessary to change the present law. But, sir, would it not be just as necessary as it is to make this change here now? If there is no need of this provision, that, of itself, is an argument against it. Mr. President, all the petitions which we have received during the session of this Convention in favor of retaining this prohibitory clause have asked us either to insert the present provision in the same terms or to insert the same provision in substance. Now, I ask whether by adopting the clause as here proposed we shall not fail to comply with that request. Is not this substantially a different proposition from the one'now contained in the Constitution? It strikes me that it is. It is such a variation as changes the substance of the provision. This being the case, we certainly are not, in making this change, complying strictly with the request contained in these numerous petitions. I believe that thd true policy of the friends of this provision is to let the clause stand precisely as it stands in the present Constitution, making no change whatever. This has been my conviction from - the first; and I apprehend that this change has been made more for the purpose of expressing our sentiments on this subject, in the moral view of the question, than for any supposed advantages to be expected from the change. I hope that when gentlemen consider the full force and effect of introducing these words, they will see the propriety of adopting my amendment. Mr. BILLS. I do not propose to enter into any argument on this subject. The committee, in the first instance, had agreed on this provision without these words. Afterwards, at the suggestion of some of the members of the committee, the words,were inserted. It is not a matter about which the committee are tenacious. From the subsequent consultation:on the part of the committee, I feel authorized to say that they would, with the exception of one individual, be perfectly satisfied, and would even prefer, that the words should be strickem out. If inserted in the prohibitory law, there would be force in this language. But in the constitutional prohibition of license, I think the words would be without force. Mr. BLACKMAN. I call for the yeas and nays on my amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was' taken, and the amendment of Mr. BL~AcMAN was agreed to; there being yeas 34, nays 32, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Daniells, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Germain, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Henderson, Holmes, Howard, Leach, Lovell, Luce, McConnell, Murray, Pringle, Root, Stockwell, Stoughton, Thompson, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, Willard, Wright, and Yeomans -34. NAYS-Messrs.. Aldrich, Andrus, Barber, Birney, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Giddings, Hixson, Huston, Longyear, Lothrop, McClellandi McKernan, Muisey, Norris, Pratt, Rafter, Sheldon, T. C. Smith, W. A. Smith,'Sutherland, Turner, F. C. Watkins, Winans, Winsor, Williams, Withey, Woodhouse, and the President-32. The question then recurred on the substitute proposed by Mr. LOTHROP, for the amendment reported from the committee of the wh6le. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I move to amend proposition No. 2 of the substitute, by adding after: the word "on," the words " the Sabbath day or," so as to read, " on the Sabbath day or any day when a general or special election is held in said city." Mr. President, the object of this amendment will be apparent to every member of the Convention. The only alteration which it makes is to include the Sabbath day among those days on which those men who may be licensed to trade in intoxicating liquors, shall be prohibited from selling them as a beverage. I can see no reason why the sacredness of the Sabbath ought not to receive as much protection or consideration from this Convention as the excitements of the days upon which elections are held in our State. Mr. MaCLELLAND. Will the genteman permit me to ask him a question? Mr. P. D. WARNER. Certainly. Mr. McCLELLAND. When the gentleman says "the Sabbath day," does he mean the first-day of the week or the seventh day? Mr. P. D. WARNER. I mean the Sabbath day. Mr. McCLELLAND. Which is that, the first or the seventh day? Mr. P. D. WARNER. Well, I will let the custom and the laws of the State determine that. The object of the amendment must be apparent to every member of this Convention. In addition to the consideration which I have stated, there is another reason which has impelled me to offer this amendment. It is. known that for a number of years the traffic in intoxicating liquors was prohibited by a public ordinance in the city of Detroit. That ordinance under the municipal regulations of the city was entirely disregarded until the passage by the Legislature of the metropolitan police bill. It then became the duty of the members of that police to see that this ordinance with others was enforced; and when the attempt was made to enforce the ordinance, it was forpolitical eonsider ations deemed necessary to repeal it. Now, sir, if we are to have the traffic in intoxicating liquors licensed, and we propose to regulate that traffic so that it shall not be permitted on election days, why not extend the prohibition to the Christian Sabbath, so that upon that day every peaceable and intelligent citizen may enjoy that quiet which he might otherwise be prevented from enjoying? I hope, Mr. President, that the amendment will be adopted and that the gentleman, offering this substitute will not object to it. Mr. LEACH. I desire to suggest to the gentleman that it would be much better to use the word "Sunday," as that is the word used in our statutes. Mr. P' D. WARNER. I have no objection to that. I modify my amendment by inserting "Sunday," instead of "the Sabbath day." The amendment of Mr. P. D. WARNER, as modified, was adopted. Mr. BLACKMAN. I observe, Mr. President, that the words "as a beverage," occur in proposition No. 1, as embraced in the substitute of the gentleman from Wayne; and as there is the same reason for striking them out in that paragraph as in the amendment of the committee of the whole, I presume'there will be no objection to such, a, modification of the substitute.' Mr. LOTHROP. I will, if there is no objection, modify my substitute by striking out those words in proposition No. 1. There was no objection. Mr. WRIGHT. I move to amend the substitute by striking out the words ~' or otherwise," in proposition No. 2, and inserting before the word "license," the word "or;" so that the clause will read,-" The Legislature may provide for the regulation of-the sale of spiritous or intoxicating liquors by tax or license." I offer this amendment for the reason that it-seems to me the words "or otherwise" are very indefinite, and might allow a great deal of latitude. They might permit the Legislature to provide for the regulation of the sale or purchase of intoxicating liquors without the payment of any tax or license. For this reason, I propose to strike out those words. I think the friends of temperance will see the necessity of making the alteration, so that if this substitute should be adopted, there may still be some sort of protection against an unrestrained traffic in intoxicating liquors. The amendment of Mr. WRIGHT was not agreed to; there being ayes 13, noes 38. Mr. ALEXANDER. I move to amend the substitute, by striking out CONS'I!ITUTION.AT., CONVENTION. Thurs-(Ift —Y, 520 4 inroposition,186. 2,BATES A~D PROOEE. t. _ in proposition o. 2, the following words IIt shall authorize any city or town desiring so to do, wholly to prohibit such sale within its limits and shall pass laws to enforce such prohibition." Mr. President, if this provision of the substitute should be adopted, it would lead to a non-compliance with, or a failure to enforce, the law of prohibition, and would render such a law utterly useless. It is altogether impracticable to have in one township a law prohibiting the sale of liquors, and in another a law allowing the sale, either unrestricted or with restriction. Such a system, if attempted, would prove utterly impracticable. If there is to be a prohibitory law, it should operate universally throughout the State, and not sectionally. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will prevail. Mr. LOTHROP. Mr. President; I introduced this proposition under a profound conviction that a law of prohibition cannot be effectual throughout the State; that there are conmmnunities where the prohibitionwould not be and could not be enforced. Still I supposed there were communities that might desire to have in their own. midst such a prohibition. I thought that if there were such communities they ought to have the right to make and enforce this prohibition; but I supposed it would be exceedingly doubtful whether the Legislature could make such alaw without a special grant of authority for that purpose. If there are no communities that desire a local law of this kind, this provision will not compel any community to have such a law; but I supposed that there were local communities that would desire to enforce prohibition within their own limits. This provision is only permis sive in its character and could do no harm. In introducing the provision, I was not speaking for the community in which I livea Mr. ALEXANDER. I introduced this amendment under "a profound conviction" (to use the language of the gentleman who has just taken his seat) that a law of prohibition would bet wholly inoperative in any township or city that might see fit to enact such a law, if there should be contiguous any: township or- city in which the sale of ] liquor is allowed, either unrestricted or under restrictions. If one township should avail itself of the privileges of this 4 provision, and provide simply for a re striction of the sale, while an adjacent township should prohibit the sale, the c prohibitory law would be inoperative from the fact of the other township i being so near, and so very accessible for those desiring to get liquor. In I such cases the prohibitory provision t Vol. 2 —No. 66. would be useless and would have no moral effect upon the people. The argumenit would be at once made,' Why do you attempt to enforce a prohibitory law here, when the adjoining township has a law allowing the free use of liquor, or allowing its sale under certain restrictions?" I desire that prohibition, if it have the force of law at all, shall be general throughout the State, because I do not believe it can otherwise be made operative or of any practical utility. Mr. WILLAMS. It occurs to me that there is another objection to this phraseology which the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. ALEXANDER) moves to strike out. I am not sure as to the intention of the framer of the proposition; but I would inquire whether the affirmeative grant to the Legislature of the power to prohibit in towns and cities does not directly negative the power to prohibit by general law. I believe the rule of construction is, that where a limited power is granted, it is a negation with respect to power not granted-that the power to be exercised would not extend beyond the limits of the grant. Here is a proposition to grant a limited power to prohibit by special law. The question is, whether, under such a provision, the legislature can prohibit by general law. Mr. ALEXANDER. The Convention will readily see that under the prohibition contemplated by this clause, liquor could not be sold even for medicinal purposes; it would be a total prohibition. Mr. BURTCH. I exceedingly re gretted to hear my friend from Wayne (Mr. LOTHROP) assert that here in the State of Michigan we are unable to execute the law. If the moral stand ard of our State is so low and so de graded that the laws of the land may be overridden, and that there is no power to execute them, I exceedingly regret it. Mr. LOTHROP. In answer to the inquiry of the gentleman from Aliegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) I will say distinctly that I did not intend by this pro vision to convey any such implication as he supposes; that is, to exclude all power from the Legislature to pass a general prohibitory law. The princi ple which he states, that a grant of power to be exercised in one way, may exclude the exercise of power in another way, is entirely true. Where there is a provision that a power shall be exer cised in a particular manner, that power in general can be exercised only in that manner; there is an implied ne gation as to the power not specified. But that principle does not apply to this provision, which simply proposes to authorize the Legislature to exercise a certain power within a limited portion of the State. It does not specify the mode of exercising the general power. It simply provides for the exercise of a power which, without this provision, it might be doubtful whether the Legislature could exercise. The amendment of Mr. ALEXANDER was not agreed to. Mr. CASE. I move to amend the substitute by striking out in the proposition No. 2, these words: "No sale of such liquors to minors, paupers or common drunkards shall ever be authorized." Mr. President, we claim to confer equal rights upon all our citizens. The argument made here is that, in pro hibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors, we are depriving some part of the community of their rights. Now, if we are going to adopt a license system-if we are going to license the sale of liquors-I desire in the first place that the minor children, the sons of these gentlemen here who are in favor of having the sale licensed and made " respectable," shall have the benefit of this system. In the second place, as to paupers, I think that if anybody should have the benefit of drinking liquor, it is those who are already paupers. If they are already paupers, why should we restrain them from drinking liquor in order to make other paupers. Let them do all the drinking of liquor. In the next place, if the sale of liquor is to be authorized at all, why should we prohibit its sale to "common drunkards?" If it is not to be sold to them, in the name of common sense to.whom shall it be sold? Mr. DANITELLS. To uncommon drunkards. [Laughter.] Mr. CASE. Now, Mr. President, here are three classes of individuals whom it is proposed to debar from this great blessing of being allowed to buy liquor freely, without let or hin drance. I protest against this unjust discrimination. If the sale of liquor is to bee licensed-and I am not yet satisfied that this' will cever be done in the State of Michigan I desire that the benefits of this system shall be enjoyed by the families, including the minor children, of those gentlemen on this floor who are so anxious that the sale of liquor shall be licensed and made "respectable." Mr. CONGER. I rise to a point of order. No gentleman of this Con vention has declared himself in favor of license-not a solitary man. If im putations of this kind are to be made upon members of the Convention who differ with the gentleman from lontcalm, (Mr. CASE,) and if their I e Auzust 1, 1867. DEBATE$ AND PROCEEDINGS. 521 I 522 OOSTITUTiOAL COVENTIO. Tliurday, family relations are to be brought into this discussion, I apprehend that by going on in this way we shall not, when we close our labors here, part with very good feelings. The gentleman is not speaking to the question at all. We are proposing here to amend a proposition; we are not discussing the merits of license or prohibition. Mr. CASE. Well, Mr. President, I am speaking of this question as it is presented by this substitute. I await the decision of the Chair as to whether I am in order or not. Mr. CONGER. All that I.object to is the gentleman's reflections upon other members. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Montcalm, (Mr. CASE,) to amend the substitute. Of course it is not in order for any member to reflect personally upon other members of the Convention.. Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I was not aware that I had made any reflections upon any members of the Convention. I did not suppose that my remarks would be considered as conveying any such reflections. Certainly, if I favored such a proposition as this, I should not deem such remarks any reflection upon my motives or my character. I do not know how other members may look at this question; but I most certainly hope that we may adopt this amendment, in order that all of the community may have the same privilegeinregard to drinkingliquor. If we are to have in this Statea system of license, under which liquor is to be sold, and if in the course of time I should become an habitual drunkard, I shall then want the privilege of buying whisky the same as any other man, and I hope I shall have that privilege. Mr. LONGYEAR. The gentleman will allow me to suggest that I would, for my part, favor the insertion of an exception here for his special benefit, in the case which he supposes. [Laugh ter.] Mr. LOTHROP. I think that any gentleman who talks in the way in which the gentleman from Montcalm has just been talking, promises soon to require to be placed under the care of a guardian. [Laughter.] Mr. BLACKMAN. Mr. Presiden, I am in favor of allowing those who wish to adopt a particular system, to perfect their proposition in the way that they desire. When I made the motion to amend proposition No. 1, which we consider as our side of the question, the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHEOP,) at once, with perfect fairness, accepted the amendment; and I think that those of us who are in favor of prohibition ought to allow gentlemen who are in favor of the license system to perfect their system as they want to have it, in case they should succeed. In this way, should their system succeed, they can have it in the shape in which they think it ought to be, while, if we succeed, we can have our system in the shape in which we want it. I think that this is perfectly fair, and I make this suggestion to the friends of prohibition. The amendment of Mr. CASE was not agreed to. Mr. BIRNEY. I move to amend the substitute by inserting in proposition No. 2, after the word "regulation," the words, "and restriction;" so that it will read, " The Legislature may provide for the regulation or restriction of the sale," etc. Mr. LOTHROP. I will accept that amendment as a modification of the substitute, if there be no objection. - Nd objection was made. Mr. WITHEY. I move to amend the substitute by striking out the first and second paragraphs of proposition "No. 2," and inserting in lieu thereof the following: The Legislature shall provide for the regulation and restriction of the sale of intoxicating drinks, and shall impose a tax upon the traffic therein. The sale of such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers and common drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited, and all necessary laws shall be passed to enforce such prohibition. The annual tax upon the traffic, shall not [be less than- hundred dollars. Mr. LONGYEAR. Thatis substantially the same amendment I had intended to propose. Mr. CONGER. I move that the blank in the amendment just proposed by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) be filled with the word " one," so-that the last sentence will read, " The annual tax upon the traffic shall not be less than one hundred dollars." The motion of Mr. CoDGER was agreed to. Mr. LOTttROP. I believe I am inclined to accept the amendmeut offered by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY. ) - Mr. BILLS. I submit, Mr. President, whether-it is competent, after half a dozen amendments have been made to %he original proposition, for the mover to accept a substitute. The PRESIDENT. The Chair was about to say that the substitute of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) having been amended, it cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the Convention. Mr. LOTHROP. I do not care very much about the matter; I am willing that the vote shall be taken upon it. I win only say that I am disposed to favor the proposition of the gentleman from Kent, and am perfectly willing that it shall be adopted to stand in place of what I have offered. Mr. HOLMES. Mr. President, the question presented by this motion appears to be license or prohibition; and on this question I wish to define my position, and give a reason for taking the position which I do. My reason for preferring prohibition to license is that, of the two the former is, in my judgmnent, more in accordance with principle, more consonant with morality, and I believe more effectual in the suppression of the liquor traffic. I do not advocate prohibition to the exclusion of any other possible means of assisting in accomplishing the same end. On the contrary, I am in favor of whatever measure will be most successful in stopping the sale of liquor. What that mbasure is may be a question difficult to settle; but whatever it is, I am in favor of it. But no suth measure is now before the Convention. The question is, on the one hand license, or on the other hand prohibition, as the pro-' hibitory system now stands or may hereafter be revised. What are some of the most common arguments propounded in favor of license? It is said that prohibition has been a failure; that the license system will make the liquor seller himself a party interested, for the sake of his business, in seeing that the law is enforced; that it will close out small dealers; that it will throw the sale into the hands of a more honorable class of men; that it will be a source of revenie to the State government. The most zealous advocates of license do not for one moment contend that their scheme will or can put an end to the traffic. They go upon the theory that the evil has existed in society, that it does exist, and for that reason must of necessity exist; and not denying the evil, not attempting at all to suppress it, they, as a mere matter of expediency, seek to remove the disgrace and dishonor which have heretofore covered it, and to provide means to regulate the *sale, under the pretense of revenue to the State. That prohibition has proved a failure for the last seventeen years, I deny, Although it may not have ac complished all that it ought to have accomplished, yet it has not proved a failure. If the friends of the license system had spent the same amount of time and labor in working for the enforcemnent of the law as it now stands, that they have spent in denouncing it as a failure and in arousing the popular mind in favor of licensing the evil, I do not hesitate to say that the law would be fully enforced in every town of this State. t f CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Thursday, 522 August 1, 1867. DEBATE$ AD PROOEEDI(+. 523 Who are the men that have signed the petitions for and against the prohibitory clause in our present Constitution? What is the character of the respective petitioners, embracing men of every trade, calling and profession in the State? Let any member look over the names of the petitioners in his own district. Let him take the men with whom he is acquainted, and say on which side are the most respected citizens, the leading men, the men of -Principle, those who would be most likely to work for the best interests of society. Are men of this class in favor of license or against it? But it is said that, under a license system, we shall make the liquor-seller himself a party interested in seeing that the law is enforced. Grant it. But then we do no more than establish a monopoly by which a privileged class, a moneyed class, may retail their adulterations with impunity. Does any one pretend that this system will lessen the amount of liquor sold? Is it claimed that liquor purchased of a man worth $5,000 will not produce upon him who drinks, the same effect as liquor purchased of a man having but $500 capital? Is it pretended that loading the traffic down with taxation will produce a better quality of liquor? Is there better whisky retailed to-day from behind your bars than was sold before the Government levied a tax of two dollars per gallon upon it? But it is said that by a license sys tem we shall induce "respectable " men to engage in the traffic. "Respecta ble!" In -what does respectability consist? In robbing a man of his money, without giving him any equiva lent? In giving to your neighbor what you know is poisonous-what you know will dethrone his reason, bring his family to want, and himself to deg radation and shame? A strange." re spectability!" A lamentable state of affairs when society recognizes this as "respectability!" But it is said that a license system would be a source of revenue to the State. In this age of enlightenment and Christian principle, can a govern ment prosper while receiving revenue from so great a source of corruption? Can we do our duty here, if we incor porate this license clause into the Con stitution? I believe we cannot; and believing thus, I shall vote against it. Mr. LOTHROP. Will the gentle man allow me to ask him a question? Mt. HOLMES. Yes, sir. M[r. LOTHROP. Is the gentleman in favor of abrogating the provision of the internal revenue law for the taxa tion of liquors-? Mr. HOLMES. I have nothing to do with the General Government in this matter. Mr. LOTHROP. The gentleman was talking about Christian duty in the matter. Mr. HOWARD. I would like to ask the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) a question: in the provisions of the internal revenuelaw with regardto the taxation of liquor, is there anything which authorizes the sale of liquor in any State Where the sale is prohibited by State law? Mr. LOTHROP. I answer that that law applies equally in every State, whether the sale of liquor be prohibited or not. lMr. HOWARD. I ask the gentleman whether the United -States law under which liquor is taxed, does not expressly declare that its provisions shall not be construed to authorize any traffic forbidden by State law. Mr. LOTHIROP. The provision of the act of Congress is that this taxa tion shall not be deemed to override a State law prohibiting the traffic. Mr. HOWARD. That is precisely my understanding of the matter. Taking the place of the gentleman who has resumed his seat, (Mr. HOLMEs,) I commend to the gentleman from Wayne, (IMr. LOTHEROP,) his own an swer to his own question. Mir. LOTHROP. The gentleman has been unfortunate in putting his question. The act of Congress levies taxation upon liquor wherever it is, no matter whether the State law prohibits the traffic or not. The gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HOLMEs,) was saying that no Christian people or nation could properly collect revenue from this source-that no nation doing so could prosper. I now ask him whether he is in favor of the abrogation of that tax by which the United States Government raises so large an amount of revenue. Mr. HOLMES. I will say to the gentleman that I am. Mr. WITHEY. Mr. President, I will not make any lengthy remarks on this question. I simply desire to call the attention of members to the fact that the substitute which I have offered removes the word "license" from the alternative proposition No. 2, presented by the gentleman from 'Vayne, so-that this submission in the alternative form, "No. 1" and "No. 2," will not present at all the question of license or no license. The amend ment takes out of the proposition the idea of license, and declares that "the Legislature shall provide for the regu lation and restriction of the sale of intoxicating drinks." Mr. BLACKM~AN. The gentleman will allow me to ask him whether he holds that under that provision the Legislature could not authorize license. - Mr. WITHEY. My answer is, that this is not a license clause, but will be understood by the people and by the Legislature as excluding the idea of license; and if this provision should be submitted to the people, and should be adopted in preference to the prohibitory clause, I have not the slightest doubt that the Legislature, understanding this in the manner I suggest, would always refuse to pass any license whatever, because, as I have remarked, it will be understood as designed to cover that question and to prohibit license. Mr. BILLIS. I desire to ask the gentleman whether there can be any doubt that, under proposition No. 1,the Legislature would have no power to pass a license law, and whether, if the object of the proposition is to prohibit license, it would not be fully reached by proposition No. 1. Mr. WITHEY. I should suppose that the gentleman could answer that question without asking anybody for information, inasmuch as proposition No. I prohibits the Legislature from licensing. That proposition reads: "The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license." This, if I understand the question, an swers the gentleman. Now, while I do not say that the construction to be given to the amend ment I have offered, is that the Legis lature is thereby prohibited from au thorizing the granting of licenses, yet I do say that the language is such as gives a fair warrant for assuming that the Legislature will understand, as will the people in voting upon the proposi tion, that it was the design of the Convention to ignore that odious term "license." With a great many who are not prohibitionists, there is this objec tion to license-that it permits by legal authority an evil-not only permits it, but gives it the warrant and authority of law, and licenses that which is an evil to be practiced and carried on in the community. The objection is perhaps as potent with me as with any other gentleman on this floor. I am utterly opposed to license in any form. I would as soon license any other great wrong or evil, as license the sale of in toxicating liquors; and I have pur posely guarded the language which I have used in the amendment, so that it should not appear that in submitting this question to the people, there was any design to have the Legislature un derstand that license should hereafter be authorized. The language of my proposition is, as I have remarked, "the Legislature shall provide for the regulation and testriction of the . DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 523 August IY 1867. 521 OOTITUTIOAL COVETIO. Thursday, sale of intoxicating drinks;" and what follows shows further the intention " and shall impose an annual tax upon the traffic therein"-not grant a license, but impose a tax on every manwho traffics in intoxicating liquors. The authority given to the Legislature in this provision is to regulate and restrict,'and it may restrict or prohibit. The present prohibitory law may remain upon the statute book of the State, or it may be amended by such additions or modifications as will make it perfect as near as may be. I should be glad to see that law made even more stringent than it now is. But what I assume, Mr. President, is that in putting these alternative propositions into a form to be voted upon, we should put them into the most desirable shape. I hope therefore that the friends of this alternative proposition, and who desire a separate submission of these questions, may be allowed to perfect these propositions No. 1 and No. 2; and then will come the question whether they shall be subittaed, or whether we shall submit that which has already been incorporated into this article. All I ask, then,- is that if the amendment which I offer is more satisfactory to this Convention than the proposition No. 2, as offered by the gentleman from Wayne, that proposition may be perfected by the adoption of this amendment, that the propositions may be voted upon clearly and distinctly. I believe the amendment will be an improvement, because it strikes out the idea of license. It proposes to tax the traffic. It proposes to tax in at least the sum of one hundred dollars every person engaged in this traffic. It seems to me that if this provision in this shape should be adopted by the people, it would give us very wholesome laws on the subject of the traffic in intoxicating drinks. Mr. ROOT. Mr. Presidentf;I have but a word to say on this subject at the present time. The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) has ingeniously framed a proposition which, as I con ceive, means license, but which strikes out that- odious word. It proposes the "regulation and restriction" of the sale of intoxicating drinks. Now, Mr. President, this does in fact mean that the Legislature may authorize license. The gentleman admits this. He says that by his substitute the Legislature is not prohibited from granting license; yet, he says he has got rid of this odious word "license;" and he supposes we shall all go for it. Again he says, "I am opposed to license in any form." Mr. WITHEY.' I beg to correct the gentleman. I do not suppose that all will go for this proposition, for I know very well that the gentleman himnself and some others will not go for it. Mr. ROOT. The gentleman.is correct in supposing that I shall not go for it, and perhaps there may be some others who will not. But, Mr. President, if we have to meet a proposition of this kind, I like the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) who dares to come out and use in his proposition the word "license," and advocate that idea, not evading the question by putting in a few words which vary the phraseology, but mean the same thing. I hope that when we are called upon to vote for or against this amendment, we shall all understand that it means license. Mr. CONGER. Some gentlemen here seem to suppose that it would be derogatory to any one to speak of "license" here. Now, I think it is admitted by the chairman of the committee on the subject, that there are twenty thousand people of the State of Michigan who have ventured to speak of "license;" and perhaps it might not be so very improper if we, in our discussions, did say "license." Not that I am particularly in favor of-it, but I do not think it is such an unpardonable sin to speak of the word which twenty thousand voters of the State of Michigan have used in their petitions to the Convention. l-. ROOT. That is just the position that I take. Why do not gentlemen come out and speak openly and plainly, since there have been twenty or twenty-five thousand petitioners asking for the establishment of the license system? Why do they seek by a little word in an amendment, to avoid the question? Why not come out boldly and above-board, and say that'they are in favor of license in accordance with the petitions that have been presented onrthat side bf the question? Mr. T. G. SMITH. I would like to know whether the substitute of the gentleman from Kent (Mr. WITHEY) is intended as a substitute for the whole proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, or only for proposition No. 2. The PRESIDENT. It is not a sub stitute for the whole. It is an amend ment to the substitute of the gentle man from Wayne, proposing to- strike out so much of the substitute as is in eluded in proposition No. 2, and to insert another proposition. Mr. WITHEY. I do not propose to strike out by my amendment'the para graph relative to submission. The PRESIDENT. The Chair so understands. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Then, as I un derstand, the gentleman does not pro pose to submit the question of prohibition to the people at all, but simply the question of license. iMr. ROOT. In the substitute of the gentlemen from Wayne, we have a provision contemplating prohibition in the cities and towns. The amendment of the gentleman from Kent contains no provision whatever for prohibition. If either proposition is to be adopted, I hope we shall adopt the substitute of the gentleman from Wayne. The PRESIDENT. The understanding of the Chair is, that the amendment of the gentleman from Kent proposes to amend the substitute so that it will read- as fol lows: At the election when this Constitution shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection, there shall also be separately submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection, the two following provisions: No. 1. The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits: or intoxicating liquors. No. 2.''".. The Legislature shall provide for. the regulation and restriction of the sale of intoxicating drinks, and shall impose a tax upon the traffic therein. The sale of such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers and common drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited,;and all necessary laws shall be-passed to enforce-such prohibition. The annual tax upon the traffic shall not be less than onehundred dollars. A separate ballot upon the above provisions may be given by any elector, which shall be deposited in a ballot box provided for that purpose. On the ballots in favor of the adoption of the above provision No. 1, shall be the words, "Prohibition-Yes;" and upon the ballots in favor of the above provision No. 2, shall be the words, "License-Yes;" and upon the head or outside of said ballots shall be the words, "Prohibition or License," placed in such manner that the same shall be visible when the ballot is folded. If, upon the canvass of such ballots cast at said election, a majority thereof shall be found to contain the words, "Prohibition-Yes;" then said provision No. 1, shall become and stand as section', of article - -, of this Constitution, if it shall be adopted; but itf a majority of such ballots shall contain the words, "License-Yes," then the above provision No. 2, shall become and stand as section -, of article, of this' Constitution, if the same is adopted. Mr. CONGER. I will ask the gentleman from Kent to modify his amendment by inserting after the word "tax," the words "in any case," so that the last sentence will read: "The annual tax in any case upon the traffic shall not be less than one hundred dollars." These words may be implied; but I think it would be better to make the provision explicit. Mr. WITHEY. rhave no objection to inserting those words. The provision means that now. I will modify my amendment in the manner suggested. Mr. MCLETLLAND. Mr. President, I shall vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Kent. I am 521 .CONSTITUTIONAT,, CONVFNTION. .Thurs2day, ol August, 1867 DEAT A\ PROED ~ S I not going to make a speech on-the subject; but I submit to those who are in favor of prohibition as well as those who are against it, whether it is-not perfectly proper for us to ask those who desire to retain the prohibitory clause in the body of the Constitution to permit those who differ with them to perfect their part of this alternative proposition,- after which they -can vote against it as an entirety and in favor of putting proposition- No. 1 in -the body of the instrument. If they have sufficient strength in this Convention and among the people to enable them to carry their proposition, the form of the alternative proposition can make no difference to them; and I think:it is nothing more than is due-to those who have petitioned for something like this alternative proposition, that its friends should be permitted to. put it in the form which they deem most satisfactory. Mr. CONGER. Mr. President, the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLEL LAND,) has said a part of what I had intended to say on this subject. The question now is not at all upon adopt ing this proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) but sim ply upon amending it so as to make it more suitable to the views of those who desire its adoption. In determining the present question, we do not deter mine at all whether this proposition shall ever be adopted in anyTorm. I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. -WITHEY.) If I were opposed en tirely to anything but the prohibitory clause as contained in the Constitution, I should be in favor of this amend ment, because in my opinion it is' a better provision-and this Convention, I think, will consider,it a better pro vision-than the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne. I am in favor of allowing any proposition upon which we are finally to vote, to be amended in such a way as shall make it satisfactory to its friends; and I do not consider that, by voting for such an amendment, I at all'commit myself to voting in its favor on the question of its final adoption. Mr. BILLS. Mri. Chairman, as a general proposition, I conceive that there could perhaps be but very little choice between the amendment now proposed, and the provision which it proposes to strike out of the original proposition. Perhaps it may be deem ed rather transcending the proprieties of debate-rather an interference-for a member entertaining the views which I do to participate in the- discussion of this amendment; yet I can hardly con ceive that the gentlemen who indirect ly ask that we -shall not interfere in this —matter would ask us to retire from the Convention-till the matter has been arranged. I do-not desire to:debate the general proposition; but I suggest that if itris the purpose to present this proposition to the Convention in any form, we all, of — course, -desire that it shall be in such a form - that we may fully understand its purport and design. Now, as this proposition was read, first by — the gentleman from Kent, who introduced- it, and subsequently by -the President of the Convention, it did occur - to me - that it was substantially a provision for license, although, as the gentleman from Kent has remarked, it omits -that word. Whenit is said in this provision that " the Legislature shall provide for the regulation of the sale of intoxicating drinks, and shall impose a tax upon the traffic," which tax shall not be less-than $100 -when it is provided further that "the sale of — such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers and common drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited "-are we to under stand that the Legislature must recog nize these provisions as a prohibition of -license? I answer that, if this be the-design,,it is fully and effectually accomplished by proposition No. 1. But,.sir, I do understand the propo sition. I can answer for myself the question which I asked the gentleman from -Kent; and I did not ask the -question because - of any doubt in my own mind as to the effect of the pro vision, but to gain from him his expo sition of it, that I might not be de ceived. Will the gentlemen pretend that-when the government imposes a tax upon a- traffic of any kind and re ceives money from that traffic so carried on under the imposition of taxes, the government is not bound to regard that traffic as a legal traffic? And so far forth, although it is the impo sition of a tax upon the traffic, the col lection of revenue from it, it is indi rectly but substantially, to all intents and purposes, a license for the sale. Again: will it be pretended by the gentleman from Kent that, under our prohibitory law, by which the-sale of liquor is prohibited, a tax for the pur pose of revenue may be imposed upon the sale, and that thereby the sale would be authorized and persons pay iig the tax could engage in the traffic? I understand the fact to be that, if the sale of intoxicating liquors is entirely prohibited by statute, there is the end 0of the matter.; The gent1eman from Kent says he would make-the provision even more restrictive. More restrict ive than an abSolute prohibition! I cannot understand such language. Imposing atax, and thereby authorizing the sale, would amount-substantially to a license. If I am mistaken in my interpretation of this provision, I am willing to be corrected. I desire what every other member ought to desire, that we may have a Constitution couched in language which we can understand-which we can interpret without the possibility of being deceived in re gard to so simple a proposition as this. I submit that the proposition embraced in this amendment amounts substantially to a license. It does not use the word "license;" but it pro poses to "regulate," and to impose conditions of sale. Now, if " in every case" a tax is to be levied upon the traffic-I suppose this means in the case of every. individual selling-what is the equivalent which the individual gets for the $100 tax which he pays? I submit whether it is not the privilege of selling. He pays for that privilege and exercises it. When, therefore, any gentleman on this floor pretends that this does not propose license that the Legislature cannot construe it to mean anything else than prohibition of license I take the liberty to differ with such a construction. The language cannot so mean; and I trust we shall not be: de ceived into voting for or approving, directly or indirectly, any such amend -ment to any proposition, whether it comes from one member or another, whether it-comes from one side of this Convention or another; for I take it that we are all at liberty to discuss on this floor every question that is pro posed in any manner. Though it might be modest in us to retire till we should be called in to participate in the discussion, we feel inclined at least to sit by, and may feel disposed to in dulge in some talk. Mr. WITHEY. Mr. President, it is possible that under certain circum stances, if the gentleman from Lena wee, (Mr. BILLS,) should retire, we might get in this respect a better Con stitution than we otherwise shall. That, however, is a matter for the gen fieman's own judgment, not for mine, or perhaps that of any other gentleman of this Convention. It is a matter en tirely of his own choice. If he wishes to retire, I think that, so far as I am concerned, I shall not object. The proposition is one of his own starting, and he can settle it in his own way. Now, sir, after the remarks of the gentleman who has just taken his seat, the question arises whether this pro visionj if it be adopted, will not make the traffic in ardent spirits legal. I affirm here that if this second provis ion, -amended as I have proposed, should be adopted, it will not legalize or attempt to legalize the traffic in in DEB,,A —T —ES —,,A'.,ND-,PROCEEDINGS. August - 1, 1867. .525 526~~~~~ b~~I1T(ALU)Y~TO.Tiidy toxicating drinks. It does not purport to do any such thing. The traffic in ardent spirits, wherever it is not prohibited by law, is a legal traffic, just as much so as any other traffic. It is a legal traffic always in those channels that are left open for the traffic; and under our present Constitution and laws, the traffic in ardent spirits is not illegal in certain channels that are left open by law, in which that traffic can take place. This I affirm to be a correct proposition. Now, sir, ever since alcholic stimulants have been known in the world they have been sold, and so long as they continue to exist, they will continue to be sold; and we cannot prevent it. This provision will not make the traffic in intoxicating liquors legal, notwithstanding the assertion of the learned gentleman who has just taken his seat. The proposition which I have offered-and in the main it is substantially covered by the second proposition embraced in the substitute of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mfr. LOTHROP) -is to restrict the traffic. The lawmaking power of our State has restricted the traffic. We propose by this provision, if it shall be adopted by the people, that the law-making power shall still continue to exercise the power of restriction over the traffic. The fact that I have submitted this proposition, does not by any means imply that I shall advocate its adoption by the people; for that is not the question here. The question is whether we shall submit the prohibition of license as a single proposition, putting it into the body of the Constitution, or whether we, as a Convention, will agree that-this question shall be submitted to the people in connection with another proposition, that other proposition being the regulation and restriction of the traffic, and a tax on the individuals who may engage in it. I am not advocating here the adoption of a license system in this State; neither am I maintaining that this second alternative should be adopted by the people. That is another and entirely distinct questiont; for when I vote upon this question at the polls, if the opportunity should arise, I shall vote against this second alternative proposition, and in favor of the prohibition of license. But I have a preference here, and I have a right to have my preference just as much as my learned friend from Lenawee, (Mgr. BILLS,) has the right to his preferences. Mry preference is that this question should be submitted to the people in the form of two propositions, one that of absolute prohibition, for which I shall vote at the ballot box; the other, that of restriction and regulation of the traffic in the event that the people do not adopt absolute prohibition. I think it is judicious and wise for this Conven tion to submit these alternative propo sitions. And in saying this, I do not admit that any man is a more sincere friend of the cause of temperance than I am. There may be here older men, who have therefore for a longer time been temperance men; but while I make no boast of my temperance prin ciples, I claim to stand upon an equal ity, in my devotion to the cause of temperance with any of the apostles that this cause has on this floor. Now, what I would desire in this matter is merely that we may perfect this proposition; and I think we shall be perfecting it by adopting the amendment I have offered. I shall perhaps have more to say by-and-by when we come to the question whether we shall submit to the people these two propositions, or only the one, binding. that one up in the bands of this Constitution, so that it cannot be acted on separately. But I- will ask, are the friends of prohibition afraid to let their proposition stand upon its own merits? Are the temperance men of this Convention afraid of the people of this State? Dare they not submit, as a separate question, prohibition of license, and let the people say whether they prefer it or not? Or will they compel men who desire to adopt the Constitution, on account of other provisions which it may contain, to support, against their own convictions, the principle of prohibition of license? I will not take, here or elsewhere, a position that will compel one citizen of this State to vote for that which he does not want to vote for. I would compel no man to vote for prohibition in order to please this gentleman or that. I am in favor of putting this question to the people fairly and squarely upon its merits, and not upon the merit of some other question. Now, we have no objection to gentlemen voting upon this question as they wish to vote; and I do not even object to their begging the question upon'this matter of temperance and prohibition. All I ask is that their strictures upon this clause shall stand upon principle and shall not be captious in their character. The gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. BILLS,) asks whether, when there is prohibition, there can be a tax upon .the traffic in ardent spirits. Why, si, I suppose that prohibition of license involves only the question of license. It does not prohibit the sale of liquors, and it does not prohibit the taxing of those who engage in such sale. It simply prohibits license. The Legislature, however, may open the way for untrammeled sale by everybody. The gentleman says that when a per son pays a tax upon a certain traffic, he pays that tax for the liberty of selling. I say that this is not a correct position. WVhen a man pays a tax, whether it is upon his merchandise, or his horse, or his carriage, or upon the traffic in intoxicating drinks, it is not a tax paid for the privilege of possessing these articles of property, or of pursuing this branch of business. It is a tax simply of revenue. Where a particular business is taxed., it is taxed in addition to the ordinary tax of the State; but that tax confers no privilege upon a man. Every man, under this second proposition, can sell liquor if he pleases, unless he be restricted by the present or future legislation of the State. There is no privilege granted to every man to engage in the sale because a tax is imposed. The taxation does not give any privilege; but when a man is found engaged in the traffic, then a tax may be imposed upon him. That is all -there is in the provision. It gives:no privilege to sell. It does not legalize the traffic. The power is entirely in the hands of the Legislature to restrict, if it pleases, all the avenues of traffic, save for medicinal purposes. So that the proposition of the gentleman, in this respect, is not well founded. Taxing a traffic is not a license for the business; for, under this second proposition, though every man may engage in the sale, unless restricted or prohibited by the Legislature, yet any man engaged in it must pay the duty which the government imposes on that business. A similar duty may be imposed upon the dry-goods merchant, or the grocer, or upon any other department of trade. Now, Mr. President, I did not mean to elaborate this subject as much as I have done. But I wish this question to be understood. 1 have said this much because I desired to explain frankly my object in offering the amendment. Mly purpose is, as I have stated, that we may have an alternative proposition fairly before the Convention in proper form. When the proposition shall have been perfected, the question will still remain whether we shall submit this alternative proposition to the people, or whether we shall submit only prohibition, and that only in the body of the Constitution. I am in favor of a separate submission of the two propositions, allowing the people an opportunity to say which they prefer. Other gentleman here are in favor of submitting the single provision for prohibition of license, and that in the body of the instrument which we are framing. I find no fault with them for taking this position; but they have no I 526 CONSTITUTIONAL CONV'PNTION. Thursday, August 1, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 527 right to find fault with me for takifg the opposite position. Now, sir, as to covering up the question of license with words, which some gentlemen seem to suppose is the object aimed at, I apprehend, Mr. President, that nobody is afraid of the word "license." The subject is thoroughly understood here by all of us. The fact that we do not want a license system is the reason why I propose to change the language of the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) Mr. President, I have no further remarks to make on this question; and as the time for our recess has arrived, I move that the Convention now take a recess. Mr. WILLIAMS. I move to, amend the motion so as to provide that the Convention take a recess until two o'clock. It is obvious to all, that this subject will be somewhat prolific of dis cussion; and as a number of gentle men, including myself, will be com pelled to leave to-morrow, it is desirable that as much time as possible should be devoted to the consideration of this subject to-day. The amendment of Mr. WILLIAMS was agreed to; and the motion of Mr. WITHEY, as amended, was adopted. So the Convention, (at twenty-five minutes past twelve o'clock p. m.,) took a recess until two o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at two o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PErSIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum of members answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. BRADLEY. I ask an indefinite leave of absence for myself, with liberty to leave at any hour to-morrow. I regret to make this request; but I have been in my seat continuously since the Convention opened, with the exception of half a day. Leave was granted. Mr. CONGER asked and obtained leave of absence until next Wednesday morning. Mr. WILLIAMS asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence after to-day, in consequence of important business. Mr. THOMPSON. I ask leave of absence for myself, after to-day, until Tuesday morning..: Mr. CHAPIN. I would like to sug gest whether there is not danger that the Convention may be reduced below a quorum by granting so many leaves of absence. Mr. THOMPSON.' I was about to say that, if my absence should so reduce the Convention that there would not be a quorum for the transaction of business, I shall not avail myself of the leave, although it may be granted. Leave was granted. Mr. PRINGLE. I ask leave of absence for myself for an indefinite period after next Saturday. I have some official business engagements which must be attended to, and which will occupy me at least three or four days, possibly longer. Leave was granted. Mr. HENDERSON asked and ob tained leave of absence after to-mor row, until next Tuesday morning. Mr. BLACKMAN. I ask leave of absence for myself after to-morrow, until next Wednesday. I put in the request now, for fear that otherwise I might not get it in before the Conven tion is reduced below a quorum. Leave was granted. Mr. LEA'CH. I shall be under the necessity of objecting to granting any further leaves of absence, until we have some assurance that we shall not be left without a quorum. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT-TRAFFIC IN IN TOXICATWG LIQUORS. The PRESIDENT. At the time the Convention took its recess, it had under consideration the article entitled " Legislative Department." The question was on agreeing to the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTEROP,) for the amendment reported from the committee of the whole to section thirty-one. The amendment reported from the committee of the whole, is, as amended in the Convention on the motion of the gentleman from Van Buren (Mr. BLAcKMAN,) to insert in section thirty one these words: "nor pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors." The gentleman from Wayne moved to strike out these words, and insert a substitute, which, as already amended and modified, reads as fol lows: At the election when this Constitution shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection, there shall also be sepa rately submitted to such electors the two 1ol lowing provisions; No. 1. The Legislature shall not pass any act au thorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors. No. 2. The Legislature may provide for the regula tion or restriction of the sale of spirituous or intoxicating liquors by tax, license, or other wise. It shall authorize any city or town desiring so to do, wholly to prohibit such sale within its limits, and shall pass laws to enforce such prohibition. No sale of such liquors to mi nors, paupers or common. drunkards shall ever be authorized; nor shall any place oithe sale of such liquors be permitted to be kept open, or any such liquors sold therein, in any city or town, on Sunday or any day when a general or special election is held in said city or town. The annual tax or license fee to be paid by venders of such liquors shall in no case be less than $100. A separate ballot upon the above provisoins may be given by any elector, which shall be deposited in a ballot-box for that purpose. On the ballots in Ifavor of the adoption of the above provision No. 1, shall be the words i' Prohibition-Yes;" and upon the ballots in favor of the above provision No. 2, shall be the words "License-Yes;" and upon the head or outside of all said ballots shall be the words, "Prohibition or License," placed in such mannerthat the same shall be visible when the ballot is folded. If, upon the canvass ot such ballots cast at said election, a majority thereot shall be found to contain the words " Prohibition-Yes," then said provis ion No. 1, shall become and stand as section ', of Article, of this Constitution, if it shall be adopted; but if a majority of such ballots shall contain the words "License Yes," then the above provision No. 2, shall become and stand as section, of Article , of this Constitution, if the same is adopted. The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) moved to amend this sub stitute by striking out proposition No. 2, and inserting in lieu thereof the following: " The Legislature shall provide for the reg ulation and restriction of the sale of intoxi cating drinks, and shall impose a tax upon the traffic therein. The sale of such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, pau pers and common drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited, and all necessary laws shall be passed to enforce such prohibition. The an nual tax in any case upon the traffic, shall not be less than one hundred dollars." The question is first upon the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kent. Mr. HOWARD. 1r. President, I do not propose to make a speech, nor do I propose to interefere with the perfecting of the substitute, to which I am opposed. But I apprehend I shall be guilty of no violation of par liamentary law, or of established usage, by making a suggestion. If we should be driven from the ground of prohibition in the body of the Constitution-to which principle I am very much attached, and which I shall seek to carry out by my vote then I would be glad to have the ground to which we are driven as little objectionable as possible. I should desire that in this event, the proposi tion which we may be compelled to accept, should contain as many good features as possible, consistently with the differences of opinion existing here. I like the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTHROP) better than that of the gentleman rom Kent, (Hr. WITHEY,) inasmuch as the former provides, as I understand, that the question of prohibition may be settled by the cities or town ships. Now, I desire to suggest that, for the purpose of maiking this pill 528 CO~~~~~~~~~~~T~IT iO A CO..E T O --. -- _ -_ -.7-..-~ —-,-d..-.-, which we may be compelled to swallow against our inclinations, as sweet as possible, I hope the gentleman from Kent will incorporate in his substitute a provision that at certain stated periods, annually or once in five years, or at any other stated times, the legal voters of the cities and townships may provide for prohibition. I shall vote for the retention of the prohibitory clause contained in our present Con-' stitution, because I believe it to be what the temperance men of the State desire, and because I believe it to be right. At the same time I shall accord to other gentlemen taking a different view of their duty and of the interest of the State, credit for acting in good faith, and with as much attachment to the temperance cause as actuates me in my course here. If, however, we are to adopt a proposition adverse to the retention of the prohibitory clause in the Constitution, then I hope that proposition may be perfected in the way I suggest, because in that form it will certainly be less objectionable than in its present shape. Mr. BRADLEY. - Mr. President, I shall not delay the Convention more than a few minutes by anything that I have to say on this subject. On the final action upon this question, I expect to vote for prohibition embodied in the Constitution. Such has been my conviction and purpose ever since I entered upon an examination of the subject-since the time I knew the question would come before the Convention for decision. At the same time, if the Convention should adopt some other proposition, (which I think it quite likely may be done,) and if the people should ultimately be calledupon to vote for something else, I prefer that we should have the very best proposition we can get-the proposition upon which the greatest number of men can agree. Therefore, without taking in view the interest of any party or any class of men, or any particular set of opinions simply carrying out my own convictions of what is right and proper in the case, I design to vote for perfecting the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LoTHROP. ) While I am on the floor, it may perhaps be as well to state somewhat further my views on this question, so that I need ndt occupy the floor again. If I might have the privilege of occupying half an hour or an hour, I should perhaps interest myself in the examination of this subject; but I prefer that we shall approach as speedily as possible a decision by taking the votes upon these several questions as soon as may be, because I apprehend that no discussion is going to change our votes in the least. While I say again that as my individual conviction, I am in favor of prohibition embodied in the Constitu-tion-while I think that were I a party man belonging to any political party in the State, and particularly if I were acting in the interest of the dominant party, I should come to the same conclusion-while I think it would tend to save that party in its strength if it should come to the same conclusionyet I am not going to quarrel with politicians or members of this Convention on this question; nor will I, if I can avoid it, create any unkind feeling. I simply desire and design at this time, to go on, with the other members of this Convention, and perfect the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wayne, so that we may come to the final vote on the main question. Mr. BLACKMAN. I haveno desire or intention to discuss the main question in this case. I presume all know how I feel and stand upon this subject just as well as if I were to.speak for an hour. I rise simply to say that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kent to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wayne, would suit me better, in case -t should ever be adopted by the people of: the State, if it contained the clause embraced in the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wayne, providing that-the Legislature "shall authorize any city or town desiring so to do, wholly to prohibit such sale within its own limits, and shall pass laws to enforce such prohibition." For the reason that the substitute contains this clause, while the amendment does not, I shall, iff the question comes to a vote, support the substitute rather than the amendment. Mr. -BURTCH. Mr. President, it seems to me that the proposition of the gentleman from Kent is very objectionable, for the reason that it makes certain exceptions, and the making of these exceptions implies that for all other purposes license may be granted. The exception proves the general rule. Now, if we are going to adopt a license system, and thus destroy those who are not already destroyed-if the sale of liquors is to be declared proper and legitimate-then why all this talk about "restriction" and "license?" If the sale of liquors is improper-if its tendencies are to destroy our fellow creatures-how can we license a set of men to go on and work destruction in the community? As well, sir might you, for the purpose of putting money into the treasury, authorize a band of robbers to commit their depredations. Gentlemen who are in favor of this proposition say that it will supply the treasury, and that thus we shall replenish our poor fund and our educational fund; that it will build up an admirable system which will only rob individuals here and there, while the people will be benefited. Now, I cannot see the subject in this light. I must confess that I am unable to see how a public benefit can accrue from a system which tends to destroy all the happiness and harmony of human society. I am unable to see how a traffic which is licensed to rob the wife of her husband, to rob the child of its parent, to reduce families to beggary and nakedness, can augment the interests of humanity, or benefit the educational or any other interests of the State of Mlichigan. I confess that I am unable to see the blessings of such a system. I am as badly put to it to see the point in this case as gentlemen in this Convention have been to see the points that I have tried to make here. [Laughter.] Now, sir, look at the provision contained in this proposition..It provides that towns, cities, and villages may do certain things. This is the language of a fundamental law that is to be the corner stone of a government, which is to "establish justice" and "insure domestic tranquility!" This is a rock on which the State must strike and go asunder. I hope and trust that the wisdom of this Convention will never assent to such a proposition. I already in my imagination hear the verdict of this Convention pronounced loud and strong-" No, never!" If this traffic in ardent spirits is right, then let it be carried on in the land unrestrained, to diffuse its blessings. But if it is wrong, then for God's sake stop this fountain of wrong, shut this flood-gate of destruction that awaits us, and save our people. There is one other point of which I wish to speak in this connection. There has been a great diversity of opinion as to the power of the State government, legally speaking, to prevent this traffic.- Now, sir, by the common law, no man has a right to furnish his neighbor with anything which he knows is going to operate to the destruction of that neighbor. There is no lawyer on this floor who will differ with me as to this principle of the common law. Now, sir, shall we license a set of men who are to deal out liquors to their fellow creatures, knowing the perverted use to which men are to put this alcoholic element of destruction, which works out death as surely as the knife which cuts the veins and arteries in which the blood circulates through the human system? Are men to be licensed to extract the lifeblood of their fellows? And for what? For gain; for "ffilthy lucre," and per 528 -CONSTITUTIONAT.4 CONVENTION. Thursda,y, Auuf 1, 18w EAE | ROEI~S 2 haps for popular applause-perhaps to enable them to spread their sails to the popular breeze that they may glide along into some stream which shall conduct them to a "land flowing with milk and honey." Oh, shame, shame upon men who claim to be statesmen, and yet take such a low, dastardly course! Let us come up to the work in a manly spirit. Let us contend manfully for the right; and if we go down, let us go down like men. However the winds may blow, or the storms howl, I trust that we shall cling to the right, and then we shall all come safely to land, and not a single soul perish. The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. WITHEY, to the substitute proposed by Mr. LOTHnrOP, it was agreed to; there being ayes 36, noes 20. The question. then recurred on the substitute of Mr. LOTHROP, as amended. Mr. HOLMES. I move to amend the substitute by inserting after the words "one hundred dollars," the following: "And every person who shall engage in the sale of such liquors, shall be authorized and empowered to administer oaths, and shall upon oath propound to every applicant to him bfor such liquor, the Ifollowing questions: 1st. Are you a minor? 2d. Are you a pauper? 3d. Are you a common drunkard? And if either of these questions he answered affirmative]y, then said vendor shall refuse, and shall not sell any liquor to such appli cast." Mr. CONGER. Mr. President, I regret to see gentlemen who profess to have a high sense of the great moral principle involved in this question-a view of the case in which I thoroughly concur -undertake by the proposal of such amendments as this to ridicule a measure which many of their fellows in this Convention sincerely believe to be'a desirable measure. If the friends of prohibition without a separate submission, can do nothing better than undertake to ridicule those of their associates who, acting as conscientiously as themselves, would perfect another measure in itself unobjectionable, I say to them that I do not envy the spirit which prompts such proceedings. In regard to this proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTiHROP,) as it now stands, I say to gentlemen of the Convention that this provision, if it were in the Constitution to-day,. with the restriction which it contains, and the obligation which it places on the Legislature to impose a tax upon every one who may engage in the sale of intoxicating liquors, would in the city of Port Huron alone, ac complish more towards doing away with intemperance and crime, than the prohibitory clause has done for the Vol. 2-No. 67. last twelve years. I say this unhesitatingly, and I speak of what I know. Without any law, without any action on the part of the Legislature, if this provision were in the Constitution to-day, and could execute itself, it would do more for the cause of temperance in every city in this State, than prohibition of license has done during the last twelve years. I cannot see how gentlemen who profess to support prohibition can sympathize with a sentiment which would mock and ridicule a proposition honestly made and honestly advocated, as an alternative proposition merelynot as a substitute for the prohibition of license, but as an alternative proposition. When a moral principle runs in the direction indicated by such amendments as that just offered, we may well question the depth and sincerity of the feeling. What is this proposition? Let us see whether it is liable to the sneers and to the ridicule implied in captious amendments. Many of those who favor this proposition as an alternative are equally zealous with the gentleman who attempts to-throw ridicule upon it, in their desire to have prohibition submitted to the people. What is prohibition of license as a principle? It is simply to provide in the organic law that the Legislature shall not license the sale of intoxicating drinks. That is all. It "has that extent, no more." Such a provision imposes no compul sion on the Legislature, and gives it no direction except simply to refrain from granting license or authorizing license to be granted. Is this all that the State of Michigan needs? I ask whether the mere restraint of the grant ing of license is all that the temperance men in the State of Michigan desire to-day? If it is, they lag far behind what I desire. Yet this is all that is proposed to be inserted in our Constitution by those who claim to be the extremest advocates of temperance merely to prohibit the granting of license! If the Legislature follows this indication, what does it do? It passes a law pro hibiting the granting of license. That is all that it does-all that it is required to do by this proposition of the prohibitionists. If this is all that the Legislature does, what is the result? There is no restraint, no restriction of law upon the universal sale of intox icating drinks in the State of Michigan. No gentleman here disputes the proposition that the Legislature may do all that the prohibitory clause re quires it to do, and yet place no re striction upon the sale, the unlicensed, unrestrained sale of intoxicating drinks throughout the State of Michigan. The Legislature may, it is true, do more than the prohibitory clause suggests or requires. The Legislature may, without any constitutional provision whatever on this subject, go far beyond what we propose to require it to do in this Constitution. Why do temperance men rally round that cold, naked proposition of mere refusal of license? Why are they willing to leave the door wide open for the Legislature to repeal all other laws and simply pass a law in accordance with this prohibitory clause, that there shall be no license? If the Legislature should do this, it might then rest from its labors, for its work would be done, so far as regards any constitutional requirenxent. Mr. President, I say, that it may go on record as a part of my convictions upon this subject, that the temperance men, in merely prohibiting license, stop with the shadow and do not reach the substance. I say, that it may go on record as my conviction, that I believe here to-day that, after the seventeen years of experience we have had under that cold, naked proposition, the mere prohibition of license, with no other direction, no other instruction to the Legislature, the temperance men have failed to accomplish their work, and with such a provision they will fail in the future. Is there anything wrong in going beyond that simple restric tion-anything wrong in saying that the Legislature shall not merely be pro hibited from authorizing license, but that it shall regulate the sale, which, evei without a license, can be carried on indiscriminately throughout our whole State, so far as the prohibitory clause is concerned. Gentlemen need not tell me that the Legislature can pass laws going farther than a prohibitory clause re quires, and thus accomplish the end. No man can pretend that, under this power to regulate and restrict the sale, the Legislature cannot impose all pos sible restrictions, even prohibition as provided for in this clause. I tell you, gentlemen, that when these two propo sitions are held up side by side-when the temperance men of this State calmly examine them to see how far they may control the Legislature, and help to accomplish the very object which temperance men desire to ac complish, it will be the wonder of the times mthat men should stop with a mere cold prohibition of license, when they might unitedly join with others and require the Legislature to restrict the sale of intoxicating drinks; not to restrict the granting of license, but to go beyond the shadow, and to restrict, absolutely restrict, the DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. .August 1, 1867. 529 530 CO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TITUTIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AL CO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. Tlim~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ sale as proposed in this substitute. It declares that "the Legislature shall provide for the regulation and restriction of the sale of intoxicating liquors." Under the other provision, is there any indication to the Legislature, that it shall go any farther than merely prohibiting license? Not a word; not an intimation; not the slightest foreshadowing. This proposition goes to the heart of the thing. I tell my temperance friends here, that the very first clause of this proposition, if it be made a constitutional enactment, binds the Legislature to regulate the sale of intoxicating drinks, and requires it to go beyond mere prohibition of license in order to do it. It binds the Legislature to restrict the sale, whether by license or in any other way. It compels the Legislature to do some thing that is active, potent and influ ential. Who will deny this? Who will claim that, as it stands, single and alone, the proposition to prohibit license requires of the Legislature any thing beyond mere prohibition of license? By what forms of speech, by what exercise of ingenuity, by what torture of language, can anybody con vince the temperance me~ or the anti-temperance men of this State, that this proposition of the friends of pro hibition means anything more than simply the prohibition of license to sell? Ar-e we satisfied with that? If that is all-if it goes no farther are gentle men satisfied? Is it not too mild; is it not too much diluted to meet the wants of the ardent, earnest temper ance men of Michigan? Each of us must answer this question for himself; for no one can answer it so well fo him. I submit that the temperance men would like to have in the Consti tuLtion a direction to the Legislature that it should restrict the sale, instead of merely prohibiting it from grantinE license. Temperance men talk about the sale of intoxicating liquors as a crime. They speak upon this subject as though there should be legal penalties operating upon those who make and those who sell liquors. Does a refusal to grant license bear very heavily upon any man? Yet this is all that the prohibitory clause requires. Does that indicate a high moral resolve of the people that they will stop this traffic? DQes it go a step beyond simply restraining the Legislature from permitting the sale in one particular mode? Does it not leave all other modes unrestricted and unrestrained? I say that it proposes simply a restraint upon the granting of license, and there it stops. It does not satisfy me, if it does others, to say that the Legislature will go on and perfect what we have here so dimly shadowed forth. The Legislature has not done so heretofore. There is no gentleman in this Convention who can rise here and say that the law which- has been passed in pursuance of the present constitutional provision has accomplished all the good that a law of this kind ought to accomplish. Yet Legislatures have gone farther than this proposition ever required any Legislature to go; an no one is satisfied with the result. Now, sir, why not have a living, breathing, vital provision in our Constitution? I have declared to the temperance men of this Convention that if they would frame a prohibitory provision forbidding the sale of ardent spirits, not the license, but the sale, and would submit that to the people, I would join with them heart and hand in carrying through such a measure, because it would have meaning; it would have' vitality; it would have force; and when executed it would accomplish something toward redeeming the State from the effects of the sale and use of intoxicating drinks. What will this alternative proposition do more ~than the other? For I venture to say that no man will claim that the other does more than merely prohibit the license to sell; it does not affect sales without license, or the giving away of liquor, or any other mode of using it except that of sale. This provision declares that "the Legislature shall provide for the regulation and restriction of the sale of intoxicating drinks." What else does it provide? It declares that the Legislature "shall impose a tax upon the traffic therein." Under this clause the Legislature may restrict and prohibit the traffic altogether; but if the traffic be permitted in any form, it is to be taxed. This provision is inserted because we have in our pres ent Constitution, and shall doubtless have in the new Constitution, a clause requiring taxes in this State to be uni form and to be levied on property at the assessed valuation. Hence, if we are going to tax a traffic of this kind, we should insert in the Constitution, so as to avoid any future question on the subject, a provision that the Legisla ture may tax the traffic, if the traffic be permitted at all. Now, I ask my tem perance friends, what is there wrong in this? It requiYes the Legislature to do far more than that body is required to do under the present prohibitory clause. What-,else does this proposition pro vide? It proposes to provide posi tively in the Coustitution, that "the sale of such liquors to minors; persons 0 l, 8 under guardianship, paupers and common drunkards shall be wholly prohibited." Why, sir, if we can prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors to minors in the State of Michigan, we shall accomplish more than any "Maine law" has ever accomplished-aye, more than the brightest hopes of temperance men have ever yet anticipated. And here is a proposition to insert in the organic law of the State of Michigan a provision that the Legislature shall prohibit henceforth and forever the sale of intoxicating liquors to all the inhabitants of the State of Michigan who are under the age of twenty-one years. It does not provide that the Legislature may, but that the Legislature shall, wholly prohibit such sale. Will any gentleman say that such a clause as this would be worthless if planted in the body of the Constitution by the vote of the people, and followed by acts of the Legisla'ture which should carry out its purpose-its high, holy, glorious purpose? Is this a useless provision, and one that is to be sneered from the hall of this Convention? Further than this, the proposition provides that " all necessary laws shall be passed to enforce such prohibition;" that is the prohibition of the sale to minors, paupers, common drunkards, and persons under guardianship. Thus the Constitution will hold its monitory hand over the Legislature, warning it from session to session that if the necessary laws have not already been passed to enforce this prohibition, the duty rests upon that body to pass such laws. Mr. President, this clause of that proposi tion would be worth more to the peo ple of Michigan than all that the pro hibitory clause has done from the day that it first began to-be enforced in this State until the present hour. ~Again, Mr. President, if the Legisla ture should not see fit to restrict and prohibit absolutely the traffic in ardent spirits, but should permit it, then this provision does not leave it to the caprice of any body of men to say how much tax shall be paid for carry ing on the traffic. It-provides that the tax shall not be less than one hundred dollars a year; so that the dealers in intoxicating drinks shall not have, as gentlemen say, their "ill-gotten gains" all to themselves. If they make paupers in the land, they shall at least pay a tax and help support them. If they make gains in their business, the government will wrest at least a portion of their ill-got ten gains from them. But gentlemen say that the government should not partake in these gains; that it should let those who carry on the traffic and I f s e t t s r 0 t .CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Thurs'dav, 530 August 1, 18G7. DEBATES AD PROEDI(+. 531 do the wrong have all the spoils, lest it should take the wages of sin. That is a question which each man must solve for himself. I care not how others may dispose of it; but for me, I would have had the traffic in ardent spirits for the last twelve or fourteen years taxed, and I would have put into the treasury of the State that which would have been received from the thousands and tens of thousands of men engaged in this traffic, to help in some way to lighten the burdens of others. Is it a sin to tax? Is it wrong in itself, morally or politically, to tax this traffic? If it is, then the Government of the United States is perpetrating a continual daily wrong, by taxing the manufacture and sale of spirits. That is a question which the statesmen of our common country have decided for the nation. They have decided that wherever men are engaged in that traffic, they shall pay a tax upon the business, and that tax has been collected by the officers of the United States. And until to-day, I have never heard any one deny the right of the Govern ment to make that kind of business pay its burden of taxation, as much so as more honorable kinds of business. I have never heard until to-day, that it was better to save a wicked and sinful business alone from paying any of the burdens of the country, and to tax high-minded and honorable men who engage in honorable and proper kinds of business. I do not think it shows any great evidence of statesmanship to make such an assertion as that. But, /Ir. President, I have said all I desire to say on this branch of the sub ject; I desire to perfect this proposi tion. The gentleman from Van Buren (Mlr. BLACKXMAN,) has courteously ex pressed what I believe the true rule. He said he desired the friends of any measure to have an opportunity prop erly to make it what they desire. He said he desired to have this perfected, and then if he saw fit, to vote against it, he should do so; he desired to have it perfected, although opposed to the principle of it. Let us do so with this proposition. I thank those gen tlemen of the Convention who go with me upon this question of prohibition, those of them who have been willing that this provision should be perfected, and who have voted to perfect it; I thank them that they have withdrawn themselves from standing so closely by their own opinions, that they would not let those who differ with them even perfect a proposition which they might hereafter wish to submit for the con sideration of the Convention. I have now to say in conclusion that that record, made as it is there, goes upon our journals. It is my solemn conviction that if this provision, just as it is without alteration, were embodied in the Constitution of the State of Michigan, and adopted by the people, the cause of temperance would receive a surer and better guarantee, by a hundred-fold, than if the other provision were embodied there. On my soul believe it.' Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, I find the same difficulties before us in this Convention, on this subject, that have troubled the State Legislatures in this country for the last thirty years; and these difficulties grow out of the fact that public opinion does not sustain nor demand a prohibitory liquor law. Even the friends of temperance will not carry out such a law, while they blame the law for not carrying itself out. I should like something different from either of the propositions before this Convention. I cannot see that intoxicating drink is so very dangerous, if men will only let it alone. In fact, sir, I believe it to be very use ful in its place, and that it has a mis sion of usefulness to perform. In this opinion I have the authority of the best medical testimony in the nation. When we take a more reasonable view of this vexed question than we have for a few years past under a state of- ex citement, prejudice and passion, we will quite likely see the necessity of commencing the work of reform in the right manner-I mean by educating the youth of the country to self-con trol in regard to intoxicating drinks, instead of relying as now upon mere idle and useless prohibitory words in the fundamental law. Under the pres ent state of things, I believe a strin gent license system is the best thing that can be had, even for the cause of temperance itself. Could my vote de cide it, I would propose a license to be forfeited, first, if the holder of it sold to or harbored minors; second, if he sold to drunkards; third, if he permit ted gambling on his premises, and fourth, if he kept open beyond a specified hour in the evening or on the Sabbath for traffic in intoxicating drinks. Such o~ similar provisions, and a heavy license tax, I think would very materially, if not fully, check the evils now complained of as resulting from the traffic. They would certainly accomplish-much more than a prohib itory clause in the Constitution. I am aware, and every man of this Con vention is aware, that intoxicating drinks are too often used to excess, and that excess in their use as well as excess in diet, and in many other things, leads to results which every friend of humanity must deplore. In temperate zeal for political or par tizan supremacy has its evils. Mhore than half a million of human carcasses now lie bleaching or buried on the soil of our disunited country, the victims of political intemperance. Even more numerous may be the victims of intoxicating drinks. They fall, one by one, thirty thousand annually, a fearful sacrifice to Bacchus. The Being who created us and placed before us good and evil, holds men responsible for excess in all things. He gives us freedom to choose the right, but if we choose the wrong, we must suffer the penalty. But the question before us is not that evil exists in the world, for it surrounds us on every side, in civil, social and religious life. In all conditions and under all circumstances of frail humanity, it is as apparent as our own existence is to ourselves. The remedy for the evils of life may well challenge the wisdom of the wisest philosophers and most profound statesmen. That men should differ in re gard to the remedy is not so strange as that they should ever agree. In considering the remedy for the evils of intemperance we must, as practical men, take the world as it is, and not as we may vainly hope to make it by a prohibitory clause in the Constitution. For seventeen years we have had this prohibition, and for seventeen years it has been a lamentable failure, al though urged by the friends of tem perance as a perfect panacea for all the evils resulting from the sale of in toxicating drinks. We find in antagonism to prohibitory laws a common custom which has al most become common law, sanctioned very generally by public opinion, as well as by very general belief, that the personal liberty of the citizen is in fringed upon by any act which steps between him and his right to judge for himself in regard to what he may use as a beverage. The idea that we can force men by legislation to think, act and feel as we may on this ques tion, is founded in error, and is really a dangerous position to assume, as it invites to encroachments upon popu-' lar liberty. Our government is found ed upon the idea that man is capable of self-government. If this theory is correct, it does not require an at tempt-and it will be merely an at tempt-to deprive him of the right of self-control in regard to his appetite, even though he may, as thousands do, abuse his freedom and do what we may condemn. John Quincy Adams was an earnest fr-iend and advocate of temperance, and on this subject he uttered the following language at a temperance meeting he addressed: "Forget not, I praay you, the right of per sonal freedom. Self-government is the foun dation of all our social and political institu tions, and it is by self-government alone that Augu.st 1, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGQ. 531 532~~~~ COSIUI-LO~Y~I hrdy the law of temperance can be enforced. Seek not to enforce upon your brother by legislative enactment, that virtue which he can possess only by the dictates of his own conscience and the energy of his own will." Mr. Adams did not believe in coercion on this subject, or an attempt to force temperance by legislative enactments, for he well knew that the emancipation from vicious or erroneous habits was by moral means, appealing to the good sense of men, and not by compulsion to control their personal liberty. The very nature of man at once leads him to resist such interference with his personal rights. Hie looks upon all such attempts as arbitrary and dictatorial, and, as Gov. Andrew says, "to resort to them is to adopt the universal pretext of every despotism, that liberty is dangerous to society; that is, that people are unfit to enjoy it,"-in fact, unfit for self-control, and therefore unfit for self-government. ,Mr. President, if I should undertake to speak of nearly all the evils which afflict society, and intemperance among them, I should attribute them more to the want of good parental or family government, than to all the saloons on the continent; for I verily believe the parents of this State and nation are more responsible for reckless and drunken sons, than these saloons. Parental authority, or law, is the foundation of all the qualifications and habits for good which mould the child for the duties of manhood, and intelligent and useful citizenship; and sadly, most sadly, are these duties neglected by the money-grasping people of America. Correct habits in childhood, as an almost universal rule, lead to correct habits in mature years; and respect for parental authority as universally leads to respect for' and obedience to the laws of the country when the child becomes the man. Mere boys have too much liberty, or rather the wrong kind of liberty, in this land of liberty; and it is given to them at unseasonable hours and in- unbecoming places, by thoughtless and indulgent parents, to that extent as to destroy their power of self-control in maturer years. WVe are the creatures of habit, and habits are formed in youth, and hence all reformation which contemplates a revolution in the habits or morals of a people must necessarily commence with childhood. Proper restraint and reasonable rules will keep children from the vicious habits and influences which lead to dissipation and lawlessness in manhood; and it is to the youth of the country the friends of temperance must look for permanent and useful reform and success. Let the parents of the State see to it that their boys are industriously employed, and under good discipline at home, and in the streets are properly restricted in their conduct, and not permitted, as now, all over our broad land, to visit any and all places they choose, with their own wise heads for ballast, without parental advice or interference, and my word for it drunkenness and vice of all kinds will hardly scourge a future generation. A prohibitory clause in our Constitution can do no good. We want a radical reformation in family government, with more wholesome discipline and restraint. Evil is as necessary as good in this life, and God permits both for a wise purpose; and without the one we could have no knowledge of the other. Evil, then, is necessary for our discipline, and the great labor of life is to resist the evil and adopt the good, not by compulsion, for there is no merit or reform in compelling men, but by moral means-by teaching the youth of the country self-control, in order to prepare them for the great duties of selfgovernment, which must necessarily be a failure unless we can educate them to good habits, morally, socially and politically. All through life we are surrounded with evil influences. Constitutional provisions cannot remove then,. Not even the Christian church has been adequate to the emergency, and from necessity the public must look more than they have done to the lessons of the family fireside, as well as to moral and religious instruction and example; for a constitutional prohibition on this subject is as idle and visionary as the theory which demands it. It is impossible to reform either the habits or morals of a people by arbitrary enactments. The only result so far has been to educate people to believe in unjustifiable encroachments upon the rights of men; and if persisted in on this subject, it will lead to an interference with individual liberty in other respects. Tobacco has its victims. One of the best lawyers in the county I in part represent, died from the excessive use of tobacco. Why not prohibit the traffic in tobacco by a constitutional provision? Look at the follies of fashion, ever changing, and often resulting in the poverty of too indulgent parents of limited means the gravy platter or turtle shell shaped things called hats now worn by young ladies, costing from fifteen to fifty dollars each, looking like a bird's nest on the top of an evergreen-without protecting the eyes, they tend directly to the injury of the sight and diseases of the head. Why not prohibit the follies of fashion in the Constitution, so long as such extravagance impoverishes parents who are blessed with a house full of girls? [Laughter.] According to the London Review Dr. Stark, of that city, has carefully ascertained the difference in longevity of married and single men in Great Britain, and he finds the married men live the longest by an average of nearly twenty years. This rule probably holds good in this country. Let us then have a constitutional provision to coinpel every man to marry by a certain age, as a wife is the very best lifepreserver a man can get. [ Laughter.] I will say to the impracticable temperance men here that you can put your prohibitory clause in the Constitution, but you cannot enforce it. The Governor is to execute the laws, but he cannot carry out that law with an army of twenty thousandmen. The soldiers employed would take a drop at the saloon, march on and whistle at the traffic. If we want reform we must commence with family government. It will never be attained in any other way. To use the classical language of a member of a former Legislature, who stood at the head — of- the committee on education, "that's exactly where the hen scratches." [Laughter.] I tell you plainly that you will not carry out a prohibitory clause if you adopt-it, for you will not quarrel with your neighbor every day who is engaged in the liquor traffic, and who, perhaps, is one of your best customers. And I am not certain that his business is so much more disreputable than that of the moneyed man who takes advantage of a neighbor's necessities to exact unjust usury. Even the or,dinary merchant often sells goods he knows to be defective in quality, while the purchaser is ignorant of the fact. Now, if you refuse to license because it is a sin, when you know the geieral government collects duties on imported liquors and taxes the traffic, you must not stop with intoxicating drinks. To be consistent, if you cannot conscientiously tax this traffic because it is sinful, you cannot license any business in the commercial world, for deception, swindling and sin is mingled more or less in the sale of every article of traffic. When no business is licensed or taxed in. the pursuit of which no sin is connected, the government of this country must repudiate its honest debts for want of revenue. Again, if you who desire a prohibitory law are really temperance men, why not be so consistently and boldly, like honest men? Why do you come here and ask for such a provision, when you do not expect to carry it out? Carry your theory on this subject into your political contests and make it a auestion at the polls if you dare. It does not look well to urge Thurs.day, CONSTITUTIONAL - CONVENTION. 532 August 1,, 1867. DEBATES Ali) PROCEi)IG 53 constitutional provisions here which you yourselves dare not manfully stand by. Where is your consistency when you enact such a law and then nominate for office, even for the highest p0sitions in Congress, men you know to be in the habit of using every day as a beverage drinks that intoxicate? Do you expect success when so inconsistent with your professions, or are these professions merely for the shifting emergencies of party? To judge from very general conversation among members, I have no doubt a majority of this Convention believe a stringent license law preferable to prohibition, but lack the independence to vote according to their convictions, because, they telf us, their constituents expect prohibition. Iwas once instructed by a portion of my constituents, but I voted against the instructions, because I believed they were wrong. This is a State question, and local prejudices should yield to the general welfare. Now, if members vote as their judgments dictate, we shall no longer have a useless prohibitory clause in the Constitution on the license question, and which, never obeyed or respected, leads to a disrespect or re pudiation of all laws. For one, if I vote at all, I wish to vote for a law that will have some vitality, and not only be respected, but be obeyed as a law. But this whole question in my opinion is inappropriate in the Constitution. - It belongs to legislation and public opin ion, and there it must be left finally, whatever may be the action of this Convention to the contrary in regard to it. But for permanent reform in the habits and morals of a people we will find by experience that the real work should commence in family gov ernment; and then public opinion, the great higher law in a free nation, may be able. to regulate the question by such laws as the public good shall re quire. To effect this we must go back in our history to the more simple and industrious habits, the sterner virtues and better moral training common in the earlier days of the republic, or all our efforts will vanish like a morning fog before the rising sun. Sumptuary laws can do no good in a free country. Spasmodic efforts usually resorted to in connection with prohibition, have done little or no good. They come like the rainbow with a shower of water and disappear as readily. All of the temperance theories are captiva ting and full of hope. But these theo ries, beautiful as the rainbow of prom ise, in practice are discordant and fruit less for good. For real reform, then, we must turn to the pathways of childhood and look for the fruit in manhood. ..Mr. THOMPSON.:I desire to offer a substitute for proposition No. 2. Mr. PRESIDENT. That will not be in order at the present time. An amendment to the substitute is now pending, offered by the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HOLMES.) Mr. THOMPSON. After that has been disposed of, an amendment will be in order? The PRESIDENT. It will. The question- recurred upon the amendment of Mr. HOLMES, to add to the second proposition of the substitute the following: "And every person who shall engage in the sale of such liquors, shall be authorized and empowered to administer oaths, and shall upon oath propound to every applicant to him for such liquor, thelbfollowing questions: 1st. Are you a minor? 2d. Are you a pauper? 3d. Are you a common drunkard? And if either of these questions be answered affirmatively, then said vendor shall refuse, and shall not sell any liquor to such applicant." The amendment of Mr. HOLMES was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the substitute of Mr. LOTHROP as amended. MAr. PRINGLE. I move to amend that portion of the substitute relating to the submission of this question, by striking out the word "license," wher ever it occurs, and inserting the word "restriction" in lieu of it; so that the paragraph will read: "A separate ballot upon each provision may be given by any elector, which shall be de posited in a ballot box provided for that pur pose. On the ballots in favor of the adoption of the above provision No. 1, shall be the words, "Prohibition-Yes;" and upon the ballots in favor of the above provision No 2, shall be the words, "Restriction —Yes;" and upon the head or outside of said ballots, shall be the words, "Prohibition or Restriction," placed in such manner that the same shall be visible when the ballot is folded. If, upon the canvass of such ballots cast at said elec tion, a majority thereof shall be found to contain the words, "Prohibition-Yes," then said provision No. 1, shall become and stand as section -, of article -, of this Constitu tion, if it shall be adopted; but if a majority of such ballots shall contain the words, "Re striction-Yes," then the above provision No. 2, shall become and stand as section -, of article —, of this Constitution, if the same is adopted." Mr. LOTHROP. If it be competent to do so, Is will accept the amendment. The PRESIDENT. It will be com petent for the gentleman to do so, if there is no objection. Mr. MUSSEY. I object. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. PnIaGLE, and it was agreed to. The question again recurred' upon the substitute of SMr. LOTHROt, as amended. Mr. BIRNEY. It is very evident that it is the intention of this Conven tion to incorporate a provision of this kind in the Constitution. The main difference seems to bel as to the mode of submitting the matter to the people. I perceive that a number of gentlemen of great intelligence and sterling principle are of the opinion that there is a principle involved in the manner of submission. I cannot so see it. I take it that it would be competent for this Convention to separately submit every clause in the Constitution. We are here merely as an advisory committee for the people. We are here to recommend an instrument which we think would be a proper one, as the organic law of this State. We do not ourselves adopt it; we submit it to the people for their adoption or rejection, and its success depends upon the affirmation of the people. This question it appears to me is not one strictly within the purview of a Constitution. We might make the organic law perfect and complete without any provision regulating the sale or use of intoxicating liquors. That is a matter as it were incidental to the Constitution. We have had numerous petitions upon the subject now under consideration, both for and against the clause now in the Con stitution. And it is chiefly owing to the fact that this provision has been so long in the Consti tution that ai party has arrayed itself or organized itself on that ground. There is scarcely any one who is advo cating prohibition, who will not tell you the license system was a failure prior to the adoption of the present Constitution. There is scarcely any one now in the State who will not tell you that prohibition has been a fail ure. In my judgment, both systems have been failures. And, in my view, any law, any provision which we can incorporate in this Constitution will also be a failure, because we do not reach the evil by enacting a law. We shall not, by incorporating a provision in the Constitution, be able to control the appetites of men, and prevent them from determining for themselves' what they shall eat or drink. I find that in the eastern States, which have had more experience on this subject than we have, they have reached the conclusion that the most stringent prohibitory law has been a failure. The State of Massachusetts, as is well known, has long lived under such a law. I find that many of its wisest and best men think that it is an entire failure, and that a successful re form in this respect is not to be attain ed through any such provision of law. And I confess that it surprises me when I see gentlemen, who wish well for their fellow citizens, who are seri ously bent upon. reform, and yet are determined, notwithstanding all the light that can be shed upon this sub jgct, to adhere to this provision in the DEBATES- AND PROCEEDING'S. Augur,t 1, 1867. 533. 531 OOSTITUTIOAL OOVETION. Thuiday, Constitution, and seem inclined to t thoi sd l ugetoswihcm to hmcutrt hsve hc thyetran ortreetat1fo hthsbe sadbt etee f ihdsicin wh] aegvnteroiinuo thssbet]etee h aebe einetadpoietavctso th1 eprnecue aehr I will take the liberty to read two Mr. BRADLEY. wrn the gentle Mr. BIRNEY. I refer to his char Q?esffon. What is your opinion of the Aeswer. So far as my observation is the cies of legislation, the interest of the best greatly diminished. I think the progress of that reform, by means of voluntary and mu * ^ * * Question. As a student and teacher of mnorals for many years, is it not your opinion that such legislation, especially upon such a subject, tends to public dqmoralization? Answer. My conviction is that this law does tend to popular demoralization. Such has been my conviction ever since the law went into operation, and I feel it more and more. The district attorney of Boston was asked his opinion of the effect of the prohibitory law, and he answers — " I think there is more drunkeness, by onethird, than when I first received my appointment as district attorney. I think that the prosecutions for the last two years under the Maine Law, as it is sometimes called, have failed to decrease the crime of intemperance. * I have thoug,ht and thinkl now, that there is now more drunkenness in Boston than there was previous to the passage of that law; and my conviction as a temperance man is, that as the next experiment, a license law had better be tried. I am in favor of total abstinence,." That is, so far as he is personally, concerned. Rev. Dr. Hedge says "I am decidedly of the opinion that the enactment of the prohibitory liquor law, which aims at the entire suppression of the sale of liquors, expecting thereby to prevent and suppress intemperance, was a mistaken legislation, and that it has not accomplished the end desired. I think the law militates against several important principles or interests." Prof. Francis Bowen, of Harvard College, says: "In the city in wheh I live- a city of thirty thousand inhabitants-it is as easy to b)uy liquor now as it is to buy bread, and it can be had, even, at a greater number of places." Rev. B. F. Clark testifies as follows: Question. What, in your observation, has been the effect of the prohibitory liquor law? Answer. I think that the effect of the prohibitory law has been disastrous to the cause of temperance. I believe the law has proved a failure, because I find that the habit of excessive -drinking is unabated, and, in many places, those habits are increasing among the poorer classes and among the young. I find, also, from careful observation, that the sale of intoxicating drinks is not abated or essentially lessened; that the sales by open retail under the license law, are now more than made up for by sales to families, and sales to drinking-clubs; so that the amount of actual drinking and drunkenness, the suppression of which was aimed at by the law, has not decreased. If by law we prohibit entirely the sale of intoxicating drinks, but find that liquor is still sold and used,that drunkenness does not diminish, I claim that such a law has Droved a failure. Question. Under your own observation, is there far more intemperance or less; far greater sale of intoxicating liquors or less, than there was at the time of which you spoke? Answer. From my own observation, and from what I have learned from others, on inquiry, I believe that there is more; and I believe that we are fast going back to the habits of our fathers, in regard to the use of intoxicating drinks. Rev. Dr. Andrew P. Peabody makes this reply: "I was at one time very strongly in favor of prohibitory legislation, but I believe it has done little or.no permanent good, and has produced a great deal of evil. It has led to a vast amount of fraud and perjury; has probably led to the adulteration of liquors used, and has thus rendered them more deleterious in their consequences. As to the operation of the present legislation in Massachusetts, my obseryation has been confined to Cambridge alone, but I feel quite sure no effect has been produced upon the sale of ardent spirits by that legislation." I merely allude to these as a few among the many instances that might be given of gentlemen of sifilar character, who have expressed similar sentiments. M{r. VAN RIPER. Will the gentleman yield to me a moment? Mr. BIRNEY. Certainly. Mir. VAN RIPER. I would inquire of the gentleman, if he endorses the sentiments of those persons? Mr. BIRNEY. I give these statements as evidence of the operation of the law in those States where it has had full sway, where it has had full opportunity to produce its proper effect. It is immaterial whether I endorse the sentiments or not. I believe these men to be competent; to judge in regard to this matter, and I believe their opinions ought to have weight with every rational man. They lead me to believe that in that State, than which there is no better field in this Union for the operation of such a law, it has been a failure. And, so far as my observation goes, I believe that what is called the prohibitory law has been in this State a failure. - I know that in the region of the State where I reside there is no restriction whatever upon this traffic. Any man who chooses can establish a saloon there and sell all the liquor he desires, without let or hindrance; no one attempts to interfere with him. I am told that in Detroit, with a population of some seventy or eighty thousand, there are over nine hundred places for selling liquor; that is more than one for every ninety men, women and children in the city of Detroit. It is also said that in Boston there are over fifteen hundred of these places, where a law is in operation, more stringent perhaps than that which is upon the statute books of this State. Now, the conclusion that I reach upon this subject is, that those gentlemen who seek to incorporate into the new Constitution th6 provision which has been in our Constitution- heretofore, seek to accomplish that which has turned out to be utterly impracticable. They will not accomplish by it that which they say they seek to accomplish; they will not diminish the evil of intemperance, bu- rather tend to magnify it. I am also brought to the further conclusion that if we cannot bring this evil to an end by prohibition, we should seek to modify it and diminish it by regulation and restriction, as the better mode. I notice that those gentlemen who are most positive and decided in favor of prohibition, are from those regions of the State which are more readily controlled, from what are popularly termed "1 the rural districts," where the population can act more as a unit; where they have material which is more manageable, where they can act together and regulate these matters. But in those portions of the State where the population is chiefly new, where there are many foreigners, where moral sentiments have not grown up among the people to such an extent as to exercise a restraining power, this law will have and does have no effect at all. I say to those gentlemen, that they should have some regard to those parts of the State not situated as their regions are, and allow the submission to the people of a provision which will tend to regulate and restrict this evi. The result of past experience, it seems to me, ought to show to those gentle' men that a law which cannot be sustained by the people will not be enforced; that is, if there is not a public opinion which will authorize the enforcement of this law, then the law is utterly impracticable. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVFNTION. Thur,sday, 534 I" Cuu~ 1, 187 DEAE - ROED~~ I am surprised that gentlemen object to the submission of this question to the people. It seems to me that the strong moral force they would acquire, by securing an affirmative vote to adopt this as a part of the Constitution, would give ten-fold more vigor to it. It seems to me they ought not to seek to incorporate it in the Constitution by the aid of other provisions which are more desirable, but that they should let it stand upon its own merits. - I believe that if the people will not adopt this provision, should it be submitted to them separately, you will not find enough to enforce and require compliance with it, if it is incoiporated in the Constitution by other means.' And again, I should be opposed to inserting a simple prohibitory clause here, because, not being enforced, it will have a greatly demoralizing effect; it tends to affect every other law on the statute book. If there is any one law which is notoriously not observed, it tends to lessen in the minds of the peo ple their -respect for every other law. And for that reason, among others, I would hope that we will not attempt to incorporate in our organic law a provision which will be null and void, which will be of no practical use, which will be a dead letter. By making it merely a political ques tion, the people are deprived in some measure of the moral and persuasive means which may be adopted to induce persons to abstain from the use of in toxicating liquors. It is said to be the fact that the efforts heretofore made by associations, pulpits and individuals, have in a great measure ceased, be cause they rely simply upon the law; saying to themselves that as there is a law upon the statute book, they will leave the evil to be brought to an end by the force of the law, and not rely longer upon personal and individual efforts. I do not propose to protract these remarks, but simply to express the hope that gentlemen will be wise, and submit this question to the people in a separate shape, and in an alternative form. It seems to me that would be a better method, a more satisfactory method, one more likely to prove con ducive of good, and to diminish the evils of intemperance. Mr. PiINGLE. I will occupy the attention of the Convention but a few moments, and will endeavor in that time to indicate the reasons which will induce me to vote for this substitute rather than for the original proposition. I would personally be very glad to see the sale of intoxicating liquors en tirely prohibited. I would be glad to see it placed somewhere, where it would not be a temptation to our young boys, where our youth would not be led to contract those habits which corrupt them as they grow older, and make them besotted and worthless. I look upon this matter in a somewhat practical view, perhaps. I would like to see prohibition carried out. I voted fourteen years ago for the prohibitory law when.it was submitted to the people, and since that time, as prosecuting attorney for'my county for four years, I have done what I could to carry into effect the prohibitory law as it stands upon the statute book. I have sometimes hoped to see the law put in full force; sometimes I have feared that the inattention of the people would leave it everywhere entirely worthless. In my own city, for the last twelve years, I have seen this traffic perfectly open and~ unrestricted. The little city in which I live, is but one of twenty or thirty little cities in the State. In that city there are from twelve to fifteden hundred boys able to be about the streets, and many of them are contraeting such habits at the sa loons and elsewhere, as I fear will pre vent them froml becominlg useful men. As I look upon the boys of my own city, and of other cities, subjected to these influences, it almost seems to me that the chances of a poor boy in the city were almost nothing, and that the chances of the son of the rich man were almost less than nothing. I see boys in the country, ten, twelve, fourteen years of age,the superiors in knowledge, education, morals, and in every way, except perhaps in a little outward pol ish, to the boys in cities, where they have schools for ten months in the year, where we spend twelve, twenty, or thirty thousand dollars a year in new buildings, and as much more in snstaining the schools. Much of this disparity in worth, much of this cor ruption, much of these bad habits, much of this inattention at school, much of that which brings a youth low, and deprives him of all his prospective advantage, comes from this open and unrestrained traffic in intoxicating liquors.. Now, acting upon the idea that I would be glad to see this traffic en tirely stopped, I am ready to vote, whenever I can get the occasion, to put in the Constitution a provision in almost any form expressing this idea. I am willing to vote in that direction; I so voted the other day. I voted in committee of the whole the other day to insert this provision in the Consti tution; and I would vote for it now; I have no hesitation in that regard. I would at least give the people an op iportunity to express themselves in that direction. But I fear putting this in the body of the instrument will have the effect of combining all the enemies of the instrument against it, without getting for it any more friends. And hence, not as a matter of principle, but as a matter- of expediency, I am in favor of submitting this to the people as a separate proposition. My own hesitation comes from the fact that if this proposition, when submitted separately, should be voted down, then, so far as the Constitution' is concerned, there would be perfectly unrestricted f'ree trade in intoxicating drinks. Therefore, the second proposition made here, though one which I will not myself vote for at the polls, has still much of good in it, or much that would be better than the free trade we have had in our towns; much that I think would protect these boys; much that would tend to protect our community and diminish the evils that flow from the unrestrained traffic in intoxicating liquors. It would be better than free trade, and hence I would submit it as an alternative proposition. It involves the surrender of no prin ciple to do this; it involves-nothing which I or my constituents hold dear, as I understand the case. My own belief is, that a majority of my own constituents are in favor of prohibi tion, and that they will vote for it with equal willingness, whether it be in the Constitution itself, or in a separate clause. They will have equal oppor tunities to do so, whether it is in the main instrument, or in a separate clause. It is a mere matter of expedi ency, a matter which, in my judgment and I do not claim to judge for any other man-involves nothing of prin ciple whatever. With this alternative proposition, which is presented here, with this proposition placed in the Constitution, and I should hope never to be remo ved, prohibiting by the Constitution itself the sale of ardent spirits to mi nors, drunkards, persons under guar dianship, etc., it would be better than that our Constitution should be voted ; down, that the temperance men should become discouraged, that everything but public opinion in favor of temper ance and sobriety should go down and be abandoned, as I fear it might be from losing this in the State. I fear some such result might follow, from the voting down of the instrument be cause of the insertion of this clause. Some who would vote for the instru ment otherwise, might not or would not vote for it if this clause were in serted. The m.en who would vote for this clause by itself, would not all vote for the instrument with it in it, on other accounts. There are some people in my own county who would not vote for the main instrument, not for the reason which troubles many, August 1, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 53 —5 53 C~TTTOA OVTI. hray but because our county is prohibited from aiding railroads; yet the same men would very likely vote for such a clause as this. I refer to this only to illustrate the idea that if this is put in the Constitution we will be thereby combining the ene mies of the Constitution, without bringing together its friends. I think it better for both that this be submitted separately, and hence I shall vote accordingly. Mr. HOWARD. From what has been said, we might judge that the proposition under discussion here involved but a very little difference of opinion, so far as the temperance men of the State are concerned. We have been told repeatedly, by gentlemen who advocate the substitute now before the Convention in preference to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, that they, the advocates of that substitute, would go to the polls and vote for and bring a conscientious support to the principle of prohibition. But they say they are afraid if the principle of prohibition is embodied in the body of the instrument we are here to frame, our work would not be acceptable to the people; or, in other words, as a matter of expediency, they are afraid to put the principle of prohibition in the Constitution. They are afraid to ask the people of the State to vote for a Constitution embodying those principles which they recognise to be fundamental and right. Now, the gentleman from B[onroe, (Mr. MORToN,)-although it may be humiliating to acknowledge it gave us the true solution of this difficulty. He told the truth, and the whole broad truth, when he said that we dare not plant our selves directly upon the question of prohibition as a question of right. I say he told the truth. And I ask the gentlemen of this Convention if it is not a humiliating fact, that a party with a majority of thirty thousand in the State of Michigan, with its advo cates upon this floor, backed up by the united voice of the churches from one end of the State to the other, appealed to by every society that has a moral influence to carry out this principle and embody it in the Con stitution, and make it a part and par cel of the Constitution-I ask if it is not a humiliating fact that that party, a party claimed to have been built and established upon right, a party that claims to have gained the ascendancy in this government, and to have achieved the great work that it has achieved, because it was based upon right principles, and actuated by hon est moties, that party dare not now espouse a cause because of its political inexpediency? I thank God that I for one have no political reputation or political aspirations that would lead me to bow to expediency and give up what I claim to be right. - I propose to devote a few minutes' - attention to this question. I say as I have said before, that I pretend to speak the sentiments of no man but - myself. And if those sentiments ac cord and agree with the sentiments of a majority of this Convention, I shall be pleased. But if I am voted down, if the majority here is against me, why, f I shall acquiesce, and join hands with the friends of temperance, to build up the best structure we can, upon the ruins of what I claim to be the best system of all. I will accord to no man the privilege of saying at the end of this discussion that I have been un charitable, or have ~et up my own opinions as all right, and that I am not willing to allow to others the full benefit of a conscientious support of the opposite view. We may, as a starting point, look over the Convention; and it would not become me, nor would it become any man, to say that all those who oppose the putting this prohibitory clause in the body of the Constitution are oppo. nents of the temperance reform. I do not say it. I believe there never was a body of men assembled in this or in any other State that was so largely made up of temperance men as this present Constitutional Convention. , But we differ in regard to the best means for accomplishing a common end. And that difference may be at. tributable in a great measure to the fact stated by the gentleman from Monroe (Mr. MORTON;) that I have . admitted. But tha' difference of opinion is not to be attributed entirely to that reason. Other objections have been raised there which I claim are answerable. What are they? The gentleman from L Bay (Mr. BIRNEY) has told us in sub stance that the prohibitory law, which has been the law of the State for the last twelve years, was a dead letter, a disgrace upon the statute books, and contaminated all the otber-acts of the Legislature. He says' he does not know how it may be in the rural dis tricts, but in his county men drink publicly and openly. I would like to have any man tell me, if he was in Bay City and was invited to go into the rural districts, which way would he go? I represent in part a county with three times the number of inhabitants of Bay county. I do not claim that we are in the rural districts. But I know the prohibitory law has been en forced there, and I know it can be en forced in every county in this State, when temperance men in conventions and in other places cease this warfare against it, by raising the cry that it cannot be enforced, thus giving encouragement to its enemies, and weakening the hands of its friends. Mr. BIRNEY. Will the getlemnan yield to me for a moment? Mr. HOWARD. Certainly; I am very glad of this opportunity to take breath. Mr. BIRNEY. I did not say this prohibitory law would disgrace the other laws. M%r. HOWARD. Perhaps it may not be enforced in the larger cities as readily as it is, or can be, in the smaller towns. Look at the history of this law since it had a place upon the statute books of the State of Michigan, and then ask ourselves honestly and candidly if any law placed upon the statute book could be enforced if it met with the same opposition that law has met with. The opposition — to this prohibitory law has been two-fold. In the first place it never had the cordial support of the political leaders of the State. Why? Because they were afraid that if temperance was taken into politics their party would be defeated. That can be said of the one party as well as of the other. They have kept aloof from this question in politics; they have taken the question of temperance out of politics. Year after year in temperance has been dragged into politics to control elections. Year after year these very men have witnessed the strength given to the opposition to temperance by the use of whisky. The staggering, drunken voter has been led up to the polls; and men unworthy and unfit to occupy any respectable position have been placed in office by the use of whisky, and whisky influence. Intemperance has been dragged into politics, and has controlled elections, while temperance has been kept out of politics, because parties have been afraid of losing strength, if they advocated the cause of temperance as a party measure. And how is it here to-day? Gentlemen have told us they would vote for prohibition at the polls~ but would not vote for it here, because they were afraid of the effect it would have. Let me ask those gentlemen if we give way to the cry of expediency now, if we allow ourselves to be dictated to by such an element, if we allow ourselves to be driven away now, from what we believe to be right upon this question, when will that cry cease? Will not the same demand be made elsewhere? will the Legislature not be told that they must 536 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Thursclay, 1; DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. not pass prohibitory or even restrictive laws? I say, Mr. President, and gentlemen of this Convention, that cry will continue, and will gather strength from the example of this Convention, if we give way to it here. It will be raised and it will increase, until it will control the politics of this State, until it will lead from its propriety the Legislature of this State, until it will drive the termperance men of this State for their protection to unite, irrespective of party, to uphold the standard that is dearer to them than the success of any political party. That is what I mean, and let gentlemen take it as I mean. I say now that by allowing this beerguzzling element in the State to drive us from the defense of what we believe to be right, we are driving the temperance element, that would be not only an honor but a strength to any party, to the last resort, to wit: to withdrawing themselves from the party of their choice, and uniting themselves together to carry out a reform dearer to their hearts than any political party. I believe I am stating the simple truth when I make that statement. I believe there are men, there are churches, there are societies, there are organizations, throughout the length and breadth of this State, that will not submit to be whipped into party traces to the support of a principle which they abhor, at the bidding of this beer-guzzling, rot-gut whisky drinking element in this State. No, sir, they will not. And the gentlemen of this Convention who expect to gain political eminence, or to give strength to their political party, will learn that fact, when this Constitution is submitted to the people, if it be submitted under the fear and under the lash of this element, under this cry of expediency which is raised in this State, and which seeks to drive us from the position which we have planted ourselves upon. The history of this struggle, from the beginning to the end, shows that the fears, rather than the good common sense of the temperance people and the temperance party have been appealed to. How has it been? When the Convention of 1850 put this clause in the present Constitution, we had been living under a license law. Every man who is old enough to occupy a position upon this floor, knows what a struggle we passed through. i I can re member it myself. I can remember when the township boards refused to grant licenses, and the whisky dealers used to daub over their buildings, destroy their horses, and muti late and injure their property in every way they could. What t then done by the united efforts of Vio. N. (8. temperance men of both parties? This clause prohibiting the granting of licenses was placed in the Constitution. Was that submitted to the people? Certainly, and the people endorsed it. This clause received the sanction of the people, and most triumphantly succeeded. Subsequently a prohibitory law was passed, a law that I am willing to admit is in many respects impracticable, and since its original passage it has been made more impracticable, at the behest and at the demand of this same class of men, who are demanding at our hands the entire surrender of our principles here. Continual inroads have been made upon that law, until to-day I admit it is impracticable. And for fear I may not return to the subject again, I will say now that if prohibition be engrafted upon the Constitution, and endorsed by the people, I should be in favor of following it up immediately by appropriate legislation, by putting upon the statute book, at the very first opportunity, a law that will be more practicable than is the present prohibitory law. The present prohibitory law was submitted to the people, and it received their sanction by twenty-five thousand or more majority. It has stood for years as the law of the State. But gentlemen say that it has not been enforced; they say it cannot be enforced. I deny the first assertion. It has been enforced; it has been enforced in more cases than under the circumstances its most sanguine friends had any right to expect. We haye been passing through difficulties and trials that withdrew the attention of the people from the enforcement of this law. The rebellion through which the nationhas just passed, so engrossed the minds of the people that they could not give their attention to this law as they otherwise would have done. The great struggle in which we have been engaged, has finally been closed. During all this time not only have the friends of temperance slackened their energies in the direction of the enforcement of this law, but those moral influences and efforts which are the rear-guard of this prohibitory law have been slackened. The attention of ministers and of lecturers of this moral reform has been turned in another direction. All these difficul ties slave surrounded this law, and during the last few years it has not had the chances it ought to have had. But what has been done since the close of the rebellion? 5Men who are now upon this floor, who, I dare say, have occupied official positions in every county in the State almost, have been :yi.g to themselves, and to the liq'uor dealers, and to those who desired to prosecute under this law, that it would be better to wait until after this Convention had met, and if it reenacted the law, then they would enforce it. And when this Convention met petitions began to pour in here, and the advocates of license stood upon this floor, and for weeks manfully maintained the principle of license; while those in favor of prohibition, with equal earnestness and manfulness, undertook to sustain the principle of prohibition. Where are those license men to-day? I have heard but one man raise his voice here in harmony with his voice the first day he raised.it in this Convention on this subject; and he is the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON.) The others have sought cover under a proposition which I pronounce to be equal, to use the language of the liquor men, to the broadest and most "well regulated license" that could be conceived. And they ask us to lend our votes for the purpose of placing in the Constitution, or as a-proposition to be separately -submitted, aproposition that the Legislature may regulate and restrict this traffic. Now, sir, that means license, nothing more and nothing less. Are we prepared to-day to vote for license? Are the people of the State of Michigan prepared to give their voteh for the principle of license? I say no. And the gentlemen who propose to defeat the proposition of prohibition know that fact. They know that the only way that a proposition for license can be carried through this Convention is to veil it so thickly with technicalities that its deformities cannot be seen. It might have done a great many years ago to talk about license and the impracticability of a prohibitory law. But that time has passed; prohibition is practicable, or a republican government is a falsehood. The people will be governed by the will of the majority, or there is no truth in republicanism. And to say that large cities will not be governed by a prohibitory law is to give the lie to the idea of republicanism. Gentlemen have told us that in the city of Detroit men would not be governed by a prohibitory law. We have been told that in the Lake Superior country a man would be thrown into the lake with all the paraphernalia and machinery of the court, if he undertook to enforce the law there. That may be true in Wayne county; we must acknowledge with mortifica tion, that in Wayne county, they can not even enforce a Sunday law, and compel men to pay a decent and com mon regard to that day, to which all of us should bow in submission and obedience withbot the behest of lMwX 'Au1. gust 1, 1867. 537 9 538 COSIUTOA COVNIN Thurvdl, and it. might be expected that in such a locality, there would be a struggle against the law. Mr. LOTHROP. Allow me to ask the gentleman whether he has ever spent a Sunday in Detroit? Mr. HOWARD. Most certainly I have. Mr. LOTHROP. Was the free religious worship of the gentleman ever disturbed there?' Mr. HOWARD. Well, sir, I think I can answer that question and answer it truthfully, that no man ever spent a Sunday in Detroit, if he had the use of his limbs and the power of locomotion, -who could not say with truth that scenes of debauchery and drunkenness met him on its streets that would make an honest man's heart revolt. Mr. LOTHROP. All I can say to the gentleman is that, having spent some twenty years there, I know that no man need see anything there at which he should blush, unless he seeks it; and then he will be sure to find it. Mr. HOWARD. What I mean to say is this; that.not only is drunkenness openly and unrestrainedly recognized in the city of Detroit on the Sabbath day, but the common counciL of that city were obliged to repeal this Sunday law at the behest of that same class of men who ask us here to repeal our prohibitory law. That is what I say, and the gentleman cannot deny it. Mr. LOTHROP. Does the gentleman know precisely what was forbidden and what was repealed? Mr. HOWARD. I am not prepared to give the history of the action there. I know that there was a considerable emigration of your "well restrained" citizens to' Hog Island, to guzzle their lager on Sunday, for the reason that you undertook to stop them from doing so in the city, and finally, rather than lose their custom in the city, and their influence there on certain occasions, your common council repealed that law. Mr. LOTHROP. The gentleman forgets where he is. The gentleman evidently supposes that he is in those places to which he has evidently resorted before, or he would not use this language. He forgets that he is on the floor of a Constitutional Convention, and among gentlemen. The difficulty there was not concerning places for guzzling, but whether persons who de sired in the afternoon to visit rural gardens, German gardens, they are called sometimes winter gardens, or summer gardens, should be able to find them open a portion of the day or not. There were persons, very honest, I have no doubt, but very mistaken, I believe, who thought that such places should be closed. There are others, equally honest and pure, who think it proper that such places should not be closed. The gentleman is getting his ideas a little disturbed; perhaps this "beer-guzzling" goes further than he would have us know. Mr. HOWARD. I am not disturbed at all. I admit that in my early days I have visited some of those places; but when I joined the Republican party I ceased those bad habits. So far as re gards the assertion I made, I repeat it, that at the behest of this same class of men in Detroit, the Sunday law was stricken from the-statute book. I say that modest ladies, religious people, men, women and children, have every Sunday since that time had thei] sensibilities offended in the streets oi Detroit by those very acts which the common council undertook to restrain and forbid, or the pnblic prints in the city of Detroit belie the facts. I am not responsible for the fact; I makt the statement as it exists. And the sophistry of the gentleman, his smooth way of getting around the proposition and this uncalled for, but not unex pected, personal assault upon myself, cannot do away with the facts. And now let me inquire, who have asked you to give "a well regulated license" in place of prohibition? Thi. same class of men. Who, I ask you, came here to the very doors of thi Convention and said to you-" Grani us a license law, give it to us, and we will see that it is carried out.' Who, I ask, constituted that com mittee that came here? I will nol individualize; but they were men o: the same character. And one of thai committee going from this place to Owosso, met a gentleman who told a friend of mine, he is a lawyer prac ticding at St. Johns, and he supposed he was a member of this ConvenL tion, one of that same cq~mittee'told E him that "by the~ Eternal, thee [would spend'a hundred thousand dollars but what they would carry the [ license through at the ballot box." L These are facts that can be proved. X I say, in addition to that, that every - single petition that has come here foi license has borne the names, more ol , less, not all, of these very men enga~ged , in this traffic. And if there was ever r an inconsistency, it was shown by those : very men who have grown rich, not all of them, in carrying on this traffic in 1 violation of the law, who had ignored 3 the prohibitory liquor law, and scat tered ruin and devastation in their l track by the traffic in ardent spirits, ~ coming to a body like this and asking [ for "a well regulated license Iaw." [ Mr. CONGER. If the gentleman willallow me, I-wish' here to contra dict that statement, that the contradiction may go upon the record with the remark. I tell the gentleman that there is a petition here from the city of Port Huron for a well regulated license law, which is -signed by a very large number of gentlemen, who never buy, and never sell, and never drink intoxicating liquors; who have been without one exception, almost the only supporters of the temperance cause in that city for the last fifteen years. There is not the name of a drinking man, or a seller of liquor on that petition. Mr. HOWARD. I supposed I had made my statement broad enough to cover all the ground. Mr. LOTHROP. If the gentleman will indulge me. Mr. HOWARD. Not for a speech; rhe personal reflections can come hereafter. Mr LOTHROP. I desire to say in his same connection-though I- can hardly hope to command the gentleman's belief that we have -had the Honor to present, from Detroit, peti,ions that bear the names of men who ,re total abstinence men, not simply emperance men; hundreds of the purest men in that city, and were it aot for the gentleman's unbelief, I would say as good as the best men in ihe State. Mr. RAFTER. I will say in this connection that the same is the fact n regard to my county. Mr. HOWARD. All of these explaaations are unnecessary; I said not all of these petitions. Mr. CONGER. The gentleman said "without a single exception." Mr. HOWARD. Nobody understood me so but the gentleman. I will repeat it so that I may not be misunderstood. I do not claim that all the petitioners for license were drinking men, or men engaged in this traffic. But I do say that a large majority of these petitions for license that were poured upon this Convention, came from the rum-holes and brothels of the cities, that they were scented with the fumes of debauchery, that they were brought here in the interest of a traffic unholy in itself, devastating in its influence, and-demoralizing in every respect. And no man who was not personally engaged in that traffic, or who had not an interest in its being carried on, would take sufficient pains to circulate those petitions, as I have known some of them to be circulated and sent up here. There may have been exceptions. Men may have signed petitions for license, who be-lieved that was the best plan; I have no doubt of it. Many good men from amy own place signed petitions e i CONSTITUTIONA-T, CONVENTION. 538 Thursd'a.y ?~g~...6'1)~AE AI ~)~II.'. - 4 f s r -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But there was a petition came up here from my city, that if the character of the petitioners were known the character of the men who circulated the petitions, a man who has been engaged for years in keeping a whisky shop, one of the lowest places in that county, until he was prosecuted under the law; and to give respectability to that petition, two or three names of leading tax-payers were put upon it. It is signed by men who have accumulated their wealth by the downfall, and the murder, by slow degrees of scores of their fellow-citizens, both Indians and white men, by the sale of whisky. And after growing rich by this traffic, after defying the moral sentiment of the State, after defying the law for years, after defying every influence that could be brought to bear upon them, after resisting the solemn implorings of women and children who were being impoverished and made miserable by this traffic, they have the impudence and temerity to come here and ask me and other members of this Convention to protect their unholy business by giving them a well regulated license law. Now, I repeat that the majority of these petitions have come up here from men interestt d in this traffic. They come here with the signatures of drinking men upon them; they come here with those signatures obtained in one way and another, asking us to establish in the Constitution the principle of license, so that they may carry on their business hereafter with impunity. Now, to say nothing further in regard to the source of these petitions, let us look at the principle of license itself. And -I will not be be driven, by insinuations and slurs here, from the positio)n that the government ought not to take the wages of sin into the public treasury. I believe when we undertake to' grant this license, and to put the price thereof into the public treasury, we demoralize the public sentiment. I am not to be driven from that ground Further than that: We are told that if we grant licenses we shall shut up these low doggeries, that there will be but few men who will be able to make the expenditure. All I have personally to say to that is this: I do not want to shat up the low doggeries unless the high doggeries go by the board also. The gentleman from Jackson ( Mr. PRINGLE) dwelt with his usual eloquence upon the demoralization of the young men of the cities. Let me ask that gen tleman where those young men were demoralized? was it in the low dog geries? Did they~ acquire the appetite for liquor by going into these low pla ces, the proprietors of which cannot afford" to pay for a license? No, sir; they were made drunkards in the other places, where there are marble counters, painted ceilings, and all the paraphernalia of wealth to surround the drinker; there is where the young men are taught to drink, and then they drift off into the low doggeries, where they are finished for the drunkard's grave, and the drunkard's hell. When you shut up the places wherethe drunkards are made, then the low doggeries will go by the board. Besides, that would be creating a monopoly in this kind of business which would not be recognized in any other direction. Apply this rule to any branch of legitimate business, and would gentlemen accede to it? "Unholy monopoly," "class legislation," would be sounded in our ears here, and would drown our voices. I say thtthe low doggeries do not do the harm the other places do. But gentlemen say a license law would be best for this reason: the man who has paid his.license will become a police officer in his neighborhood, to see that-the law is enforced and ob served there. What a pretty state of things that would be, to be sure! set the whiskey-sellers fifghting like a lot of Kilkenny cats, to see who should pay the license, and who should not. I want to know if this class of men, admitted by all to be bad men, are the kind of men to be made to obey the law, and to watch each other? MAost certainly not. In addition to that, the same desires, the same core, the same anxiety, the same watchful ness would characterize their efforts to evade the license law as to evade the prohibition law. This plan of petitioning for a well regulated license law, is but asking us to take a backward step, and to give these whisky dealers an advantage. I would ask gentlemen of this Conven tion who are to be led into a support of the proposition now before this body, if they are willing to throw away all that has been done, all that we may reasonably expect to do in the way of prohibition, and to try this system at the bidding of the liquor dealers of this State? Sir, no matter what this Convention may do, this moral movement cannot go backward; it will. go on. But gen tlemen say you cannot control by law the appetites of men. I want to ask the gentlemen of this Convention if they are willing to admit that, where the gratification of the appetites of men affects the community injudicious ly, demoralizes the community, in fringes upon the rights of the public, deotroyM the dearest iaterests of the home circle, surrounds itself with all ; the demoralizing influences of this traffic, the law-making power cannot rightfully control those appetites for . the sake of the public good; I would ask gentlemen if they would be willing L to apply the same argument in other directions? Do we not control the appetites and lusts of evil-disposed men? We may not be able to restrain entirely their bad propensities. And how would gentlemen like to hear the announcement made: "You must abandon the effort entirely, because you do not succeed"? There is no philosophy in that. For one, I would have been glad if the pulpit, if the lecturer, if the moral reformer had done this work for us, and had done it alone. What a glori ous conquest it would have been. But it has not been done. Yet all those strong elements of power are ready to join hands with the administrator of the law, and carry on this reform; all that they ask is the opportunity. From the pulpits all over the State, from all religious societies, from all that class of men from whom good counsel has-ever been and ever may be expected, we have heard a united voice asking us to retain the prohibitory law. It means something, and it means that there is a moral sentiment in this State that is not discouraged. And for one, I am willing to stand here and everywhere and join hands with that moral force and carry on this reform; but I am un willing to take any backward step in it. Gentlemen say-" If the principle of prohibition is popular and is right, why not submit it to the people for action separate from the rest of the Constitu tion?" I ask, gentlemen, why not sub mit to the people a separate clause in regard to lotteries? Because they re cognize in that a fundamental princi pie of right. But they say that men who have contended for other clauses in the Constitution will be driven from their support of the Constitution, be cause they find prohibition in it. Sir, I deny it. There may be men who are sensitive upon this point; but we shall gain from the others not so sensitive strength enough to compensate us for all that we may lose in this direction. But there are men in this State who have spent their lives in the temperance cause, who have fought their political battles within the Republican ranks, who have marched under the Republi can banner from the first organization of that party, who, when they look for the prohibitory clause in the new Con stitution, and do not find it there, and are told that we dared not put it in there, will not:vote for that Constitu tion, because it does not contain a11 that they desire. I A-4gs.t 1, 186t. Dt,!IATES AND PltOCVINI)IXGS. :539 I 54 COSIUTOA CO- ~ i~ Thur d I am opposed to submitting this question separately for this additional reason: that it would open the floodgates of whiskydom from one end of the State to the other. Who can tell the amount of whisky that would be freely poured out, the amount of money that would be spent to control votes? Who can tell the extent the people of thig State would be demoralized by a political campaign where the life or death of whiskydom was the only stake to be fought for? I am therefore opposed to it for that reason. We have had examples from the beginning of this struggle of the violence that has been resorted to, the money that has been spent,. the whisky that has been used, the liquor that has flowed as freely as water, to carry out the designs of these liquor men; and have we any promise of anything better for the future? Would we not be met with violence; would we not be menaced; would not our property be destroyed; would not every argument of brute force which the liquor interest has ever used, and which it will never scruple to use, be brought to bear to intimidate us and to carry through their measure? I say we may expect it; and if the issue comes to that, I do expect it. Now, I ask gentlemen of this Convention, if there is any broad principle of right, upon which an argument can be founded, that shall take us, who have been the adherents and the advocates of prohibition from the first, from that stand-point, from that position, which the voice and the partiality of a temperance, a prohibition constituency have placed us on? I ask gentlemen, if we are to be deluded by any uncertain or technical language, in any proposition brought forward here against the plain, practical, and well understood words of the prohibitory clause? If there are any such, I am not one of them. ' I shall vote for putting prohibition now into the Constitution. And I know that the temperance element of this State, whether we place prohibition in here or not, will unite to make it the fundamental law of the land. I believe if the proposition succeeds here, of submitting this clause separately to the people, it will not bring to its aid that support, with the same ambition, with the same promise of success, with the same hearty zeal con the part of the temperance men that we have been told is necessary by those who will be expected to conduct the canvass, and see to the interest of the prohibitory clause before the people. And now, I have only to say that I believe prohibition to be right. I believe we are strong enough in this State to discard the insinuation that we will be demoralized by incorporating prohibition plainly and fairly in the Constitution. I believe there is justice enough in the State, that there is sobriety enough among our people, that they are actuated by those high moral principles which will lead them on to fight this great battle to a victorious result, and that prohibition in the Constitution will not only be received and sustainect by the people, but that such legislation as may be necessary will follow it. I believethe moral sentiment of the people will sustain such action on the part of this Convention and of the Legislature; and the thanksgivings not only of the inebriates, but of their families, will arise from one end of the State to the other, in one common acclaim of praise to a Convention that dared to plant its action upon moral grounds; that dared to go ion and fight this battle in which we have been struggling, and which I believe is destined to continue to a victorious end. Sir. CONGER. I rise to propound to the gentleman who has just taken his seat, or to any of his friends, five questions. I had hoped that the proposition which I made in the few remarks I addressed to this Convention this forenoon might have met with an honest and fair responsb from those who are in favor of prohibition and opposed to an alternative proposition which seemed so fair. But before I ask those questions, I desire to say here in my place that the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD,) is not the sole and special advocate on this floor of temperance and of prohibition. - Mr. HOWARD. I am glad to hear it. Mir. CONGER. His exertions in that cause, so far as they have become known in i he State, do not warrant him in denouncing those who labored in that cause before he- perhaps entered into public life: at all. That he has been zealous and earnest and servicable I have no doubt. But I tell the gentleman there are men here who have been equally earnest and equally zealous, and who have sought the prosecution of this very prohibitory law without being the prosecuting attorneys of their counties and paid for doing it. There are men here who, year after year, without fee and without reward, have joined with others in this prosecution, because of their desire to sustain the cause of temperance, and to enforce the prohibitory law. And it is not for him to throw into my face, or the face of any other gentleman here, who can- s-ee -a different mode from the one he favorsr of accomplihing a great deal of good, that we are associated with the frequenters of doggeries and of brothels. Mr. HOWARD. HIave I said that? Mr. CONGER. It is not for him to say that in presenting our petitions here, and in advocating a particular course of action here, we are presenting the petitions and memorials of that class of men, even in the main. It is not true. Nothing but prejudice and fanaticism and bigotry can classify the honorably minded temperance men, who agree with the gentleman who has just spoken-as he has himself admitted on this floor-that the prohibitory law as it stands upon our statute book to-day has become impracticable, and who therefore desire to try some other means. It is not for him to characterize them as the associates of the low and the grovelling and the degraded in this State of ours; yet this he has done. And he will continue to do it; for I have no hope, I have no expectation but that the zeal of the gentleman will continue to eat him up, and except for his recuperative powers it would have finished him long since. Now, I claim to be the equal of the gentleman in my desire to have a temperance law, and a law that can be enforced. I tell the gentleman that when he talks of his services, I, too, have engaged in that service, and in the prosecution of those who engage in the sale of intoxicating liquors. M]r. HOWARD. I call the gen'tleman to order; I have not said a word in mention of my services. Mr. CONGER. I have engaged in the prosecution of' these men year after year, until they turned upon me and burned my office, and destroyed my library, the accumulation of all the early years of my life, and left me with nothing in the world but the roof that sheltered the heads of my [it'le children. And still I prosecuted them. And I do not allow him or any other man to charge me with violating my duty, because I see fit to pursue a different course from him. Nor will I permit it to be done to those of my colleagues here, who join with me in believing, and join with the gentleman himself, too, in believing, that the prohibitory law has been, and is, to-day, impracticable, and that there must be further legislation to render it operative and practicable in this State. Is it true that in all efforts to remove a crying evil in our State there is but one rut in which the wheels of progress must run? It is not so with-other efforts to redeem human nature. For all other moral questions, for all other humanitarian efforts, there are'mflu CONSTITUTIONAL COX'VENTION. Thursda"y, 540 I Augu~~~ ~ 1, 1_7 -'d,..AT],- Ak.. 54..1__ _,v-._ r ences brought from all directions, and from all quarters, to bear upon the subjects; moral inRflences, persuasive influences, legal influences, social influences, family influences, all are brought to bear to restrain men from sin and to bring them to the ways of the good. And is it true that in regard to this great crying evil, we must follow one single track, and be denounced if we seek to bring other influences to bear upon it? Is it true that only one means can be resorted to, and that means not a prohibition of the sale which causes the evil, but merely a prohibition of license to sell? Is it so, and is that the statesmanship of this Constitutional Convention, that the farthest we dare go to remedy the great and crying evil, which the gentleman has so vividly and so truly described as existing in this State, the farthest we dare go is not to attack it in its home and directly prohibit its sale, but only prohibit the license to sell? Is that the greatness of our cause; is that the magnitude of our endeavor? It would seem so. I spoke of this matter this morning. No gentleman has pretended to say that the prohibitory clause in the present Constitution, or as proposed by the prohibitory men here to be placed in the new Constitution, goes farther than to prohibit the grant of license to sell; the mere license, that is all that is prohibited. The language of the prohibitory clause is deceptive; it does not have the meaning which the gentleman gives it. His spee,h is founded upon the assumption that it means a prohibition of sale, when it means no such thing. It goes no farther than the mere legal semblance of authority to sell; that is all that is prohibited. I tell you that is the fault of the old prohibitory clause in the Constitution; it attacked the shadow, and left the substance to go forth like a roaring lion, seeking whom it might devour. It is the fault of temperance men today that they do not attack the lion in his den, the giant in his castle, the robber in his hall. I asked gentlemen to join with me in putting ill this Constitution a prohibition of the sale of ardent spirits; and not a solitary voice among the great and the good and the wise men who belong to this Convention, has made the slightest whispering response to that proposition as yet. MIr. HOWARD. I would like to ask the gentleman when he gave that invi tation? Mr.'CONGER. I have said it pri vately and publicly; I have said dis tinctly, that those who believe the sale of intoxicating liquors is so sinlful, that it should not be licensed, should attack the sale itself. MIr. HOWARD. I am ready to join with the gentleman in that, and I know that others are. -Mr. CONGER. Ah! and will the gentleman so freely give up his petted and beloved project of prohibition of license, upon a mere suggestion, and depart entirely from it, when the sounds of his voice has scarcely died away-since he warned his associates not to be led one iota from that proposition? Will he now follow my lead and depart entirely from that? I bid him to come on. Mr. HOWARD. I say most ermiphatically, yes, I will. Mr. ROOT. If the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGaR,) will state his proposition, we will join in it. Mr. CONGER. I thought that before we got through those gentlemen would forsake their standing ground.. I say that I believed they would depart from that ground, as not embracing the true theory. They say that the selling of ardent spirits is a crime, and that to license the sale of it is to legaIize crime. I say, therefore, they should attack the crime itself, and not attack the mere authority to commit the crime. As a logical proposition, my proposition is correct, and well may the gentlemen say they will join me in that. That is the true theory, and no gentleman is safe who adopts any other, if he opposes license. No gentleman can stand with any philosophy or with any logic upon any other ground; no gentleman who says that the sale of ardent spirits is in itself so. criminal that a license of it is a license of crime, can stop short of the prohibition of the sale itself. Now, I submit to my friends that that proposition must be met, and it must be answered. This other proposition of prohibition of license does not go far enough to accomplish the end nor to gain the object sought. I believe that to be the reason for the want of success in that old prohibitory clause, that it did not reach the evil, that it stopped outside of the pickets; it did not go inside and attack the sin. If I did believe —and I do to a great extent-as the gentlemen do, I would put in a clause prohibiting the sale of ardent spirits, and I would make laws to enforce that clause. I would not nerely prohibit the Legislature from granting the mere authority to sell, be cause, as I said this morning, they may obey in the letter and in spirit the pro hibitory clause here proposed, and not grant license, and there stop;' and the door will be open throughout all our State for any who chooses to commit this crime. There is no prohibition in the Constitution of that sale, provided it be done without a license. But I will:not enlarge upon this. i say as I said before, we propose to have at least an alternative; ff we cannot have the reality in the main clause, we propose at least to have an alternative. which shall speak out the language of truth and of soberness on this subject and shall make known to the people of this State that under that alternative clause they may restrict, and they may restrain, and they may prohibit. And what is that? The Legislature shall. provide for the regulation and restriction of the sale of intoxicating drinks; the Legislature shall impose a tax upon the traffic therein. That is one part of it; that is a restriction. And I assume to say, and I ask any gentleman to deny it if it is untrue, that under that clause the Legislature could absolutely prohibit the sale. Will any one tell me the Legislature may not do it? They shall restrict and they may prohibit; and the sale of such drinks to minors, to persons under guardianship and to common drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited. Does the prohibitory clause, which it is proposed to put in the Constitution, prohibit the sale of liquor to minors? Not at all. Yet, this other clause, which some of us desire, does prohibit wholly and absolutely the sale of intoxicating liquors to the youth of this State under twenty-one years of age. God send that the day may come when such a law as that can be enforced in the State of Michigan by a constitutional provision, and by laws passed by the Legislature in pursuance thereof; that there shall be fuines and penalties imposed upon every man who deals out the intoxicating dram to the youth of our State. That is what we temperance men, on the other view of this question, desire to have as an alternative clause, to be submitted to the people. We desire to submit a reality to the people, in place of the fiction contained in the prohibition of license. The other portion of the alternative proposition is, that if the traffic is permnitted at all there snall be imposed upon each person engaging in it an annual tax of not less than one hun dred dollars; and the Legislature may make it five hundred dollars, or five thousand dollars. Under that taxing clause, the Legislature may absolutely prohibit the traffic. I beg pardon for having again taken up the time of the Convention on this subject. But I thought it was due to those of us who' have assumed the right to take a course of our own upon this subject, and still seek to preserve the respect of ourselves and of our colleagues as friends of temperance, to make these remarks. I now ask these five questions: First: Does the prohibitory clause in itself do I ugust 1,. 1867. I:91. -,It -. ID B ]S A.li'PROO, -DINGS., 541 54'2 CONSTITUTiOAL OOVETIO. Tliuiday, anything more than to prohibit the grant of license to sell intoxicating drinks? Second: Does not the alternative clause authorize absolute prohibition of sale? Third: Does it not require the Legislature to provide generally for the restriction of the sale? Fourth: Does it'not wholly prohibit the sale to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers, and common drunkards? And fifth: Does it not restrain the vender by a tax of at least one hundred dollars a year? Mr. WILLIAMS. I desire to offer an amendment to the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) I move to amend that substitute by striking out of the first sentence the words "intoxicating drinks," and inserting in lieu thereof the words " spirituous or intoxicating liquors;" also by striking out of the second sentence the word drinks," and inserting in lieu thereof the word liquors." The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that such an amendment would not be in order. Mr. WILLIAMS. What is the position of the question now before the Convention? The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the substitute of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) as amended on motion of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) The Convention having incorporated the amendment of the gentleman from Kent as a portion of the substitute, in the opinion of the Chair that portion of the substitute is not amendable, except by a reconsideration of the whole subject. Mr. SUTHERLAND. It is evident that we shall not reach a vote on this question to-day. And as I am obliged to leave this place to-morrow, I feel inclined to offer now some suggestions upon.the question before this Convention. In approaching this subject I have to observe that I can discover no other reasons for submitting a separate proposition to the people upon this subject, than in regard to divers other subjects that have been acted upon by this Convention. Some days ago a resolution was introduced and tabled, which proposed that there be submitted separately to the people provisions upoii several subjects in regard to which there was an active and decided difference of opinion, not only in this Conveution, but among the people. I inferred from the vote on that resolution that this Convention is not inclined to favor the submission of sundry propositions upon which there was difference of opinions. That being the case, I infer that each member is expected to vote in favor of a proposi tion to go into the body of the Convention, which most nearly accords with his views. Now, although the subject of this substitute is one of the subjects which by that resolution it was proposed to submit separately to the people, yet I shall vote against any separate submission of it, and for the insertion in the body of the Constitution of a clause prohibiting the grant of license, because that provision entirely embodies my sentiments and views upon the subject. I shall vote to insert that provision in the body of the Constitution for the same reason that I shall vote in favor of any other provision that I desire to have in the body of the Constitution. I am reminded that there have, been many petitions in favor of a separate submission of this clause, and that we are thus made aware that in the public mind there is a great diversity of views upon this subject. That may be so, but upon this subject the minority must submit to the majority. In the present Constitution there is a prohibitory clause, and if a majority of the people are in favor of retaining that clause, there is no possibility that the views of the minority shall prevail; and it is as fair that the minority should submit upon this question as upon any other. And presuming that the action of the majority of the people, when they come to vote, will correspond with the action of the majority of this Convention, I think it is proper that we should vote, each one of us, in favor of the proposition that best suits our judgment. Now I am in favor of prohibition. I think there is very little to be said against the purpose of prohibition; nothing has. been said. I think there has been such a change in the public sentiment that it is now too late for any one to step forward and ask for general license for the sale of ardent spirits. I think it is the sense of members of this Convention, of those who are in favor of submitting the proposition separately, as well as those who are directly in favor of prohibition, that the indiscriminate and free sale of ardent spirits tends only to evil. If that be our view of the matter, what more direct course is there to accomplish our common object, than to put prohibition into the body of the instrument? But, say the opponents of. that policy, the prohibitory law has not been strictly and invariably enforced during the past twelve years. It has not been in every case; but the same may be said in a less degree perhaps, of every penal statute in force in this State. There is hardly a law upon our statute books in regard to crime, that has not been violated; probably no other as frequently as this. But will any one say that, because our statutes punishing crime have not had the effect to entirely suppress crime therefore we should repeal those statutes, or submit to the people the question of granting license for the commission of those crimes, and endeavor to prevent them by imposing a heavy tax upon them? Are there any persons in favor of that system, in reference to any other crimes? I apprehend not. It must be confessed that to an alarming, and,' perhaps, to a discouraging extent, the law against the sale of ardent spirits has been violated. But while I think that is no argument in favor of repealing that law, or resorting to a system of license, I think we are warranted in asking the same provision in the new Constitution that we have in the present one, and are admonished to turn our attention to the defects of that prohibitory law, with a view to having it more generally enforced.. If- it is impracticable to have it so thoroughly enforced as to suppress wholly the traffic, yet we can accomplish much in that direction. I think, from some little experience and observation of the operation of that law, that by some important amendments to it,-it can be made a most useful auxiliary to accomplish the desired reform. When, that law was originally enacted, I think it was too generally relied upon as the sole means of accomplishing the desired end; and moral means, in fact nearly all other methods of accomplishing that reform, were suspended and neglected, and too much dependence was placed on the operations of this law. Now, however well formed a prohibitory liquor law may be, it can only act as an auxiliary; it can be employed only as all other laws for the protection of society are employed, as an auxiliary to private effort, to assist that general effort which every individual is constantly making who has the good of his species at heart; to assist the efforts that every individual who is properly directed by his views, will be constantly making for the elevation of his race in morality and virtue. And if we are imbued with those views, and do not expect to accomplish too much by the law, we shall not be disappointed in its results. ' Now, I will indicate, not for the purpose of having any change in the clause which has been proposed to be incorporated in this instrument, what I think is a radical defect in the present prohibitory law. It is that it is made the business of everybody to enforce it. We all know, not only from our experience under this law but from . I A.. I..1.. I.. CONS iV'UTIONAL CONVENT101N.' Th.urf4day, 542 Auus 1,16.DBTSADPOEDNS - our experience in a wider field, that whatever is made the busines of everybody is, in a very important sense, the business of nobody.' In the rural parts of the State, where there are perhaps but very few persons inclined to use ardent spirits to excess, the law has been pretty generally enforced, because a large majority of each neighborhood are opposed to the use of ardent spirits. But in the more populous portions of the State the law has not been very generally enforced; it has occasionally been enforced there; it has been enforced spasmodically. Occasionally when the moral sense of the community has been aroused by some such appeals as have been made here, by which men have been charged with cowardice, where they have felt that the responsibility was put upon their shoulders and they have failed to do their duty, they have been waked up, and those who engage in this traffic have been dealt with, and a few made severe examples of, while the others discreetly suspended-the traffic for atime. The one who had acted as informer, after pursuing the enemy a short time, believed he had performed his share of this public duty, and retired from the field; there was a want of a successor, and the effort was thus spasmiodic. The party who occupied the vantage ground disappeared, and those who were interested in the traffic saw no obstacle to their resuming their avocations, and the business went on more briskly than ever. That has been the experience I think of all communities throughout the State, where any large portion of the community have been inclined to patronize this traffic. Now, if we can put into office, otherwise than by electing them, a considerable force, so that there shall be one in every neighborhood, or a number in every neighborhood, as the necessities of the case shall require, of persons appointed, independent of public favor, who stand in no fear of having their property destroyed, who are not dependent upon the public for office, whose duty is expressly and exclusively to enforce this law, in my judgment, it can be'done uniformly and regularly. I believe it is the experience of every member of the legal profession that to prosecute a dealer in intoxicating liquors to conviction, is a matter very easy to accomplish; that no one of these dealers can do a thriving business with an informer at his heels; that when one or two are made examples of, all the others in the neighborhood take the hint and retire from the business. And, if the informer is constantly upon the ground, and will go resolutely forward in his work, the traffic is suppressed, and will be kept suppressed. Now, if this is practicable —and I have the right to assert that it will be practicable, because no such experiment has failed-we can accomplish this result most certainly and directly, if we vote for precisely such a provision as we are in favor of, and have as lit tle uncertainty about it as possible. And for the purpose of accomplishing this result directly, I am in favor of putting a prohibitory clause in the Constitution, because that is just what I wan. Then, if the Legislature, admonished by this vote of the Convention, and the vote of the people ratifying the Constitution, will only change the pro hibitory law in accordance with the views I have indidated, or any other views which tend more effectually to the same result, I think we will have taken a long stride towards removing this great evil from our country. Now, I am in favor of that course rather than submitting it to the peo ple, because, if by any chance the number of those attached to the busi ness, either from their interest in the traffic, or from their appetites, and who favor the license system, should be in the majority, we should lose the chance perhaps forevei of employing this effectual method of suppressing this evil. Now I am not desirous of incurring any risk or hazard in this result. And those who are desirous of accom plishing this result, who see the sub ject as I do, cannot fail to vote in the same ways because if the means are adequate and the object is desirable all can see that the most direct course to the accomplishment of it is uni formly the best. Now I give the results of my expe rience in that part of the State in whicb ' I have lived. Perhaps the subject wili f present itself in a different view to thost f who live in other parts of the State. , Their experience and observation may bring them to a different result. And while I adopt the conclusion which is suggested by my own observauton and experience, I have no inclination to im pugn the motives of those who have come to a different result. But I trusi that when the results of the experience of others have been stated here, the Convention will weigh the arguments which they offer, and the course whicb - they pursue, as compared to this, and ; then I shall have no fears of the result. -Mr. McCONNELL. I have but a few remaris to make on this question. I will say at the beginning that I agree with what has been said- by my dis tinguished friend from Saginraw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND.) I have listened with a great deal of interest to his remarks, and in so far as my experience goes, it enables me to corroborate what he has said. Mr. President, the question under discussion, the restricting the L gislature from granting license for'he sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, or rather reenacting the old timehonored prohibitory clause found in our present Constitution,. is to my mind eminently proper and justly demanded by a large portion, I may say a large majority, of the better classes of the citizens of our State. I do not design to makle any extended remarks on this occasion, upon this question. So ably has the subject been discussed heretofore in years agone, that its arguments are familiar as household words in all our families, and I trust have made their proper impression upon all our minds and hearts. As I have occupied but little of the time of this Convention, I hope, Mr -President, gentlemen will pardon this infliction. The traffic in alcoholic-liquors as a beverage, I regard as a great and crying evil. The rum-seller and his patrons, while they admit this, say it must be regulated by a stringent license law. The only proper way in my opinion to deal with an evil is to prevent it, to prohibit it, not license it and thereby make it honorable. In New York the license law does no good, so far as it licenses the sale of liquors. On six days of the week, five or six thousand rum-sellers are licensed to drive the miserable traffic, and on those days intemperance, vice, crime and misery abound. On the Sabbath, the sale is wholly prohibited, and a marked change takes place. You, gentlemen, who have visited the city of New York since the prohibitory law has been enforced on the Sabbath, could not but have been nighly gratified; for where drunkenness, debauchery and profanity was common and stalked forth in the popalous streets, all is quiet and orderly as the best regulated hamlet. Equal prohibition on other days would produce like results. Let us for a moment go back in the history of this State, prior to the year 1850, when the license law, amended as it had been by successive Legislatures, endeavored to govern the traffic in intoxicating liquors. It is doubtless known to every gentleman on this floor, how utterly it failed, and how loose and corrupt had grown the morals of our people, all over the State. WVhat was the verdict pronounced up on this traffic by both the dominont 1olitical parties, as well as by all good c 9 t s i i t t DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 513 August 1, 1867. 544,. ~ TI~IOA. ~~IO.. _r. a;.yId,. citizens the State over? Emphatically, condemnation. Mr. President, I hope and trust that the honest convictions of a large majority of the gentlemen composing this body, will also answer by their votes in condemnatory tones. Prohibition denounces the business, license approves, or to use a milder term, regulates it. I affirm that no law regulating the traffic in alcoholic dram-drinking, has ever, in any State of this Union, accomplished that object, and I have no hopes or expectations that it ever will. Can any gentleman on this floor point out to me a-groggery which does not make the inebriate? Does any one deny that this traffic has not produced more crime, more pauperism, more sundering of family ties, more wretchedness and misery, more insanity, with all its horrors, than any or all other causes combined? Mr. President, I submit this -fact to the candid consideration and judgment of this Convention. They are no idle tales, but facts which have been demonstrated over and over again, and I may say, patent to every candid, reflecting mind. Then, Mr. President, believing this as I most religiously do, my vote must count on the side of prohibition; and in so voting, my convictions are clear and forcible that I am on the side of right, of justice and humanity, of reason and common sense, and common honesty. Prohibition will be a promoter of peace and good order in the Commonwealth, a friend to the inebriate, (made -so by the accursed traffic;) by the reenactment of prohibition, sanctioned and sustained and enforced, as I believe it will be, by a majority of the people of the State, there will be afforded a shield to him, and a boon to a class of citizens whose name is legion. Prohibition in onr present Constitution has accomplished much already, in that in many parts of the State it has restrained the traffic, and in most others banished it behind screens and into cellars. How many it has saved from drunkards' graves, eternity only will reveal; but I hesitate not to say they may be counted by thousands. Say then, gentlemen, you who advocate a system of license law, which y )u Call "regulating the traffic," prohi.liting it indeed to t[he common drunkard and to minors, has not prohibition or something else, done great good in the advancement of the morals and the religious sentiment of the people? If not prohibition and the proh-bit~oiy law, what else has accomplished this great good? The advocates of a license have failed to tell us. Mr President,'when I look around all over our fair State and behold on all sides the sturdy efforts of the friends of temperance of both sexes, and learn of their organizations reaching forth to almost every county and populous town of the State, with their arms of love to encircle them and enforce and sustain prohibition, I am filled with hope. My convictions are that the people of the State, by a large majority, demand the reenactment of the prohibitory law. I hesitate not to say, that the thousands of petitioners of both sexes, whose names have been reported upon this floor, and in favor of prohibition embodied in the Constitution, are among the most honorable axd virtuous of the land. And I hope and trust, that when this Convention votes upon this great and important question,,we shall have heeded their prayers, and then we will receive from them, and thousands of others of our State, the welcome plaudit, " good and faithful servants. Mr. HOLMES. I move that the Convention now adjourn. Mr. WILLIAMS. Will the gentleman withdraw that motion for a moment? Mr. HOLMES. Certainly. Mr. WILLIAMS. It wish to move that the Convention now take a recess until half-past seven o'clock this evening. I make this motion simply because of the necessity in which I am placed of being absent to-morrow. I am desirous of being here if I can and voting on this question; and if I do, I must vote between now and to-morrow morning. Mr. McCONNELL. I really hope this motion will prevail. I think we can afford to spend one evening here. - Mr. CONGER. However much I might desire to sit here this evening, I think that when I come into this Convention at nine o'clock in the morning, and take simply a recess for my dinner, and then remain here until six o'clock in the afternoon, I have spent all the time here my health will permit. I would like to be present at the discussion of this question, but I do-not feel able to do so at night after spending the whole day here. I think we have spent as much time as is desirable for one day's session. Mr. VAN VALLENBURGH. I doubt very much whether we will get through this subject this evening if we come here. I understand there are a number of gentlemen who desire to speak; and I hope we will adjourn till to-morrow morning. Mr. BLACKMAN. 1S we are not to get through this evening on account of the number of speeches that are to be made, I think we had better meet this evening, and get what speeches we can out of the way, so that we may be able to get through with this subject to-morrow or next day. Mr. ALDRICH. I would suggest that those who wish to speak this evening can be allowed to come here, while the rest of us can adjourn. [Laughter.] Mr. BLACKMAN. TUnless we can reach a vote some time to-night, perhaps it would be better to put this subject over again until we can have a full Convention, as we have done once or twice before. Mfr. BARBER. I would suggest that the Secretary call the roll, and let every gentleman who desires toq make a speech on this subject manifest it in some way when his name is called. We shall then know how much time will be needed for that purpose. Mr. CHAP~N. I am willing to accomodate all gentleman as far as practicable, but I do not propose to do it by going without my meals, or withbut necessary rest. We- have had a long and protracted session to-day, and It think it is asking too much to ask us to come here again this evening. Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not intend to wake up this discussion. I had supposed gentlemen had become so exhausted with the discussion upon the main question, that they would not run off into a discussion.on this side question. Mr. McCLELLAND. I would suggest this: that it be understood that no vote will be taken to-night except to adjourn, and all those gentlemen who desire to speak can come here for that purpose, and those who desire to listen can come and hear them. Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not wish to be understood as wanting to come here to-night to make a speech; I wanted to come here to vote, not to speak. I withdraw my motion. Mr. HOLMES. I renew the motion that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly, (at twenty minutes before six o'clock p. m.,) the Convention adjourned. FIFTY-SEVENTH DAY. FRIDAY, August 2, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by the Rev. -Mr. ARMSTRONG. The roll was called, and a quorum of members answered to their names. PETITION. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH pre. sented the petition.of J. L. Swithe , I CONSTITUTIONAL -CONVENTION. 544 Fi-iday, August 2, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEri)INGS. 545 James A. Weeks, J. H. Comstock, Benjamin Daniells, and eighteen other citizens of Oaklatnd county, in favor of prohibition of license; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. McCLELLAND. I ask leave of absence, after to-day, until Tuesday next, on account of important engagements in Detroit, which will occupy me to-morrow and on Monday. - Leave was granted. Mr. VAN RIPER asked and obtained leave of absence after to-day. Mr. YEOMANS asked and obtained leave of absence, after to-day, until next Wednesday. Mr. HOLMES asked and obtained leave of absence, after to-day, until next Monday morning. Mr. GIDDING asked and obtained leave of absence, until Wednesday next, on account of official business. Mr. WITHEY asked and obtained leave of absence, until next Tuesday morning, on account of important business. Mr. TURNER asked and obtained leave of absence until next Tuesday morning, on account of sickness. Mr. NORRIS asked and obtained leave of absence after to-day, -until Wednesday morning. Mr. CROCKER asked and obtained leave of absence after to-day, until next Tuesday morning, on account of official business. RECESS OF THE CONVENTION. Mr. ROOT. I move that when the Convention adjourn to-day, it adjourn to meet on Monday morning., Mr. NORRIS. I move to amend the motion by striking out "Monday," and inserting "Tuesday." Mr. LEACH. I hope that neither of these motions will prevail. It seems to me, that we are now getting somewhere near the close of the session; and I believe it is our duty to remain here, and perfect the business for which we convened, without any further ad-. journment. There are very many' of us who cannot go home during.the session of the Convention; and if we lose two or three days in the manner proposed, it will do very much to pro long the session, Mr. ROOT. I wish to -say that, if there is any prospect that we can have a quorum here to-morrow, I will withdraw my motion. I do not wish to have the Convention adjourn, if we can have a quorum here to do business. But there appears to be almost a cer tainty that leaves of absence will certain ly reduce us below a qurum. Yet as some gentlemen appear to think that Vol. 2-No. 69. we may be able to retain a quorum here, I will withdraw the motion.' LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. F. C. WATKINS asked and obtained in'definite leave of absence after to-morrow, on account of sickness. Mr. BURTCH. I ask leave of absence for myself after to-morrow, for an indefinite period. Mr. LUCE.' I object to the granting of any further leave of absence; ancld I desire that a vote shall be taken upon any further requests of this kind. I apprehend that there' are not ten men in this Convention whose presence is more strongly demanded at home than mine. I have staid here from day to day and from week to week, although in doing so I have been struggling against a sense' of duty, which would prompt me to go home where my family are sick. I have remained -here endeavoring to dis charge the duties for. which I was elected. - I trust that other gentlemen will do the same. We are now very near the close of the session; and I trust that we shall pro ceed with our business without any ad journment, so that we may all soon go to our homes, to discharge the impera tive duties which most of ul have to perform there. The PRESIDENT. The question is on granting leave of absence to the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BUITCH.) Mr. ALEXANDER. I desire to ask how many leaves of absence have been granted this morning, and how many members will be left after thisibusiness is disposed of? The PRESIDENT. The Secretary informs the Chair that there are fifty two members left upon the roll. A MEMBER. It is time now to put on the brakes. Mr. ALEXANDER. With so small a number, it seems to me it will be almost impossible for us to transact business. - The question which has been occupying the attention-of the Convention for several days past, arose last week when there were upwards of eighty members here. It was made a special order for this week in order that we might have a full Convention. We now see' the resuilt of this delay. I object to any further delay of this matter. XI object most seriously to these leaves of absence being granted, except in cases of sickness or unavoid able business engagements. Mr. THOMPSON. I understand that by the roll there appear to be fifty two members present. I have leave of absence; but I am willing to becount ed if necessary to make a quorum, as in that case I shall remain. Mr. HENDERSON. The record shows that I yesterday obtained leave of absence to take effect after to-day and to continue until next Tuesday; yet, if by my remaining here, a quorum can be retained to transact business, I shall remain, notwithstanding what I deem to be a veryturgent necessity for my presence at home. The question being taken on granting leave of absence to Mr. BURTCH, leave was granted. Mr. BLACKMAN. Although I do not know that there is any question now before the Convention, I wish to say that I am opposed to any adjournment, even if we are likely to be without a quorum. I prefer that those who cannot go home and those that desire to remain here shall, by their presence from day to day, show their readiness to attend to the public business. I am one of those who ob taiqed leave of absence yesterday until next Wednesday morning. This is the only time that I have asked leave of absence, and I have not been absent at roll-car except on the second day of our session, when I was sick in bed. But, sir, although I have urgent busi ness at home to which I wish to'attend to-morrow, I shall not, feel at liberty to go away if my absence should leave this Convention without a quorum. I shall consider myself as standing in the same position in this respect as the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HEN DERSON.) If my presence here is neces sary to constitute a quorum, I will stay. The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state that there is no question before the Convention. It is still in order to ask leave of absence. Are there -any further requests of that kind? Mr. LOTHROP. I am obliged to ask leave of absence after to-day, for an. indefinite period. - Leave was granted. Mr. MORTON. I think I must ask leave of absence for this afternoon, in order that I may take dinner at the Agricultural College, if I should get an invitation. [Laughter.] Leave was granted. Mr. BURTCH. I see that my col league, Mr. MUsGRAVE, is not here this morning. His leave of absence, I be lieve, has expired. I apprehend that he is sick; and I ask that his leave of absence be indefinitely continued. Indefinite leave of absence was grant ed. i Mr. HIXSON. I ask leave of ab sence for myself after to-day, until next Tuesday morning. Mr. LEACH. I do not see how we can safely grant any more leaves of ab sence. I believe it is but a very few days since the gentleman had leave of absence and went home. I certainly think we ought not to grant leave of 546w OTIUIALCV1TI Frdy absence except in case of extreme sickness of members or their families. Leave was granted. RECESS OF THE CONvENTION. Mr. NORRiS. I now renew the motion that when the Convention adjourn to-day, it adjourn to meet on next Tuesday morning. I will state my reasons for making this motion. We- are now about to resume a very important debate on a measure which has occupied the attention of the Con vention for- a long time, as it has occupied the attention of the people for a still longer period. A new phase of the question is presented; and I apprehend that all of us are-desirous of going home, and, for one ay-at least, talking the matter over with our constituents and ascertaining something of the tendency of their views in reference to this question. My motion proposes an adjournment for only two days, Saturday and Monday. The loss to the State, if there be any, cannot be very great; and to ourselves it certainly cannot be considerable, the prospect being that if we continue in session we shall sit here with a bare quorum. I think, then, that this adjournment will involve no loss of time. Mr. WAT,KER. I hope that those gentlemen who have obtained leave of absence will not force those who have not obtained such leave to adjourn for appearance' sake, which is all the reason that can be assigned, so far as I understand. I hope that the motion will not prevail, and that we shall be allowed to stay here without an adjournment. We can adjourn from day to day if the necessity arises. Mr. LEACH. Mr. President, I desire to say that not one-half of the members can go home, consult their constituents, and be back by next Tuesday. This every gentleman well knows. Hence, the argument o-f the gentleman from Washtenaw (Mr. NORRIS) in favor of this proposed adjounment has no weight whatever. Mrt. BURTCH. Seeing that there is a fond attachment for me on the part of the members of this Convention, I propose-to be with them even unto the end. [Laughter.] Mr. ALDRICH. -There is an? additional reason why I think this motion should not prevail. It is a well known fact that whenever we have an adjournment, it takes two or three days after the re-assembling of the Convention to get as full an attendance as we had before the adjournment. For this reason, if there were no other, I must object to this adjournment. Mr.-AT,EXAMDER.:Ever since the question with regard to the prohibitory clause-of the Constitution was raised here last week, some of us have remained here in order that we might assist in; disposing of that question. It is one of the most important ques tions before the Convention-one that has engaged most largely the attention of the people, and one which they are -most anxious to have decided. Ndw, 4r. President, I am opposed to an adjournment, if we can proceed with our business and dispose of that ques tion; but:if we are to be crippled on account of the absence of members, so as to be unable to transact business, I prefer that we should adjourn until Tuesday morning. Mr. ROOT. It is feared -by many members that, if the session of this Convention be protracted much longer, we shall not have enough members here to pass. finally the articles which have alread y' been laid over. These adjournments, if they be persisted in, -must certainly bring us into that predicament. Many of us must go home within a week or two and remain there. I think that-we had better go on without any adjournment. If members will go away, and leave us without a quorum, they must bear the responsibility. I think that some of those gentlemen who have already obtained leave of absence had better remain to assist us in finishing up the business. Mr. WALTKER. I call for the yeas and nays: on this motion. The yeas and-nays,were ordered. Mr. BIRNEY. -I would suggest to the mover of this proposition that as there will doubtless be a quorum during to-day at least, this- motion might be withdrawn until this afternoon. We shall then know better whether there is a' necessity for an adjournment. M. NORRIS. Very well; I withdraw my motion for the present. THIRD -READING OF ARTICLES. Mr. WALKER. I offer the following resolution: Resouled, That the third reading of articles be made the special order for Wednesday next, the- sevlenthrday of Auoust, inst. Mr. P.o1). WARNER. I suggest to the gentleman that some of us would probably- prefer-that -the resolution should fix -the eighth, instead of the seventh-Thursday instead of Wednesday. Tzhat would; certainly be most convenient for me. I expect to aska leave of absence fort myself on next Tuesday until Wednesday night. Mr. WILLIAMIS. I move to amend the resolution by striking- out ",Wednesday," and inserting " Thursday," and by- striking out "seventh," and inserting ",eighth." Mr. WALKER. I have no objection to Ofxing the eighth instead of the seventh. Iam not particular what day be designated, provided some day by fixed. I am apprehensive, in view of the numerous leaves of absence which Shave been granted, that we may at al most any time be left without a suffi cient number of votes to' pass finally any article, so that we may have to stay here all summer without agreeing upon a Constitution. I accept the amendment of the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILL MS,') and modify my resolution accordingly. Mr. WILLIAMS. I think that by making this business a special order for Thursdayi rather than Wednesday, we shall probably bring together at that time a much larger number of the members of the Convention. I shall myself endeavor to be here on that day. I do not see how I can be here one moment sooner; but I think I can be here at that time. Mr. ALEXANDER. I move to amend the resolution as now modified by striking out."Thursday," and' inserting " Tuesday;" and-ti by a striking out " eighth," and "inserting'sixth." I do not know, Mfr. President, that a portion of us can afford, for the convenience of others, to stay here the remainder of this season, away from our families and our business, from which we have been detained so long. I am disposed to be as accommodating as circumstances will allow in reference to this matter. But it is impossible for us to stay here very much longer. I feel that my duty to my constituents compels me to stay herb until our work shall be closed; I do not feel at liberty to retire from the Convention. until I have cast my vote on one side or the other upon each of the questions demanding our attention. But I do not want to have my stay here prolonged, in order to enable othfier members to go home again and again for the remainder of the season. Mr. WILLIAMS. The remarks of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDEB,) would seem.to imply that I propose to be absent for my own' convenience. It is not the fact. I am obliged to go home as much as the gentleman is to remain here. It is an obligation from which I cannot release myself. ~.If it were a mere matter of convenience, I would remain. Mr. McCLELLAND. I would suggest to the mover of this resolution the propriety of fixing some hour of the day for this special order. We have heretofore fixed special orders which have not been taken up on the day appointed. But if an hour of the day be fixed, then, as a matter of course, the business will come'- up. I apprehend that either Wednesday or Thursday will be the best time for the purpose CON.-S-TITUTION A To CONVFNTION 1 546 Friday, i I % August 2, 1867. DEBATES A -D rR()OE....... mentioned in the resolution, because on Wednesday and Thursday we.generally have a fuller attendance than on other days of the week. Mr. BLACKMAN. If this subject is to be made the special order for some day of next week, it seems to me that it would be best to fix Wednes. day. If Thursday be designated ass the time, we shall not reach a vote on this question until Friday; and then we shall witness a recurrence of the same thing that we see here to-day. We shall be in. no better condition for coming to a vote upon the question than we art to-day. I much prefer that this business should be made the special: order for Wednesday morning. But I would suggest that this resolution might lie on the table until a later time in the day, when we can as well decide this question. I move that-the resolution and amendment be laid on the table. The motion of Mr. BLACKMAXN was not agreed to. The question recurring on the amendment of Mr. ALEXXANDER, it was not agreed to. Mr. BLACKMAN. I move to amend the resolution by striking out "eighth" and inserting "seventh;" and by strikinLg out "Thursday," and inserting "Wednesday." The amendment was not agreed to. Mr, LOVELL. I move to amend the resolution by adding the words "at ten o'clock, a.m." The amendment was agreed to. Mr. BtLACKMAN. I find that I did not understand fully the effect of this resolution. I understood, it to be a resolution to postpone the further consideration of the article on the "Legislative Department," and make it the special order for a day next week. It was under that view that I made my motion to lay the resolution on the table. Mr. PRINGLE. I will state in one word the reason which will induce me to vote against the adoption of this resolution. I think it is a little premature. Itthink that we shall be engaged until a later period than next Thursday in the consideration of other matters which more immediately demandfour attention. If we should by next Thursday be ready to proceed with the third reading of articles, we can do so without at this time making that business a-specia~l order. I think that about Tuesday of the succeeding week will probably prove to be the proper time for the third reading of articles. Still I offer no amenduOent. Mr. MUSSEY. If, when the time named in this resolution.shall arrive, there should be nothing for the Convention to do under the order of third reading of articles,. we can ver easily poceeedl to other busin ess.. The PRESIDENT. As this resolution involves a suspension.of the regular orders, a two-thirds vote will, in the opinion of the Chair, be necessary for its adoption. Mr. MORTON. I. move that the resolution be laid on the table.. We certainly cannot get a two4-thirds vote, considering the present attendance. Mr. MUSSEY. I wish to inquire whether, under the ruling. of the Chair, it requires for the suspension of the rules arevote of two-thirds of the members elected or of two-thirds of the members present. The PRESIDENT. Two-thirds of the members present. The question being taken on the adoption of the resolution, there were -ayes 51, noes 2. So (two-thirds voting in favor thereof) the resolution was adopted. GRANTING LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. BARBER. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That no leave of absence be hereafter granted:except in case of the sickness of the delegate asking leave, or of some member of his family. Mr. GIDDINGS. I think that the resolution ought to say "sickness or death." If any of my family should die, I should like to attend the funeral. [Laughter.] Mr. NORRIS. I move that the resolution be laid on the table. Mr. WINSOR. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and the resolution was laid on the table; there being yeas 34, nays 28, as follows:. YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Bills; Birney, Chapman, Crocker, Daniells, Elliott, qermain Giddings, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Henderson, Hixsson, Howard, Lothrop, Lovell, McClelland, Norris, Pratt Pringle, Root, T. G. Smith, W. A. Smith, Stoekwell, Tyler, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, F. C. Watkins, Winans, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, Wright and Yeomans-34.. -.: AYS-Messrs. Alexander, Barber, Blackman, Burtch, Case,: Chapin, Coolidge, Corbin, Desnoyers,; Divine, -Duncan, Estee, Holmes, Holt, HuNston, Luce, McConnell, Miles, Morton, Mussey, Rafter, Sheldon, Stoughton, Walker, P. D. Warner, Wiflard, Winsbr, and the President-28. -- PAY OF MEMBERS DURING ABSENCE. Mr. CASE. I offer the following resolution:.. Resolved, That no member of the Convention shall be allowed his per diem pay while absent from this Conventi6n after to-day, unless he has leave of absence on account- of sickness, as provided by law.: Mr. HENDERSON. Imove that this resolution be laid on the table. I think that we have spent about time enough on this business. Mr. CASE. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were -not ordered.. The motion of Mr. HENDERSON was agreed to; and. the resolution was laid on the table. DAILY HOUR OF MEETING. Mr. ATLEXANDER. I offer the following - resolution: .Resolve, That hereafter the daily sessions of this Convention commence at eight o'clock a. m., until furthe ordered. Mr. NORRIS. I move that tbis resolution be laid on the table.? Mr. ALTEXANDER. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered. The motion of Mr. NORRIS was agreed to, and the resolution was laid on the table. TRAFFIC N INTOXICATING LIQUORS. Mr. WITHEY. I offer the following resolution: BResolved, That the vote on the subject of the prohibition of license and restriction of the sale of intoxicating liquors, be taken at twelve o'clock noon, on Thursday next. I hope, Mr. President, that this resolution may prevail. It wil. leave this question open for discussion to-day and on any day hereafter until next Thursday. It simply fixes the time when a vote shall be taken upon this important subject, which we have been discussing and which so largely engages the attention of every.member of this Convention, and of almost every inhabitant of the State. In view of the importance and interest of the subject, it appears to me proper that we should fix a time for taking the vote, that all the members of the Convention may be notified, and may, if they desire, be present at that time. The fact that a large number.of members will be absent every day until next Wednesday or Thursday, makes it very desirable, it seems to me, that a particular time should be fixed for -the taking of this vote, so that members on both sides of the question may be notified, and that all who desire may-be present. Mr. CHAPIN. Mr. President, I think it very desirable that when this question shall be finally voted upon, there should be as full an attendance -of the members of the Convention as can possibly be had; and I do not know of any better method to secure such an attendance than by fixing an hour certain when the vote shall be taken. For this reason I support the proposition of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) The subject is one in,which we all feel a deep interest. It is a question upon which every member of the Convention would desire, I have no doubt, to record his vote, if he possibly can do so. For the purpose of furnishing an opportunity to all gentlemen -to vote upon this question when it shall ultimately be I DEBATES. A WD PROCF,'PDINGS. 547 Aug-ugt. 2,.1867.,. 51 COSIUTOA COV-i~ Friay decided, I think we should adopt this proposition. Mr. WALKRER. I move to amend this resolution by striking out "Thursday," and inserting "Wednesday." Mr. McCLELLAND. I desire to suggest to the gentleman from Kent that, as I understand, we have already fixed sundry special orders for Thursday at ten o'clock; and as a matter of course the subject specified in this resolution could not interfere with those. Would it not therefore be better to,ix as the time for taking the vote on this subject some other day than Thursday? Mr. WITHEY. I have no objection to fixing any day when there will be a fall attendance in the Convention. Wednesday at twelve o'clock would suit me as well as Thursday. I there fore accept the amendment of the gen tleman from Clinton, (Mr. WALKER,) and modify my resolution accordingly. -Mr. LOVELL. Before voting on this question, I should like to under stand whether the third reading of ar ticles has been made a special order for Wednesday or for Thursday. The PRESIDENT. The under standing of the Chair is, that the third reading of articles was made the spe cial order for Thursday. Mr. VAN VALKENBIJRGH. I hope that the time named in the resolution, as originally presented, may be agreed upon, And that the amendment maybe voted down. Some members who are desirous to be here when the vote is taken, will not be here on Wednesday. The PRESIDENT. The Chair will inform the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VANi VALEENBURGH,) that the mover of the resolution, (Mr. WITREY,) has accepted the amendment, and the resolution, as now modified, proposes to fix Wednesday. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH, I trust that the resolution in that form will-be oted down. Mr. WITHEY. I call the attention of the gentleman fr'om Oakland to the fact stated by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAsD,) that we have already fixed a special order for Thursday. It is'for this reason that i have accepted the proposition, and changed the day from Thursday to Wednesday. I admit that Thursday would be, in my opinion, the better day for this business, if it would not interfere with the special order which has already been fixed for Thursday at ten o'clock. The third reading of articles will undoubtedly consume all of that day, if not more; and that business will be con tinued from day to day until all the articles ready for third reading shall have been disposed of. It would be desirable, I think, that the third reading of articles should be made the special order for some other day than Thursday, so that the subject embraced in this resolution -may be finally voted upon on that day, as I think we-shall then have a larger number of members present than on any other!day. My purpose in drawing. the resolution,as originally presented was to fix a time that would accommodate the greatest number, if not all, of the members of the Convention 'Mr. LONGYEAR. I desire to make a single inquiry to which I invite the attention of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) as he is doubtless more familiar with the subject than I am. I wish to'inquire whether, when business is made the special order for a particular hour of the day, it does not override all other special orders which have been made simply special orders for the day. In other words, if there should be a spec ial order for a certain day, and the Convention should be actually engaged in the consideration of that business, would not another order for a certain hour upon that day supersede the pending business on the arrival of that hour? Mr. McCLELLAND. I will merely say to the gentleman, that I have some doubt about that. But — this whole difficulty, I think, can be obviated, if there is no objection to making the special order which was fixed for Thursday the special order for Friday. This can be done by unanimous con sent; and then Thursday can be fixed, as originally proposed by my friend from Kent, for taking the vote upon the liqcuor question. I apprehend that this ca/n be done by unanimous consent. Mr. WALKER. I object. Mr. MUSSEY. I understand the rule to be as stated by the gentle man from Ingham, (Mr. LonsYEAR,) that if there be a special order, for instance, fixed for ten o'clock on a certa.in day, and another at twelve o'clock of the same' day, the first order of business, on the arrival of the hour for the second order, must give way; and it afterwards has no advantages in regard to precedence, from the fact that it has been mare a special order. As the purpose' named in this resolu tion is simply to take a vote, it strikes me that Thursday would be the better day. Mr. McCLELLAtND. My i'mpres sion is that the special order fixed for tens o'clock on Thursday will take pre cedence of all other orders for that day. It will not of course come up the next day as a special order, unless it has been made a special order to continue from day to day until the question is determined. I think that this is the practice' in the House of Representatives aPt Washington. Mr. LONGYEAR. I would raise now, if it is proper to do so, a question of order, that it may be determrined. The - point of order'which I make is, that where a special order is fixed for a particular day, without any hour being named, and another special order is fixed for a particular hour of that day, the special order appointed for the particular hour will override the other, although the body may actually be engaged in the consideration of the other when the hour named arrives. Mr..WALKER. I beg, to remind the gentleman that the third reading of articles was made the special order for ten o'clock on Thursday by a suspension of the rules. The gentleman seems to labor under the impression that it was made a special order merely for the day, when in fact it was made a special order for ten o'clock of that day..-' Mr. LEACH. I desire to call atten tion tothe rule as laid down in Bar clay's Digest, page 184: "When two special orders are made for the same day, the one first made takes pre cedence.-Gong. Globe, 1, 26, p. 325. The others, according to the practice, if made for that day, and from day to day, will come up as soon as the one first made is disposed of." The subject embraced in this resolution might be made a special order from day to day, so that it will come up immediately after disposing of the other special order. Mr. LONGYEAR. I was not aware that the third reading of articles had been made a special order for any particular/ hour. No doubt the rule in that case is in accordance with the passage read by the gentleman - from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEFc.) There being two special orders, each for a' particular hour, the special order fixed for the prior hour must of course take precedence until finished. In view of this fact, I would suggest an amendment to the resolution of the gentleman from Kent, by adding a provision that the vote shall be taken at twelve o'clock, or as soon thereafter as the prior special order shall be disposed of. I move to amend the resolution by adding these words "or as soon thereafter as the prior or.der for that day is disposed of." Mr. GIDDINGS. I believe that members of the Convention are pretty thoroughly agreed in their desire to take'the question on the subject of liquor prohibition before we proceed to the third reading of articles. We can accomplish this object by fixing Thursday, at half-past nine for taking the vote on the liquor question. That . 518 CONSTITUII!IONA-T, CONVENTION. Friday, DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. will give this subject the precedence. If it were in order, I would move such an amendment. Mr. LONGYEAR. In order that that amendment may be moved, I withdraw my amendment. Mr. GIDDINGS. I now move the amendment which I have indicated. Perhaps the mover of the resolution will accept that amendment. ~ Mr. WITHEY.. I would like to know what will be the operation of the utle, if the resolution, should be so modified as,to make this subject a spe cial order for half-past nine o'clock on Thursday morning. Suppose that we should not readily reach a vote on the question, and that the subject should not be disposed of at ten o'clock on Thursday morning, will this subject then continue to occupy our attention until it is disposed of, notwithsanding the special order which has been fixed for ten o'clock on Thursday morning? The PRESIDENT. Such is the un derstanding of the Chair. Mr. WITHEY. ThenI -am entirely satisfied to fix as the time, half-past nine o'clock on Thursday morning, and I modify my resolution as suggested by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS.) Mr. PRINGLE. I suggest to the gentleman from Kent, whether it might not be proper to include in his resolu tion a provision that the question shall then be decided without further debate. Mr.'WITHEY. In view of the sug gestion of the gentleman from Jackson (Mr. PRINGLE,) I desire to inquire whether; as the resolution now stands, debate would not be cut off, so that the vote must be taken at the time speci fled. I should prefer that the addition suggested by the gentleman from Jack son should be made, if there is any doubt on that question, so that a vote may be taken at the time specified with out further debate. My lmderstand ing is that if we resolve to take a vote at that time, debate will necessarily be cut off. I ask the ruling of the Chair on this point. The PRESIDENT. In the opinion of the Chair, the resolution, if adopt ed under a suspension of the rules, will require a vote to be taken at the hour specified. Mr. WITHEY. That being the case, there is no necessity for the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Jack son. Mr. BILLS. Mr. President, it oc curs to me that this is a rather unusual method of closing a debate. Besides, there may be a large number of votes to be taken; the qcuestion may assume different forms. Now, is it the prop osition of the gentleman offering this resolution that, at the time specified, one single vote shall be taken, and that there shall be no opportunity for discussion in any form on that question? If that is the design, it is -a remarkable method of closing a debate. M!Iy own conviction is that we should, when necessary, adopt with regard to this subject, the same method of closing the debate which we are accustomed to adopt with regard to other subjects. Other business may occupy the attention of the Convention up to the moment when it is proposed to take this vote. Now, is it the proposition that one single vote shall be taken, and that there the matter shall end? If so, that is a method of proceeding which I trust this Convention is not prepared to adopt. It is desirable that there shall be a full attendance when the vote shall be taken on this question. NQ man feels more anxious than myself that we should have such an attendance; and, while I have no objection to fixing the day specified, or any other day, for taking up this question, yet I feel in clined to object (and I think there is propriety in the objection) to fixing a time when the debate shall close, thereby precluding the possibility of moving amendments, or of having fur ther discussion upon the question. For this reason I feel disposed to vote against the resolution. Mr. LOVELL. I desire to make an inquiry. If we should order a vote to be taken at the time indicated, what will be -the pending question? The resolution, as I understand, proposes that at that time we shall have a vote on the subject of the prohibition of license, and restriction of the sale of intoxicating liquors." Now, I do not apprehend that we have pending be fore us any resolution exactly in that language. I think it desirable, if we are going to order a vote to be taken at a particular time, that we should know on what question the vote is to be taken. ~ The PRESIDENT. The Chair un derstands that the vote proposed to be taken is upon the question now pend ing before the Convention on the article entitled "Legislative Department." The resolution uses this language: "A vote on the subject of prohibition of license, and restriction of the sale of intoxicating liquors." The Chair un derstands this to refer-to the question now pending before the Convention on the article entitled "Legislative De partment." Mr. LOVELL. That, I believe, is the question of concurring in the amendment 6ffered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) as amend ed by the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) The PRESIDENT. That is the understanding of the Chair —that a final vote is to be taken on that question at the time indicated. Mr. PRINGLE. My understanding is, that the effect of this resolution, if it be adopted, (if it would have any effect,) would be the same as if the previous question had been demanded; that the question would come up first upon the amendments in their order, and then upon the main question. Now, I wish to raise this point of order: whether the previous question or its equivalent can be demanded in any otherway than that mentioned in the rules. The rules require that whenthe previous question is demanded it shall be supported by a majority of the members elect, and the question, Shall the main question be now put?" must also be carried by such a major ity. When the previous question has been demanded and sustained, then the question must be taken, first upon the amendments in their order, and then upon the main proposition. -Now, sir, this resolution contemplates an entirely different proceeding, unknown to our rules. It proposes to accomplish the same result as would be accom plished by the previous question, but without a -majority vote of' all the members elect, such a vote being re quired to sustain the previous question. The PRESIDENT. With respect to the point of order raised by the gentle man from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) the Chair is of the opinion that this reso lution can be adopted only under - suspension of the rules, precisely as another resolution, proposing to make a special order, was adopted this morn ing. The Chair thinks it within the power of the Convention, under a sus pension of the rules, to adopt this res olution, and order a vote to be taken on the day and at the hour specified. The effect of agreeing to the resolution will be what has bben indicated by the gentleman from Jackson. It will have substantially the same effect as sus taining the demand for the previous question. The vote-will first be-taken on the pending amendments, and then upon the main proposition. t M~r. VAN VALKENBURGH. MIr. President, I hope that {this resolution will not be adopted in its present shape. I am decidedly of the opinion expressed by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) that it is im proper to adopt such restrictions with regard to the vote upon this subject. If the question is to be decided at a certain hour, and no debate is to be allowed upon the subject, and no amendments may be offered, then I am opposed to the resolution and shall feel constrained to vote against it. I PI August 2, 1867. 549 - I 4P CONSTITUTION A,O! ~E:NTION. - Mr. BLACKMAN.: Mr Pie-sidnt, I an opposed to this resolution. From the little knowledge I have of such proceedings, it loolks- to me- rather strange. I have not had the ad vantage of an opportunity to *vit ness proceedings of this kind as they frequently occur in Congress; yet I distinctly recollect to have read fre quent]y in those proceedings, of fixing an hour to close debate; and if my recollection is correct, it is always done only-a short time in advance. I do not recollect ever having read of a case where the time for taking a vote on any' question has been fixed so far ahead as is proposed in this resolution. If such a resolution as this were adopted, it should fix for the taking of the vote a time up to which it may be supposed the discussion will necessarily continue. But when a day so far in the future is named, it virtually fixes a time beyond that to which there is any probability of the debate continuing. It virtually fixes as the time for taking the vote, a day later than the close of the debate. This seems to me a singular proceed ing, though perhaps my impression may arise fronfmy ignorance of parlia mentary usages. BMr. WRIGHT. MIr. President, -I cannot see the force of the objections made to this resolution, and I am most decidedly in favor of its adoption. I think'that the majority of the mem bers of -this Convention must be tired of the debate on this question. For my part I do not wish to hear any more speeches made, and I do not wish to make any myself. I desire that the vote shall be taken on the question at the earliest possible moment. I think that any speeches which may hereafter be made on this question are not going to change the vote of any member, and that the Convention might as well come to a determination of the question at one time as at another. I would not caie if we should resolve to take the vote this afternoon. ~ It would suit me all the better.: Mr. CHAPIN. If there is no other objection to the resolution than the one raised by the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) that it-is going to stop debate on the subject, I shall most cheerfully vote for it.: Mr. BLACKMAN. The gentleman misunderstood me. My objection was, not that the resolution was going to stop debate, but that it proposed to fix for the taking of the vote, a day which would perhaps be- sometime subsequent to the time when debate shall close. It appears to me that the most proper time to take the question would be immediately upon the close of the debate. I think we might perhaps come to a vote upon the question tot-day If we-c-an-do...... so, why should we- postpone it? Why should we put it off until next week? This is -the point which I make-that we pro pose to extend the time beyond the period when in all probability the vote would be taken in the ordinary course of proceedings. Mr. WITHEY. I understand that, according to the ruling of the Chair, the adoption of this resolution will have the same effect as- sustaining a demand for the previous question. If so, l suppose it will be necessary that any amendments which gentlemen may desire to offer, shall be presented previous to the hour fixed for taking the vote, after which hour no amendment could be offered: Am I correct in this understanding, Mr. President? - The PRESIDENT. The Chair will rule that, if the resolution should be. adopted, then, at the hour named nine and a half o'clock a. m., on Thurs day'next no further amendments and no further debate will be in order, but the vote must be taken directly upon the pending amendments in their or der,'and then upon the main proposi tion. Mr. WITHEY. That; in my opinion, is precisely the position in which this question should be placed. There will be ample opportunity between this timhe and the time named in the reso lution for gentlemen to offer amend ments, which, if it be- desired, may re main pending, so that all propositions connected with the question can be voted upon at that time. I sincerely hope that the resolution will prevail. Mr. CHAPIN. Do I understand the gentleman from Kent (Mr. WITHEY) to be correct in his statement of the rule, that any amendments which gentlemen may be desirous of offering can be offered between this time and the time fixed for the taking of the vote?. The' PRESIDENT. If the resolution be adopted, the Chair will hold, unless his opinion' should be reversed by the decision of the Convention, that amendments and discussion will be'i order on this question ~down to the hour fixed for taking the' vote. The question is upon the adoption of the resolution, which requires, as the Chair has indicated, a suspension of the rules. On agreeing to the resolution, there were, ayes 40, noes 12. - The PRESIDENT. By a count which the Secretary hias made, uder the direction of the Chair, there appear to be sixty-six members present. Only forty members-less than twothirds of those present-having voted for the resolution, it is not agreed to.0 Mr. LEACH. I offer the'-following resolution: Resolved, That on Thursday, the 8th inst., at 9i/ o'clock a. m. debate shall be closed on the subject of prohibition of license, and the regulation and restriction of the traffic in spirituous liquors, and that the Convention will proceed to vote on pending amendments, or amendments that may be offered, and on the main question, without debate. Mr. WIT-HEY. Are we to under stand from this resolution that amend ments may be offered up to the hour named, 91 o'clock on Thursday morn ing? Mr. LEACH. That was my inten tion in drawing the resolution in this form. Mr. WITHEY. I ask the ruling of the Chair on this point, so that there may be a clear understanding. Mr. LEACH. The resolution says that "the Convention will proceed to vote on pending amendments,on amend ments that may be offered, and on the main question." I think this language can admit of only one construction. The PRESIDENT. The Chair will rule that amendments may be offered at the time designated, but will not be subject to debate. —:- Mr. WITHE' Y. Then, Mr. Presi dent, I am entirely satisfied with this resolution. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Mr. President, I understand that we have a special order for Thursday next at ten o'clock, and if that business is to be proceeded with at that time, there will be but-half an hour for the business named in this resolution. This, I think, will be too short a time to dispose of the main question and the various amendments that may be submitted. Mr. WITFHEFY. - I call for the yeas and nays on this resolution. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDENT. As the adoption of this resolution will involve a suspension of the orders, a two-thirds vote will be necessary for its adoption. The question was taken, and twothirds voting in favor thereof, the resolution was agreed to; there being yeas 60, nays 8, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Bir ney, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Divine, Duncan,- Estbe, Germain, Giddings, Harris, Henderson, Holt, Leach, Lotgyear, Lothrop, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Murray, Mussey, Pratt Pringle, Rafter, Root, Sheldon, W. A. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Thompson, Tyler, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, P. D. Warner, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Winans, Winsor, Withey, Woodhouse, Wright, Yeomans and the President-50. Nazs-Messrs. Blackman, Case, Corbin, W. F. Goodwin, Hixson, Holmes, Huston, and Walker-8. Mr. BILLS not haring voted when his name was called, Mr. ALEXANDER moved that MIr. BiLs be excused from voting. The motion was agreed to. Mr. HOWARD not having voted when his name was called, l - .- - i -.... I - . 1... *t Fridav. . / 7 550 AuguJ 2, 187 i)BT-AI ROEIIG -Mr. RAFTER moved that Mr. HowARD be excused from voting. The motion was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above stated. - LIMITATION OF DEBATE. Mr. ALEXANDER. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That after this date, no member shall speak more than five minutes at oie time on the same question. Mir. VAN RIPER. I move that the resolution be laid on the table. Mr. ALEXANDER. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays. MIr. WITIIEY. I move to amend the resolution by striking out "five," and inserting "ten." Mr. ALEXANDER. I accept the amendment of the gentleman from Kent (Mr. WITHEY) and modify my resolution accordingly. Mr. COOLIDGE. In my view this resolution will not amount to anything. There is nothing in it to prevent any member from speaking fifty times on the same question. Mr. BIRNEY. I wish to give notice that if the motion to lay the resolution on the table be not adopted, I ,shall move the following substitute for the resolution: Resolved, That no member shall speak longer than fifteen minutes at any one time, in Convention or in commnittee of the whole, without leave.: The yeas and nays on the motion to lay the resolution on the table were not ordered. The motion was not agreed to; there being ayes 24, noes 38. Mr. BIRNEY. I offerahe following as a substitute for the resolution: Resolved, That no member shall speak longer than fifteen minutes at any one time, in Convention or In committee of the whole, without leave. Mr. President, I think - I may with propriety offer a proposition of this kind, as I have myself.studiously avoided exceeding in my remarks the limitation of time which it proposes. I notice this morning a great anxiety among members to bring the business of this Convention to a close. It is evident that many members of the :Convention cannot'remain here a great while longer. Their interests at home are so pressing as to require imperatively their personal attention very soon. In drawing this resolution I have named what appears to me to be an ample allowance of time for each member who:may desire to speak. I should be averse, under the circumstances, to proposing a limitation to debate, after the commencement of the discussion on so important a question- as that which we have had under considoration during the last few days, were it not that I have specified as the limitation, a time which I think is longer than any gentleman has yet occupied on this subject. Those who are yet to take part in the debate cannot complain if they are allowed as much time as gentlemen who have preceded them. Ithink that fifteen minutes is about as much as any gentleman ordinarily requires for the expression of his opinions on questions coming before the Convention. If we should be engaged in any very interesting discussion, I have no doubt the Convention would grant gentlemen leave to proceed beyond the ordinary limit. Mr. WILLARD. I canvote for this resolution, if ten minutes be fixed as the limitation, instead of fifteen. Mr. ALEXANDER. If the substitute be modified so as to substitute ten minutes for fifteen, I am willing to accept it. Mr. BIRNEY. I have fixed fifteen minutes as the limitation, so as to obviate any objection, though I confess I would myself be better satisfied if ten minutes were the time allowed. SEVERAL MEMBERS. IMake it ten. Mr. BIRNEY. Very well; I modify my substitute by striking out " fifteen," and inserting "ten." Mr. STOCKWELL. I desire to ask the gentleman whether the effect of his resolution will be that a member cannot speak more than once on the same subject, or whether members may speak as often as they choose. Mr. BIRNEY. Our rules regulate that. They provide that "no member shall speak more than twice on the same question, nor more than once uitil every member who chooses to speak shall have spoken" Mr. VAN RIPER. I call for: the yeas and nays. Or. BIRNEY. I prefer, on consideration, that the proposition to insert" ten minutes," should be moved as an amendment. If that should not be agreed to, we can then fall back on the resolution as it stands. I therefore decline to accept the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER. ) Mlr. LOVELL. I do not know how to vote on this question unless we can have another amendment. I do not propose to offer any remarks on the question of prohibition or license, which is at present the absorbing question before the Convention; but I know that quite a number of gentlemen have speeches written out on that question -speeches which I am afraid will take more than ten minutes for their delivery. If we can adopt an amend- ment by which those gentlemen can have' leave to print what they have not . time to speak, I shall have no objection. Mr. ALEXANDER. The resolution which I offered provided for that contingency, because it proposed that the limitation,on debate> should not take effect until after to-day. I would prefer that the substitut should be amended so as to contain the same provision. The PRESIDENT. The first question is upon the amendment offered,by the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. AL.YADER) to amend the substitute by striking out':fifteen," and inserting "ten. " Mr. VAN RIPER. On that amendment I demand the yeas and nays. Mr. HENDERSON. I hope we shall not consume the whole of our time today by taking yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not'ordered. The amendment of Mr. ALEXANDER was agreed to. The substitute of Mr. BIRNEY, as amended, was adopted. The question then recurred on the resolution of Mr. ALEXANDER, as amended by the adoption of the substitute. Mr. BURTCH. It seems to methat a proposition of this kind is hardly fair. Gentlemen; of the Convention who have large capacity for "spreading themselves," have had their opportunity to do so; and now they propose to deprive other gentlemen of the saine opportunity. I object to making fish of one, andflesh of another. The resolution of Mr. ALEXANDER, as amended, was agreed to. LEGISL.KTIVE DEPARTMENT-TRAFFIC IN IN TOXICATING LIQUORS. Agreeably to order, the Convention resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Legislative Department." The PRESIDENT. The pending question is on the adoption of the substitute proposed by the gentleman from 'Wayne, (Mr. LOTHIROP,) for the amendment reported from the committee of the whole to section thirty-one. The. amendment reported from the committee of the whole was, as amended on motion of the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. ~-BLACKMAN,) to add to section thirty-one these words: "Nor pass any act authorizing the grant of license bor the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors." The substitute proposed by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) as amended on motion of the gentleman from Kent, (Mbr..WITHEY,) reads as folows: At the election when this Constitution shall be submitted to the electors ol this State for adoption or rejection, there shall also be separately submitted to such electors the two following provisions: No l. The Legislature allall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors. .DEB S AND -PROCEED-INGS. August 2, 1867. I I I . XXI - F No. 2. The Legislature shall provide for the regulation and restriction or the sale of intoxicating drinks and shall impose a tax upon the traffic therein. The sale of such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers and common drunkards,-shall be wholly prohibited, and all necessary laws shall be passed to entorce such prohibition. The annual tax in any case upon the traffic, shall not be less than one hundred dollars. A separate ballot upon the above-provisions maybe given by any elector, which shall be deposited in a ballot-box provided for that purpose. On the ballots in favor of the adoption of the abtive provision No. 1, shall be the words, "Prohibition-Yes;" and; upon the ballots in favor of the above provision No. 2, shall be the words "Restriction-Yes;" and upon the head or outside of all said ballots, shall be the words "p?rohibition or Restriction," placed in such manner that the same shall be visible when the ballot is folded. If, upon the canvass of such ballots cast at said election, a majority thereof shall be fbund to contain the words " Prohibition-Yes," then said provision No. 1, shall become and stand as section -, of Article -, of this Constitution, if it shall be adopted; but if a majority of such ballots shall contain the words, "Restriction -Yes," then the above provision No. 2, shall become and stand as section -, of Article-, of this Constitution, if the same is adopted." Mr. WITHEY. I move to amend the substitute by inserting in proposi tion No. 2, the words "spirituous or intoxicating liquors," in lieu of the words "intoxicating drinks;" also by insrting the word "liquors," in lieu of the word " drinks," in the subsequent part of the same proposition. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman fbom Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) proposes to change the language to which the Con vention has already agreed as an amendment to the substitute. That amendment having been inserted by a vote of the Convention, the words em braced in it are not now open to aimend ment. Mr. WITHEY. I ask unanimous consent that this modification be made. I make this proposition at the sugges tion of other gentlemen, who have thought that the word " drinks" is not comprehensive enough. I apprehend that no gentleman will object to the change proposed. The PRESIDENT. The modifica tion will be made it thlere is no objec tion.', Mr. GIDDINGS. I object. There is a difference of opinion as to the propriety of the proposed change. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGHt. Mr. President, it has been repeatedly said and reiterated upon this floor that the question before us is an important one. It is so indeed- an absorbing question; and the people throughout our State are waiting our action with anxious solicitude.- The question, sir, has ma terially changed since I first advocated temperance in-1826-forty-one years ago, before some of the members upon this floor had opeieSl their eyes upon the sunlight. Then the habit of ufing intoxicating drinks was universal. Bottles graced the table, the cupboard, or the-sideboard, of almost every dwelling in our land; and the man who failed to invite his neighbor to participate in a social glass was regarded as a churl or a miser. At that time, sir, I was confronted by men of every rank and condition, men of every calling and profession in life, and denounced by them as a fanatic. The custom of drinking had' been sanctioned from time immemorial, and the man who would infringe upon this custom was regarded with suspicion, as a man who had some mercenary motive, some ulterior object to accomplish. The laborer, the farmer, the merchant, the physician, the lawyer and the minister, all, all confronted us with arguments in favor of alcohol. The laborer could not endure fatigue without its sustaining influence; the farmer could not gather his crops, without whisky. It was idle to think of it. As well do without bread and meat as without whisky. To the mer chant, it'was an important source of revenue. It fed and clothed the landlord's children, paid his pew-rent and his subscription to the minister. The physician seeded its aid to enable him to endure the fatigues of his pro fession. The lawyer sought its aid to sharpen his wits and brace him for the combat. And the man of God met us with,the hackneyed advice of the apostle to his son Tinmothy, " Drink no more water, but use a little wine for thy sto'mach's sake, and thine often infirmities." So all were arrayed against us, from the highest to the lowest,-good men, and bad men, priest and layman,-in onen solid phalanx, to oppose the progress of temperance. Many of them temperate drinkers, they spurned the thought that their example might influence their sons to become drunk ards. One of these men, an intimate friend of mine, who entered upon the battle of life with me,-a man of cul ture, of wealth, of high social position in society, and withewhom I had often taken a social glass, sneered at me when I refused to drink with him, giving as a reason that I had joined a temperance society, and the influence of my example before my sons. He had no fear for his sons; he had him self always drank moderately, kept the various kinds of liquors on his sideboard to treat his friends and cheer his own heart. I have often seen him hilarious, but never drunk. He had an interesting family of sons and daughters growing up ground him, who enjoyed every advantage of education and society. This man died what in common parlance is termed "a, moderate drinker;" but the sad influence of his example is manifest in the cndition of his sons, three of whom are drunkards, vagabonds and'outlaws, their property squandered and their mame disgraced. But two days since, I received the sad intelligence that one of them had been committed to the Insane Asylum, a raving maniac, for an attempt to take the life of his wife, an amiable, refined and accomplished lady. This is but one of many similar instances that have fallen under my own observation; and who cannot recall to mind similar instances of wretchedness and woe, the fruit of this, accursed agent? Then, in 1826, intemperance stalked abroad with brazen front, throughout the length and breadth of our land, crowding our penitentiaries, our poorhouses and our prisons, with its victims, clothing the land in sackcloth and ashes, populating the grave with drunkards, and sending up a cry for vengeance upon the perpetrators of all this misery, into the-ear — of the Al mighty. And -— still- this abominable traffic found valiant defenders among all ranks and conditions in society, among its legislative and executive offi cers, the judge upon the bench, the juror in his seat. In layman and priest, everywhere we found eloquent defend ers of this traffic. Now how changed the issue. Who dares stand up here, stand up anywhere, and "hdvocate the use of intoxicating liquor as a bever age? No one, priest or layman, has the effrontery to call it a good creature of God. The use of it is under the ban of universal proscription. It is now admitted by all men not influenced by mercenary motives, everywhere on all occasions, that its use is evil and only evil; that it has made more victims than famine, pestilence or the sword; that it has caused more sighs and tears and groans- that it has blasted more prospects, blighted more hopes, and crushed more hearts than all the other agencies for evil on earth., We find none here, who would imperil his good name by advocating its use. Those days of darkness, thank God, have passed away. I have no more fear of offending a friend by refusing to drink with him. Then, forty-one years ago, the ques tion was not, shall all intoxicating liquors be prohibited, but shall the use of distilled spirits be proscribed as a beverage? Ale, beer, and wine were not proscribed; they were considered harmless; temperance men did not appear to understand that by the use of these harmless beverages the appe tite for stronger stimulants was form ed, and that they opened the gateway to the pit Although we were admon CONSTITUTIONAT, COIN V WWTION. 552 Fn'day) k August 2, 1867. DEBATES AND PRLOOlE:,S. 553 ished in holy writ. "Wine is a-mocker; strong drink raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby, is not wise," still wine graced the social circle, and the marriage festival; and professed temperance men drank on and on, unconscious of their evil influence upon others, and the strong thongs with which they were binding themselves. At length a new light came over the spirit of our dreams. We found there was meaning in the interrogatory of the wise man, and in his solution of it: ".-Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contention? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who-hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth likes a serpent, and stingeth like an adder." And now a new era dawned upon us. The eyes of men were opened to the self-evident fact that the drinking of beer and wine was forming appetites for stronger drinks; that indulgence in these stronger drinks was the incipient step to drunkenness. Now another step in the reform was taken: a pledge of total abstinence was adopted-" taste not, touch not, handle not." A new impulse was given, and the cause of temperance advanced. And upon this platform, the platform of total absti nence, we now stand; and we invite all men every where to stand by us, and aid us in this good work; and espec ially we ask you, gentlemen of the Convention, to aid us in retaining this prohibitory clause in our organic law, for the retention of which we have had more petitions than for any other ob ject. There is no subject in which the masses feel so deep an interest. They are watching us with anxious so licitude; and I doubt not many an earnest prayer has ascended from bur dened hearts and desolate homes, that God would guide us in our delibera tions on this subject, scatter light in our pathway, and bring us to a unani mous and righteous conclusion. And why not? What hinders? We are all temperance men. Not a man on this floor has had the temerity to raise his voice in favor of the traffic. We all agree in denouncing the traffic, as im proper, inhuman, infamous; we all prof less to be in favor of temperance. We say so; we mean so; and now let us act so. I believe there-are some men in this Convention, as ardently devoted to the cause of temperance as I am, who differ with me in regard to the measures to be adopted to effect the object we all so much desire. Let us reason together and see wherein we differ, and whether Vol. 2No. 70. those'differences cannot be co'mwrmised. With the same" desire thy same object in view, the sam end to obtain, why not go hand in haind;- aidi shoulder to shoulder,- and decide-this question in righteousness, that the p)eople may rejoice? Let us incorporate this prohibition in our Constitution, and the plaudit," Well done, good and faithful servant," will greet you' :from your constituents; and one pean of praise will ascend from Lake Erie to Lake Michigan, from Lake Supeiorto our southern border. The gentleman from Washtenaw,I~ dy the gentleman from Hilsdale, (Mr. PRATT,) will be adopted by the Convention. Mr. ROOT. As has been already remarked, we had a long discussion upon this matter when there was a full Convention,'Ve gave to the committee instructions to report back the article with certain amendments.' The article is now before us, amended in accordance with those instructions. To spring this question upon us now when there is a very thin attendance-to bring it up, perhaps by some concert of action and perhaps not, and to carry amendments contrary to the instructions heretofore given by the Convention-appears to me at least unfair. I hope that the Convention wilr agree not to permit this question to be determined until gentlemen who took a special part in. the previous discussion shall be here. M.r. PRINGLE. If there be no objection, I wvould like to withdraw my motion to strike out this last clause, preferring that the motion, if made, should come from some one else. Perhaps the gentlemani from Hillsdale (Mr. PRATT) will himself be ready to make this motion, when he comes to consider the whole matter. Mr. FARMER. I can reiterate the the assertion' which has been made here that this matter was fully discussed Mr. NORRIS. I would like to inquire what is the question before the Convention.:, The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the motion to strike out the last clause, unless the C6nvention will consent to the withdrawal of the motion. Mr. FARMER. I object to the gentleman from Jackson withdrawing the motion until I can have my say on the question. We discussed this matter very fully; and took decided action upon it. The standing committee was instructed to report the article with certain amendments, and the article as thus amended is now before us. An amendment is proposed here to-day to change the principle of those instructions. Thatamendment is offered when there is but a small attendance of members. I voted for the amendment, and here give notice that I will at the proper time move a reconsideration, when we have a full Convention, so that the question may be fairly discussed. I consider that the amendment changes the principle of the section as the committee were instructed to report it. With this expression of my views, I waive my objection to the withdrawal of the amendment. The pRESIDENT. Is there any further objection to the withdrawal of the motion of the gentleman from Jackson, to strike out the last clause of the section? There being no objection, the motion was withdrawn. The question recurred on concurring in the amendment to the first section as amended. Mr. HENDERSON.. My recollection is somewhat different from that of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE.) If I remember correctly, the Controversy was in the main on the very question involved in the amendment made this afternoon; and specific instructions on that point- were adopted by a vote of the Convention. Care was taken in those instructions to omit the words, "amended or repealed," which have this afternoon been inserted. I trust that on proper consideration the Convention will stand by its original action. Mr. LOVELL. It seems to me but fairlthat we should perfect this article when there is a fuller attendance of members, especially as it appears that many of those who took a deep interest in the question when it was last under consideration are now absent. It seems to me that the article should be laid over until those gentlemen return. They will be very likely to feel that they have not been dealt with justly, if the article, after having been held back by the committee until this time, should now be acted upon in their absence. I move that the article be laid on the table. Mr. PRINGLE. I hope the gentleman will withdraw the motion for a moment, until I can make an explanation. Mr. LOVELL. I withdraw, the motion temporarily. Mr. PRINGLE. Mr. President, I am chairman of the committee that reported this article. I concurred in the instructions given to the committee. I had not seen them before they were offered, but I was consulted by those who presented and advocated them, and I agreed with the general tenor and effect of those instructions. I did not understand that, in regard to this first section, there was in the minds of those who favored those instructions, any prominent idea except that general laws should be amended by a majority vote, and that certain subjects should be controlled only by general laws. I: desire to say one word as to my reason for making the motion this afternoon to take up this article. I shall necessarily be absent next week until Friday, and have already obtained leave of absence. I was very anxious that this article should be disposed of before my departure. It was on this account that I made the motion to take the article from the table this afternoon. Mr. T. G. SMITH. MIr. President, I think the remarks of my colleague, (Mr. LOVELL,) in regard to our former action, are not altogether correct. -If I recollect rightly, in the debate which tools place on a former occasion, my colleague, with other gentlemen, was in favor of a majority rule with regard to the alteration of all chatters and general laws; while I, and some other gentlemen were in favor of a two-thirds rule. I see that the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIS,) has somewhat changed his views; for he at that time expressed himself in favor of a two-thirds rule with regard to general as well as special laws; and I rather regret that the gentleman this afternoon did not make his amendment applicable to both classes of cases.. Had he done so, I think he would have come nearer to the right course. I hope that the section will finally be put in such a form that this twothirds rule may-"be — applied to both classes of laws; for I can see no reason for the distinction between the two in this respect. I think that the same rule should be applied to both, and that a two-thirds vote should be requiredto alter or amend any general law or special charter. I base this view on the ground that when an association or company has been organized under a general law, the corporation becomes vested, in some sense, with special rights. It invests its labor and its money in a particular enterprise; and I do not see why its rights should not stand on the same basis as those of a corporation organized under a special act. I see no reason why we should allow its rights to be-taken away except by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Mr. FARMER. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment of the gentleman from WasItenaw, (Mr. NORRIs,) to the second clause of section one, was adopted..~ Mr. NORRIS. Mr.'President, as I before remarked, I do not desire to go into any extended discussion of this question. If a majority of the members on this floor are willing to confess that they have been asleep-that they are utterly ignorant of what transpires from moment to moment in this Convention -that they have made a sad mistake, and now desire to return to the principle formerly adopted in committee of the whole-I, for one, have no disposition to complain. When I rose to make this motion, I stated clearly and distinctly, within the hearing of every member of the Convention, the object I desired to accomplish. I incidentally alluded to the position which I had 566 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Friday, A I DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. previously taken in the debate on this question, and to the struggle which had ,been had. I also went farther, and stated that I offered this amendment simply with a view to having the yeas and nays upon the question, that it might go on record exactly how we stood. Notwithstanding all this, and although the article was taken up at the request of the chairman of the committee, (Mr. PRINGLE,) in whose especial charge it was, I find members rising in every part of the hall, and saying that they did not understand the question; that they voted contrary to their own incli nations and convictions-contrary to their best judgment; and that they now desire to return to the good old principle of the majority rule. If this is the general desire, I shall not resist it. One word in regard to the remarks made by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. T. G. SMITH.) I did not intend to abandon the principle of a two-thirds vote with regard to either class of laws; but it is, I presume, within the recollection of every member on this fi6or, if his recollection has not entirely passed away, that there was a btronger vote upon the principle of a two-third vote as applied to special charters, that could be obtained upon the same prin ciple as applied to general acts of in corporation. Now, in my desire to have half a loaf, if I could not obtain whole one, I consented to the modifi cation, knowing that a stronger vote could be obtained in favor of requiring a two-thirds vote for the repeal o special acts than on the other ques tion, though I agree fully wit] the' gentleman from Genesee on that point, and think his reasons ar entirely valid. I concur in the view which he has expressed that every o ganization under a general act i when consummated, so far as tha company is concerned, equivalent.to special charter, and the rights of sue an organization ought not to be med dled with any more than those of corporation created under a specia act. At the same time, if I could no carry my point in regard to that mat ter, I was desirous of accomplishin the object with raference to the othe When the question was taken th afternoon on the amendment which offered, there was not, so far as I hear, a single vote against the propositio: The amendment was adopted with no one solitary vote against it. Now, members desire to reconsider avo given under such circumstances, I a perfectly willing they should do E But IA trust that whether the vote 1 reconsidered or not, the amendment w finally prevail. I will notwiary the Conventionby g ing again into any general argument on this subject. It has been so fully discussed heretofore, that the Convention may be expected to have a thorough understanding of the question. When the subject was formerly under dis cussion, the friends of the two-thirds principle as applied to special charters failed to carry their point, lacking I think about six votes of a majority. Hence I felt encouraged to bring the /question up again for the consideration of the Convention. I will simply' say in conclusion, that if this debate be protracted beyond half-past four o'clock, I shall not be able to remain here to-participate init or to vote; and I presume the same remark is true of a number of other gentlemen. Hence, I suggest that if the Convention desires time to caucus over this sub ject, the article might be laid aside till next week, when perhaps some of the thinking men of the Convention will return. f Mr. P. D. WARNER. I desire to say merely that I was'not "asleep" when this amendment was offered. I called for a division of the question, r supposing that members of the Con vention understood the question, and would reject the first part of the amend ment. And I will inform the gentle man from Washtenaw, (MIr. NoRRIs, that there were votes against the adop tion of the amendment, and among those votes was my own. I wil e also take the liberty to inform the g gentleman that upon the twelfth of June the, same proposition -was before the Convention and was h then rejected on a vote, by yeas and n nays, of 36 to 49. Hence this question e is not a new one. The principle in w volved was fully discussed at that time - and the action of the Convention wa , taken in accordance with what wa ~t then its best judgment. I conside: a that the Convention'this afternoon ha h taken action which, upon mature de t-liberation, will not receive the ap a proval of its better judgment. I there al fore move, Mr. President, that th ~t article be laid on the table. Mt- Ir. CHAPIN. Mr. President, I be lg lieve there is a motion before the Con ,r. vention-the motion of the gentlema ds from Berrien, (Mr. FARMER,) to recon sI ider the vote by which the amendmet a, of the gentleman from Washtenaw n; (Mr. NORRIS,) was adopted. I rise t ot express the hope that the Conventio if will reconsider that vote. ,te The PRESIDENT. The questio ~m must first be taken on the motion t 30. lay the article on the table, unless tha be motion be withdrawn for the purpo oil Of allowing the question to be take on the motion to reconsider. ro- Mr. CHAPIN. - the article shou be laid on the table, then, as I understand, when it is again - taken up, the question will be oni the motion to reconsider. Mr. FARMER. If the gentleman from Oakland (M. P. D. WARNER) will withdraw his motion, I would like to make an explanation. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I will do so. Mr. FARMER. I wish to say only a few words in regard to the remarks of the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NoRis,) as to the action of this Convention. He seemed to convey an intimation that his amendment had been adopted by default of those who were really opposed to its principle. Now, sir, whatever may have been the view under which other gentlemen voted for that amendment, I can say with regard to myself, that I voted for it with the view of moving a recon sideration, in order to bring this mat ter before the Convention when there should be a fuller attendance than there is to-day. This question was ' discussed in'all its phases — before the [ article was recommitted. It was with , great effort that the friends of the measure as it now stands succeeded in getting it recommitted with the in structions. I do not believe, Mr. - President, that those who -voted for ) those instructions have changed their - views on the subject; and I desire to have the matter reconsidered when there is a fuller attendance, because I e desire that the friends of this article as reported back by thecommittee may a be here to vote on the question. I s apprehend that many'of them'are not d present to-day. n Mr. MORTON. I wish to say that - I was one of those who favored the , proposition that a special charter s should be repealed only by a two-thirds s vote of the. Legislature. I suppose r that at the next regular session of the as Legislature, an application will be made for a special charter for the or, ganization of a company for the con3-struction. of a ship-canal from the e city of -Monroe to St. Joseph. We have the promise of aid from the e- cities of Chicago,'Buffalo and New. x' York. This enterprise, if we go a into it, will require an expenditure a- of some fifteen or twenty millions of at dollars; and capitalists will not bo w, illing to invest their money in such ~o an enterprise, if the charter can be rem pealed by a majority vote of the Leg islature. It seems to me obviously in proper that where a two-thirds vote is to required for the granting of a charter, at a similar vote should be necessary se for:the amendment or repeal of en such a charter. Any one can see that capitalists would be unwilling to inva vest their money i' enterprises requir -1 I 567 Auz-ast 2' 1867. k 56 OSITUi~L(OV~I~ rd ing large expenditures, if the charter of the company mast be at the mercy of a majority of the Legislature. At least they would feel that they had a much better guaranty for the permanency of their corporate privileges, if a two-thirds vote should be required to revoke those privileges. And I would remind the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. FARMER) that this canal may run right through his farin, for anything I know, [laughter; J and hence I would call upon him and others from the southern tier of counties to be liberal towards this company, for we intend that this canal shall be built. Mr. NORRIS. I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.. Members will have an opportunity to call it up at any future time when the Convention may be full. For myself, I cannot to-day participate any longer in this discussion. The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state that the effect of laying on the table the motion to reconsider would be to lay the whole article on the table. The Chair will also state, in order that the question may be understood, that if the article should be laid on the table, and should not be Taken up again until after three days, the motion to reconsider might then be withdrawn, and as the motion could not at that time be renewed, the friends of the motion to reconsider would be precluded from accomplishing their object. Mr. -. D. WARNER. I will state that I have confidence inthe gentleman who has made the motion to reconsider, and have no doubt that he will stand by it. Mr. PRATT. Could the motion to reconsider be withdrawn without the consent of the Convention? The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that it could be withdrawn at any time, without the consent of the Convention... — Mr. PRATT. Well, I am wlling to take the chances in regard to that; but while I have the fiopr I wish to say a -ord or two further. I think it somewhat unfortunate that this article was called up to-day. Those members of the Convention who participated in the former discussion, and who are opposed to the two-thirds rule, ought perhaps to have had some notice that this article was to be brought up to-day. However, I do not particularly complain about that; and I will not say that there has been any concert or combination by which this subject has been sprung upon us in the absence of our friends. ~ But I do say that, considering the fact that comparatively few members are now present, and that among those who are absent are many of the members who participated in the former discussion, the further consideration of this article should, in all fairness, be postponed. I hope there will be no objection to its postponement. I consider that the question now before us is one of the most important that has demanded the attention of this Convention. I am not willing to surrender to any corporation-whether 'it be for the construction of a shipcanal from Monroe to St. Joseph, or any other corporation-the sovereignty of this State.s I have before my mind that sovereign corporation of the State of New Jersey, the Camden and Amboy Railroad Company. I have before my mind the two huge monopolies of' this State, the Michigan Southern Railroad, Company and the Michigan Central Railroad Company. - I do not wish tp make any charges against those companies; I do not wish to specify any particulars jn which they exercise powers contrary to their charters; but were it necessary and proper, . might detain the Convention till the period of time when it would be necessary for the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIs,) to leave, by a specification of the particulars where in the Michigan Southern Railroad Company has violated its charter time and again. We, in the southern part of the State, having full knowledge of that company's violations of its char ter, and knowing that we have no, power to procure the amendment or repeal of that charter, are unwilling that hereafter there should be granted any charter which will be beyond the power of the people to amend or control by a majority vote of the Legislature. Gentlemen have said that no capital would be invested in any enterprise in this State under charters liable to'be amended or repealed by a mere majority vote of the Legislature. Now, I call the attention of gentlemen to the very first section of the article on corporations in our present Constitution, where the power is reserved on the part of the Legislature to alter or amend any of these charters by a ma jority vote. Yet under charters granted subject to this piovision in our Constitution, capital has been invested in this State to meet the requirements and wants of the community. Now, I do not wish and'do not intend to detain the Convention by any lengthy speech on this subject. H. I simply desire to remind gentlemen that it is. a very important question to the constituents whom I represent here; and I ask that for the present this article be laid on the table, that we may have further opportunity to discuss and examine the subject. Mr. McCLELLAND). I have only one word to say. The first clause of section one provides that "organizations for the purpose of banking, insurance, mining, telegraphing, manufacturing, transacting business as common carriers, and religious societies, shall be incorporated only under general laws." Now I would inquire for information, what charters of any great importance can be granted by a legislative body, in addition to the classes here designated? Mr. WALKER. As — it seems to be the object, in postponing this subject, that we may have a full vote of the Convention upon it, and as it appeared from the discussion this morning, that we are not probably to have a full attendance of the Convention on any day except next Thursday, I hope this question will be made the special order for next Thursday at half past nine o'clock in the morn-inmg. [Laughter.] Mr. P. D. WARNER. I-renew the motion that the' article be laid on the table. The motion was agreed to. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. NMr. BIRNEY. I move -that the article entitled "Executive Departm ent,'" be taken from the table. The motion was agreed to; and the Convention resumed the consideration of the article. Mr. BIRNEY. I will state that this article has already passed through the, hands of the committee on arrangement and phraseology. Before the motion was made to place it on the order of third reading, some other business intervened, and a motion was adopted to lay the article on the table. Unless some gentleman wishes to move an amendment to the body of the article, it is now in a condition to be placed upon the order of third reading. Some gentlemen have expressed a desire for a change in the provision that the Lieutenant Governor shall be chairman of the board of State auditors. There is some difference of opinion about the propriety of that provision, which is contained in section fifteen. There is also a disposition on the part of some members in favor of an amendment providing that the Supreme Court shall advise the Governor in regard to the granting of pardons. Those, so far as I have heard, are the only amendments which any gentlemen desire to offer. - The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state that this article'has reached the order of third reading. It was taken from that order and placed upon the table, underthepractice. It cannot-now be amended, except by recommitting -1 568, CONSTITUTIONAI, CONVENTION. Friday, 'i I 1. Auus 2, 187 EAE! it, with instructions to make' amendments. Mr. FARMER. I suggest that the rules be suspencde'd, so that we can make armendments- to this- article with-' out recommitting it. I wish to submit an amendment to section fifteen. PARDONS-DUTIES OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Mr. McCLELLAND. I would: suggest whether, after the remarks which have been made by the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BIRNEY,) the article might not be recommitted without- instructions and without committing the Convention in any respect, the subject being confided to the'committee with the understanding that they shall simply report upon the propriety of an advisor'yaouncil to assist -the Governor in regard to the granting of pardons and also report in relation to the pro,priety of the,Lieutenant Gove'rnor being chairman of the board of State auditors and discharging other admin-' istrative duties that may be conferred upon him by the' Legislature. Could' not the article be re-committed without any general instructions? .The PRESIDENT. In the opinion of tilre Chair, the article, if re committed, must. be re-committed with in-' structions.' That is the practice. When an article has reached the order' of third reading, if any am-endment is desired, it is re-committed to the' committee with instructions to make the amendment. Mr. McCLELLIND. I suggest the propriety of re-committing the article' to the committee on the eIe utive department, to take into consideration (without committing the Convention in any way,.) the propriety of changing the provision in regard to pardons,, and th at in regard to'the duties' of the Lieutenant Governor. Mr. FARMER. I propose to mak'e a motion to recommit. Mr. McCLELLAND. I submit to the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. FARMER,) whether it would not be better to permit the chairman of the committee to make the motion, if he is disposed,to do so. Mr. STOUGHTON. Mr. President, I call Sthe attentionl of th-e -gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCGLRL~AND,) fte the fact- that the subject tok which he has referred -received pretty full'consideration when -the artiole was under consideration in committe'e of- the whole-; and tI doub-t very muchi whether the Convention will- agree- to- any changEt in- reference to the pa~rdoning power. Mr. -McC~LEL~LAND. The'gentlemanF will permit ime to say'that'I was oppos-ed to ithe'proposition lade,'by thv'e gentleman fro~m Allegan',- (M~r. WIL-, LIAMs,) Cfor a' board -of'pardons' to con-L Yo1. 2 —-No. 72. sist of the St s. I op-tsiba' propositionthrou,ghut. But fr6mecx amination of this subjec t, ancbns'unl:h-' tion with gentlemen who" are per,s more compet-ent' to judg'e' " uLpon — the question than I am my im pression is,'that there' shoul be a 'council of soim e kindwhat kind I'd' not know. It'has appea-red'to me tlat ,it would probably be better for the' committee tO consi'ider lthe subjeict,-and to' report to the Convention, if they can, some pilan,' Which the Cojnvention would'then' be'free'toadopt' or'to re'je'ct as it might "see''fit. -I thijnk-'thait" any gentleman who will examine thigs question'of pardons, will find -'that the-re is'at least' great pblausibillty m the proposition for an advisory counCil.undder certai nclrc~umstances. Mr. STOUGH1TON. -That' m'avye so, Mr. Presid.ent., Still I be levb e in States where there' i's' ian Iad'y councl acting with thee Gov"er nor,'on, this SU bject,, th',e system has not p-roved whoU~y'satisfactory, and has failedto demonstrate that it is'not'best to leave to the Governor. the exercise of his dis'cretion in reference to parcons; hold'g him responsi ble for any,,improp e? use of this discretionary power. The'ques tion is a very serious. on,e, and'if brought before the Conve'ntion again, will' probably elicit c nsdiderable''discussion. My object rising, howe;v6er, w as prncipally to Ca attention to,th other point suggested, with recferenc' to the propriety of maidjng the Lleutenant Governor" the chairma'n of thE board of State''iauditors.' It wri be .recollected by the- Convention that.thE proVision for a: board of St e"'auditors has already been pasSed, and ha.'it contains no provision with' re to the'Lieutenant Governor acti,g'a's chairman..Unless' that pro'Nsi7n'Ibe changepd, there will be a seeming iucongruity inl our Constitu'tion,' should we in this -article impose'that duty upon the Lieute'nant Gover'nior.' In addition- to' th'is,- I- am satisfied,' upon} a full' net o of the'mat-' ter,'th'at it:'would'be' best that the Lieutenant Governor should'not"-be chairman of this' botard, from''-th'e fact, that the board is compelled''to meet' as frequently as: possible'.''It is; composed of officers who are on dutyuthere' at the' Capit'al nearly'all; the' time;' an'd they mcet informnally, as occ~a~on demands. They are required to,be in session near'ly all the time. Thle Lieutenant'Governtor' is' requi~r'e'd,by tlie legitimate duties Of his pOSitlill to be here but a small''p'ortion' o,f't~he "'timei; and it would entai't'consiiera~ble' addi-' tional expense uponX the, St~a)Ve if h,, were compelled to atteiia all the meet — ,ings of "this b'oa~d."' On the'whol' I' t(hH',,it,would'be best to strike out the ,provision in section fifteen of this'a'rts cle, that,' the Lieuteant Governor shall be chairman of the board of State rauditors, and perform such other ad mmistrative'duties as may be prescri bea by law." Mr. BIRNEY. I was about to make the same suggestion which has just been made by the gentleman from St. J~se, ph, (Mr. STOUGHTON.) And I may mention', as an additional reason in favor of striking out the provision, that the proposition to allow the Lieutenant Governor an annual salary was not agreed to; he has been allowed a per diem compensation. I think it would be best to strike out the provision with regard to the Lieutenant Governor acting as chairman of the board of S tate'auditors,,in order that we may make this section conform to our other 'action: on this subject. Mr. McCLELLAND. ILwish to say 'that I have examined t he listof par dons granted during the last seventeen years, and I find that'durling''this period there have been four hundred .and forty-seven pardons. For murder in the Etst' degr 6, there have beenfive pardons;' for murder in the second degree,,six pardons; for manslaughler, nine pardons; for assaiult and'battery with intent'to kill,, seventeen' pardonS; for a cri-me unmentionable in the ,prese'nce'of those who' areat this mo ment'auditorks of our debates, seventeen ,pardons; for arson, eighteen pardons; making's'eventy-two," pardons for the m,ost imprtant offenses known too our criminal code.. Mfr. BIRNEY. This matter of'par dons may be considered'hereafter. I suppose there'will be no obje'ction op the part'of the Convention to a propo sition tO strike outat'this time the latter part of section fifteen. If there should b"e a divi'sion' of sentiment'in rega'rd''to making an amendment in referencte'to pardons, the "subject' can be refrred to the' comm'ittee. I hope "thiere,will be no objection to'the motion ,which I now m~ake to.am~end section 'fite'en,'relating to' the''duties o'f:Lieubtena'n't G(ove~rnor, by striking out these ;words:~ "H:Ee shall be chairman'of' the 'board of State auditor's, and' perform such other adlministrative duties as ,m'ay: be prescribed by law.", '',The, PRE'SIDENT. If there' is'no obj'ec'tion, that miotion,wlll'be enter tamed.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - There was no objection. The ainendment was agreed to.: ''Mr, BIRNEY.'In~i regard' to th~e 'o,th~er question: which has bee'n sugge,st'3ed,' thlo com,mittee- wil of, course a' ct a's they' may; be instruc~ted' by- the C;onvention. But ule~s5 some gentleman; desires to make' a motsion to in - i: I 1 't ,.r t August 2, 1867. DEBATES A -ND PROC'F4'FoDIN 569 I - 570 COSTITUTIOAL CO VETIO. aturday, struct the committee with regard to the subject of pardons, I move that the article be now ordered to a third reading. The PRESIDENT. The article will be ordered to the third reading, if there be no objection. There was no- objection. Mr. HOWARD. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed tc-ayes 33, noes 18. So the Convention (at five minutes after four o'clock, p. m.,) adjourned. FIFTY-EICHTH DAY. SATURDAY, August 3, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mr. WEED. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. W. A. SMITH. I ask leave of absence for Mr.- DESROY.RS for to-day. He is unable to leave his coom, on account of sickness. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. STOCKWETL. I am under the necessity of asking indefinite leave of absence for myself, on account of sickness in my family. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. STOUGHTON. I ask indefinite leave of absence for my colleague, Mr. HULL, who was compelled to leave here yesterday on account of sickness in his family. ,Leave was accordingly ganted. Mr. HARRIS. I ask leave of absence for an indefinite period for Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH, on account of sickness; he is not now able to be here. Leave was accordingly granted. Mr. ALEXANDER.. I would inquire how many members are present this morning? The PRESIDENT. The Secretary informs the Chair that fifty-five mtem bers answered to their names at roll call this morning. Mr. ATE.XANDER. I would also inquire how many of these members have already obtained leave of absence? The PRESIDENT. The Secretary informs the Chair that four members "now present obtained leave of absence yesterday. HMr. ARRIS. I desire to obtain leave of absence until Wednesday next. I cannot say that I cannot remain here, or that I am sick and absolutely unable to stay; but I should be very glad to be gone from here for a few days. Mr. ROOT. I hope the gentleman will not go and leave us here without a quorum. It is perfectly well understood that we are anxious to get through with the business before us. And if the four members present who have already obtained leave of absence will say that they will remain here, it will be very gratifying to us who have to stay. Mr. HENDERSON. Being one of the number who have obtained leave of absence, to take effect on and after this morning until Tuesday morning next, I feel called upon to say a word. As I said yesterday, if the Convention will not be in a condition to work unless I remain here, I could not justify myself in leaving. It has been announced that there are four members present who have obtained leave of absence; since that time another member has obtained leave of absence. If it-is possible to keep a quorum here by remaining, I will remain; if not, then IIwould like to have that fact deter mined before half-pagt ten o'clock this morning. Mr. BURTCH. It seems to me that notwithstanding there may be less than a quorum present, there might be con siderable work done. There are sev eral subjects that can be considered. Mi. P. D. WARNER. I would move if there be no objection, that rule thirty-four be suspended for to-day and Monday, and that forty members constitute a quorum. The PRE'SIDENT. The question now is upon granting leave of absence to the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. HARRIS,) until Wednesday next. Mr. LEACH. I would ask the gen tlemanorom Oakland, to withdraw his request for leave of absence, until the motion of his colleage, (Mr. P. D. -WARNER,) can be considered. Mr. HARRIS. I will withdraw it. PRIOPOSITION THAT FORTY MEMBERS1 CON STITUTE A QUORUM. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I now move that rule thirty-four of this Convention be suspended for -to-day and Monday next, and that forty members constitute a quorum of this Convention for the transaction of business on to-day and Monday. Rule thirty-four is as follows: "A majority of the members elected shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but. a less number may adjourn front day to day." Mr.-ROOT. I think the motion of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) is a bad one, -and will establish a bad precedent. If we can hold a quorum of fifty-one members here, we better go on with our business, and not reduce it below that. There are more than fifty-one members here now. M r. P. D. WARNER. I- desire to state that the thirty-fourth rule only designates the number of members that, shall constitute a quorum. By the thirty-fifth rule it is provided that every article on its final passage shall receive the votes of a majority of all the members elected to this -Convention; therefore. my proposition would not interfere with that rule at all. Mr. HARRIS. I hope that motion will prevail. I feel a very great anxiety, indeed a necessity, to go home for two or three days. But I am not willing to go if the business of this Convention is to be stopped on account of my absence. Still it would be a Very great favor to me if I could be allowed to go home for two or three days. Mr. MILES. I hope the motion of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) will not prevail. I do not believe it would be well for less than a quorum of the members of this Convention to undertake to transact business here, and allow twenty-one or twenty-two memb-ers-to carry meas ures through to their third reading. I think no business should be trans acted by less than a majority of all the nmembers elected to this Convention. I do not ask for an adjournment on my own account; I do not want any adjournment. I have invariably voted against every adjournment this Con vention has had, and I have not been absent at roll-call since the Convention met. But I do not think it would be well for us to undertake to -transact business here with less than a majority of all the 4nembers elected to this Con vention. Therefore, I am opposed to the rqotioi- of the gentleman from Oakland. Mr. BURTCH. I hope for several reasons that the motion of the gentle man from Oakland (Mir. P. D. WAR NER,) will prevail. If the Convention should be left without a quorum, as it probably will boe uinless that motion shall be adopted, then the time would be lost entirely, to the State and to future geneiations. And as I have something to say, not of importance perhaps to this generation, I would just as lief say it without a full quorum here as with it; and it would relieve many gentlemen from having their ears injured by may talk. As there is some unfinished business which has been laid upon the table, and which can be taken up and discussed at any time, I think it mnight be discussed now, and then be laid over to be voted upon at some future time. In that way no timne whatever nteed be lost. Mr. -MUSSEY. I will go for almost anything that will forward the business of this Convention; I would not be very particular what it might be. B1ut I do not apprehend the proposition of i t, CONSTf.VUTIONAT,, CONVENTION. 570 Saturd,ay, August 3, 1867. DEBATES AD PROOEEDGS. 571 the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) would forward our business at all. I thinkif we should proceed with less than fifty-one members to consider business, then when the Convention again assembled and was full, it would'take us two or three days to review what we should go over today, as I think we should be forced to do. Therefore I think we should lose time by adopting that proposition. If I could only be satisfied that we could forward the business of the Convention, and; sooner bring it to a close, I would favor the motion; but I do not think so. Mr. BIRNEY. -I hope that the motion will be put to a vote, so that those who may want to go away by the first train will have an opportunity to go. M1r. HOWARD. I hope the discusslon will be continued till after train time. In regard to the pending motion, it seems to me that it would be folly for us to go on with business here with less than our regular quorum. It certainly is not in accordance with parliamentry usage for a minority of a body to transact business. We have no assurance, if we do so now, that our work would receive the sanction of a majority of this Convention when they have assembled here. I have been listening to hear some good reason why we should reduce the number necessary to constitute a quorum under our rules here. We have now a quorum here and one or two to spare. I certainly think we have the power to hold a quorum here, if we will only exercise that power. There seems to be a delicacy about voting against granting leave of absence to gentlemen. Now, I ask gentlemen what delicacy there need be in voting against the request for leave of absence made by my friend from Oakland, (Mr. HARRIS.) He has given no special reason for his being allowedeleave of absence, and he certainly will have no hard-feelings towards the members of this Convention, if they refuse to grant him leave of absence under the circumstances. I hope we shall refuse to grant leave of absence to any member, unless in case of the sickness of himself or of some mem ber of his family. I hope we will hold a quorum here, and not subject our selves to tie ridicule we would subject ourselves to, if we went on with busi ness here, with les3 than a regular quorum. So far as the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BURTCH,) is concern ed, if he wishes to speak for future generations, I would be in favor of his having leave of absence, until he can speak to future generations. Mr. LUCE. I would ask gentlemen to let the motion be put to a vote. Mr. BARBER. I should be very glad to have this discussion cease, for I do not think it is of a character that will appear very well upon our record. I notice that our reporter is very busy; indeed, I think he is unusually so. Mr. F. C. WATKINS. I have obtained leave of absence on account of sickness in my family;- I think there is a necessity for my going home. But rather than leave this Convention without a quorum I will stay here, and I hope others will do so. The PRESIDENT. This discussion is not strictly in order. MA. ALEXANDER. I submit to the Convention if it would not be good policy to suspend this rile, provided we are not going to have a quorum, and go on with our business like men? Mr. LELCH. If discussion is not in order, I call the gentleman to order. Mr. ALEXANDER. I would inquire of the Chair what is the question before the Convention? The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the motion to suspend the thirty-fourth rule. Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, I propose to discuss that question; I am in favor of suspending the rule. If a majority of this Convention choose to absent themselves, and leave us with only a minority here, then let us take the opportunity, and avail ourselves of the privilege. We are now a quorum for the transaction of this or any other business. We can judge from the past how likely we will be to- not have a quorum to transact business an hour hence. While we have a quorum let us transact what business we can, and put ourselves in a position where we can go on with the business of this Convention, and get ready to leave for home. I am homesick now, and want to leave for home as quick as I can get away from here. The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. P. D. WARNER, and it was not agreed to. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. MORTON. I move that no further leave of absence be granted to any member for to-day and Monday next. The member from Calhoun, (Mr. HENDERSON,) and the member from Jackson, (Mr. F. C. WATKiNS,) cannot leave under their former leave of absence, for they have appeared here and taken part in the business of the Convention. The PRESIDENT. That question can be settled when leave of absence is asked for. Mr. HARRIS. I now renew my re-' quest for leave of absence for myself until Wednesday next. The question was taken upon grant ing leave of absence to Mr. HARRIS until Wednesday next, and upon a division, ayes 17, noes 22, no quorum voted. The question was again taken, and upon a division, ayes 28, noes 24, leave was accordingly granted., AMENDMENT AND REVISION OF THE CON STITUTION. Mr. CHAPIN, from the committee on amendment and revision of the Constitution, made the following report: The committee on amendment and revision of the Constitution, to whom was referred article, entitled "Amendment and Revision," respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report an article, entitled "Amendment and Revision," recommending that the same do pass, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. D. W. C, CHAPIN, Chairmnan pro tem. of Corn. The report was received, and the committee discharged. The article was read a first and second time by its title, ordered to be printed, placed on the general order, and referred to the committee of the whole. SALARIES. Mr. MUSSEY, from the committee on salaries, made the following report: The committee. on salaries, to whom was referred article IX ot the Constitution, respectiully report that they have had tie same under consideration, and have directed me to report article, entitled "Salaries," recommending that the same do pass, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. DEXTER MUSSEY, Chairman. The report was received, and the committee discharged. The article was read a first and second time by its title, ordered to be printed, placed on the general order, and referred to the committee of the whole. COUNTIES. Mr. BIRNEY, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, made the following report: The committee on arrangement and phraseology, to whom was referred the article entitled "Counties,"-respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report the same back without. amendment, recommending that the same do pass, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. JAMES BIRNEY, Act'g Chairman. The report was received, and the committee discharged. The article was laid upon the table and ordered to be printed at large in the journal. It is as follows: SECTION 1. Each organized county shall be a body corporate, with such powers and immunities as shall be established by law. All suits and proceedings, by or against a county, ~shall be in the name thereof. SECTION 2. NO new county shall be organized without submitting the question to a vote of the electors residing therein, nor un .DEBATES AND PROCE-FT)INGS. Au,, ust 3 1867. 571 5 C -.-TI, C 0 I-. o k I. — i —!;d, S e E;. less a: majorirty voting thereon, shall vo'tef6o the same.; - - SECTION 3. No new county, containing less than sixteen towns, as surveyed by "the United States, shall be organized from one or' more -counties;' nor s"hall-:any'organized county be reduced by-the organization of new counties, to less than sixteen such towns, unles in pursuance of law, a majority of the votes cast by —the electors residing in the county, or each of the counties to be thereby so reduced below sixteen townships, shall.be in favor of such organization. Provided, -That nothing herein contained-shall be so construed as to prevent the Legislaiture from organizing any county composed wholly of islands within the territory of the State, or discontinuing any such county, and:ttachingthe- same to the nearest county' or counties, on the main land. - SECTION 4. -In each organized county there shall be a sheriff, a county clerk,'a county treasurer, a register o1 deeds.- a prosecuting attorney, and such other officers as'may be provided by law, chosen by the:eiectors thereof once in two years, and as often as vacancies shall happen, whose duties and powers shall be prescribed by the Legislature. The board of supervisors in any county may unite the offices of county clerk-and register of deeds in one office, or disconnect the same. SECTION 5. The sheriff, county clerk, county treasurer, judge of probate and- register-" o"f deeds, shall hold their offices at the- county seat. i. SECTION 6. The sheriff shall hold no other county office,.nor the office of supervisor. No person shall be eligible to the office of sheriff lor more than four in a period of six years. The county shall never be responsible for his acts. SECTION 7. A board of supervisors consisting of one from each organized township, shall be established in each county, with such powers as shall be prescribed by law... SECTION 8. Cities shall have such represen.t ation in the board of supervisors as-the Legis. lature may direct; and one or more additional representatives on the board maiybe allowed by the Legislature-to townships containing not les~ than three thousand inhabitants. -SECTION(9. No county seat once established shall be removed, until the place to which it is proposed to be removed, shall be designated by a majority of the board of supervisors of the county, and two-thirds of the electors voting thereon shall have voted in favor of the proposed location, in such manner as shall be prescribed' by law. - SECTION 10. The board of supervisors of any county may borrow, or raise by tax, a sulm not exceeding one and one-half mill upon the dollar, of the- assessed valuation thereof for constructing or repairingpublic buildings, highways or bridges; but no greater sum shall be borrowed or raised by-tax' fo~r any such purpose, in any one year, unless auttor. ized by aa majority ofl the eectors of such county voting thereon. - -: - ~ -; - SECTION 11. The board of supervisors, cr the board of county auditors, in thie:county of Wayne, and in such other counties as-the Legislature may provide for? the'~'election thereof, shall,' except as otherwise provided by law, have power to prescribe the compensation due for all services rendered,:and adjust all claims against their respective coun: ties, and such determination andi adjus~tment shall be subject to no appeal. -!SuperviSbrs and county: auditors shall receive tbr theit services such compensation as shall be pre' scribed by law,. -.x.V. E. -;CATION. Mr. BIRNE'Y, from the committee on arangement and phrase6to6'gy a6l o m a ci T —p-,es; - t,.-I.ef 6 A; -' i>w3j: made the folloWing report::'... The committeq on arrangement and phraseolog,'to whom was referred the- tic1'' entitled " Education," respectfully report:that tb'eY'Xia~ve h fe'- sanie unmder consideration, and -have directe' me to report that they have made no amendments to the same, re'com'inmendi'that the' Same do pass, and ask t/6toe be:discharged Trotm the further consideration ofbthe subject. JAMES;:BIRNEY, Act'g (,Uairiiian. The, report was received and the committee discharged. The' article was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed at large in the- journal.:It is as follows: SECTION 1. Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good goveriment and the happiness ofi mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. SECTION 2. Institutions lbor the benefit of those inhabitants' who are deaf, dumb, blind or insane, shall always be fostered and supported. .SECTION 3. The Legislature shall provide for -a syistem of p'rinary schools, by which a school shall. be maintained in each school district in the State free of charge for tuition, at least tour' montis in tht 6-year. The instruction Shall i'n all'cases be co,ncucted in the English language. SECTION 4. The Legislature shall provide for the establishment' and maiiintenance of a ilibrary in each township, and of at least one in each city. And all moneys belonging to the public, derived from fines, penalties, for-: feitures or recognizances, imposed or taken 'in tbhe several counties, citiesor townships, tobr- any breach of the penal laws of the State,. after deducting the actual cost of collection, shall be apportioned in the same manner as is thei'lncome of the primary school und, and pa,id overto the severqal cities and townships of-the county in which such money accrued, ifor the support of such libraries: Provided, That the Legislature may.authorize any township, by a vote of its electors, to apply its portion of said money to the direct support of its primary schools. SEcTiox 5.' There shall be elected eight regents of the University, whose term of office shall:be eight years, two of whom shall be elected every second year, on the day of the annual- township election, so as to succeed bthe: regents'now in office, as their several terms-shall expire. When a vacanpcy shall occur in the office of regent, it shall be filled by appointment by the Governor. -The chief justlC'eo'f': tb'e supreme court shall be ex -O.Ocio a'-member of the board of regents. SECTION 6. The regents of the University and their succes'ors in office shall; continue to constitute the' body'corporate, ktnowni by the name and:titleo of "the regents of the Uni— vesity of. Michigain." - SECTION 7.' The regents of the University shall, as often as necessary, elect a President of the University, who shall be ex offcso a member of their board, with the privilege of speaking but not of voting.' He shall preo. -side at the mnieetings of the regents, and be 'the pri'ncipal txecutive officer of the University:.:'the board of regents shall have the general supervision of'the University and the — ieon'f andi Control ofa'll expenditures from .the Un iversity interest fuInd.- .SECTION~ 8.'Th'ere -shall be elected three meinebe o SateBoard o f a.. o Education, :ovie -:'termr of office shall be qix-years, one of'' thoin' shall be'- elected in every second yeal, at the time of the election of regents of the University. They shali enter upon ^the duties ot their office on the!irstday of Jan:uary' next succeeding their election. -'The ~ Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be ex O,dcieo a member and secretary of such board. The board shall have the general su-: pervision of -the State Normal: School, and their duties shall be prescribed by law. SECTION 9. The Legislature shall provide for the support and maintenianea;of a'n Agricultural AC6llege, for: instructiori in agricul ture, and the natural sciences connected therewith. - -. SEcTION 10. The proceeds from the sale of all lands that have ~een or hereafter may be graited by the United States to the State for educational purposes, and the proceeds of all lands,.orother property given by individuals, or appropriated by the State olbr like purposes, shall be and remain a perpetual fund, the interest and income of which, together with the rents of all such lands as may remain up sold, shall be inviolably appropriated and annually applied to the specific objects of the original gift, grant or appropriation. SECTION 11. All lands, the title of which shall fail from a defect of heirs, shall escheat to the State; and the interest on the clear proceeds from the sale thereof, shall be appropriated exclusively to the support of primary schools. CITIES AND VILLAGES. Mr. BIRNEY, friom the committee on arrangement and phraseology, also made the following report: The committee on arrangement and(l phraseology, to whom was referred the article entitled " Cities and Villages," respectfully report that they bhave had the same under consi!eration, and have directed me to report that they have made no amendments to the same, recommending that the same do pass, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. JAMES BIRNEY, Acting Cahairman. The report was received, and the committee discharged. The article was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed at large in the journal. It is as follows: SECTION 1. The Le,gislature shall provide for the incorporation of cities and villages, and shall festrict their powers of taxation, borrowing money, contracting debts, and loaning their credit. SECTION 2. The mayor and aldermen of cities, and thlie president and trustees of villages shall be elected, and all other officers shall be elected or appointed at such timeand in such msanner as the Legislature may direct. HOUR OF MEETING ON MONDAY NEXT. Itr. ALEXANDER. I have a resolution to offer, which I think this Convention willsee the necessity of. It is as follows: Resolved, That when the Convention' adiourns to-day, it be to meet on Monday next, at half-past ten o'clock, a.m. *. .I offer this resolution so that, if there be no quorum.here at nine o'clock on Monday, we shall not be compelled to a.dj.urn overtill the next day, when a ('quoim:might be here on the arrival of'the first train... The resolution was adopted. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. A Mr.. HOLMES. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into cormmittee of the whole on the general order. The. motion was agreed to. .The Convention accordingly resolved itself'ito committee of the whole, (Mr. WVILLARD in-the chair,) and proceeded to the considerati~on'of the article entitled " Miscellaneous Provisions." OATH OF OFFICE. The finst section was read as follows: isMembers of the Legislature, and all offi CON$TITUTION'AT,.. CONVENTION. Saturday, 572 Augusi 3, 187 DEAE A. PR(]E G.- 573 cers executive and judicial, shall, before they a enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnily swear (or affirm) t that I will support the Constitution' of the United States, and, the constitution of this State, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of, according to the best of my ability." t MIr. HOLT. I do not see anything e in this section which requires county t officers to take any oath. ml therefore, move to amend this section by insert- e ing after the words, "executive and ju- t dicial," the words, and all other officers, except such as may be exempt by law." Mr. CHAPIN. I cannot see the ne- cessity for the amendment of the gen-. tieman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT.) It strikes me that county officers are t included in the category of executive officers; they execute certain duties as- signed them by law. t Mlr. WRIGHT. It seems to me that t the word " executive" here would inelude even pathmasters; it would include all officers. Mr. HENDERSON. It always has. Mr. WVRIGHT. I do not think there need be any further designation ofl officers in this section, I may be mistaken about it; I may misapprehend the proper construction of language. I think the words "executive and judicial," will include every officer in the State of Michigan, outside of the Legislature. Mr. ROOT. I think the amend ment is wholly unnecessary. In the article entitled, Division. of the powers of Government" there are three departments of government pro vided, the legislative, executive and judicial; and they are all included in the section before us. Mr. LOVELL. I would call the attention of the committee to the pro vision on this subject in the present: Constitution. It reads as follows: ", Members of the Legislature, and all of ficers, executive and judicial, except such officers as may by law be exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their re spective offices, take and subscribe the tol l owing oath or affirmation," etc. The same phraseology is used in the section now under consideration. The language is somewhat abbreviated, but not so as to alter the sense in that re spect. I suppose it has always been. construed to include every officer. Mr. FARMER. I would say in be-; half of the committee that-reported this article, the chairman, (Hr. Wm LIAS,) being absent, that we supposed it covered every possible case,: that there could be no doubt about it; that it covered all executive officers, and judicial officers, and all officers under the Constitution. I can see no neces sity for any addition to the section. Mr. MUSSEY. If there is to be an amendment made to this section, I hould prefer it to be in another direcion. I apprehend that under this provision as it stands, we can require wearing enough to be done for one State. I would prefer to have restored o this section that which has been mitted from the corresponding secion in the present Constitution. The rst section of the article in the presnt Constitution, which this is to take the place of, has this language: " except such officers as may by law be exempted." Under that language, the Legislature, if they saw fit, might ex cept or exempt some of the minor officers from taking this oath.- It has become so very common for a man to take an oath, or to be sworn, thatI apprehend an oath is sometimes hardly regarded. Formerly overseers of the highway were required,'under this provision, to take the oath of office. But latterly the Legislature have seen fit to mnake a different provision, to require thenm merely to sign their acceptance of the office. Formerly they were - equired to make their returns Lunder oath. The oaths were very common under this old provision. I hope there will be no amendment to make them more common than they are at present. Mr. PRINGLE. I do not wish to spend any time in discussing this matter. Still if we adopt this section precisely as it now stands, we shall nof run entirely clear of a difficulty that perhaps arises under another part of the Constitution. As has been stated here, there is a section which declares- that the departments of the government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial. 'There is an' article on the legislative department, which declares how the legislative power shall be vested. The article on the executive department states how the executive power shall be vested. The article on the judicial de partment states how the judicial power shall be vested. The article on the executive depart ment states that the executive power shall be vested in the Governor, which in one sense of the word is true enough; but, as.was pointed out at the time that article was under consideration, all the .executive power of the State is not ; vested in the Governor. The functions of the pathmaster, or the overseer of the highways in his district, are as much constitutional powers as the powers of the Governor, and he is as much X constitutional officer as the Gover nor of the State. He does not derive his power from the Governor, but from the people. He is as independent of the Governor as the Governor is in dependent of him. The article on the executive department is all that seems to make the difficulty; declaring that all executive power is vested in the Governor. Now that is said in that article, although we have abandoned the old idea which used to require the administrative officers of the State to be mostly appointed by the Governor. Now those functions that are performed by the officers in the State departments, by county officers, by township officers, by school district officers, by road district officers, etc., are administrative in their character; and I think there ought to be an amendment in the previous article which should speak of administrative officers and administrative duties. Either that should be- done, or the article on the executive department might be entitled "executive and ad ministrative," or something of that sort; and the division of the powers of the government might be "legislative, judicial, and executive or administra tive." In that way we should reach beyond a doubt all these classes of officers. If we shall make the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Mus kegon, (Mr. HOL.T,) or, what would be better, in my judgment, strike out the words "executive and judicial;" so that the section would read: " Members of the Legislature, and all officers, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and sub scribe the following oath or affirma tion," etc.-that, I think, would reach the case. MIr. CASE. I have an amendment prepared which I will offer as a substi tute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT.) I move to strikel out the words "Members of the Legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial," and to insert in lieu thereof 3 the words, "All officers of this State." The section will then read, "All offl cers of this State shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective - offices," etc. ~ The CHAIRMAN. That does not include any portion of the amend; ment of the gentleman from Muske — t gon, (Mr. HOLT,) which is to insert!, after the words "executive and juditcial," the words "and all other officers 3 except such as may be exempted by flaw." The \Chair, therefore, will rule that the amendment of the gentleman f from Montcalm, (MJr. CAsE,) will not be in order until after the- amendment now pending-has been disposed of. e Mr. HOLT. I will modify my t amendment so as to strike out the .t words "executive-and judicial,/ and ~- insert in lieu thereof the words "- except e such as are exempt by -law,' so -that= DEBATES AND PROCEEDI-NG. 573 August 3'1867. 0COSTITUTION AT, CONVENTION. the section will read: "Members of the Legislature, and all officers, except such as are exempted by law, shall before they enter on the duties of -thei respective offices," etc. AMr. PRATT. I think this section had better stand as reported by the committee, except thatit would be well perhaps to add to it what the committee have left out of the corresponding section in the present Constitution. I think- there would be some difficulty if we adopt the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT.) I had a case in the Supreme Court of this State, at the May term, in which it was claimed that a referee shoutld be sworn. It might be claimed that "all officers," would include referees, arbitrators, auditors, and many officers of that kind, who are not now required to take an oath. At all events, there have been judicial constructions placed upon this section, in the case I have mentioned, and in other cases which have been brought before the Supreme Court. I think it would be better to leave the section as it is, with the addition I have sug,gested. I should be in favor of retaining the language of the corresponding section in the present Constitution, which the committee have omitted here, "except such officers as may by law be exempted." I doubt whether we can better the section by any innovation or change of the language. Mr. BIRNEY. I would suggest to the mover of this amendment, that if it should prevail the Legislature might do away entirely with this provision of the Constitution by passing a law exempting all officers froin taking the oath. In that case this, section would not operate at all. The gentleman proposes to amend the section so that all officers not exempt by law shall be required to take the oath. If there should be a law exempting all officers from taking the oath, there would be no need at all of this provision. Mr. COOLIDGE. I move to amend the amendment so as to strike out the words "officers, executive and judicial" and insert in lieu thereof the words "such other officers as may be designated by law;"' so that it will read " Members of the Legislature, and all such other officers as may be designated by law, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices," etc. I do not believe in the policy of requiring every officer in this State to subscribe to an affidavit. I believe we are frittering away the solemnity of an oath just about as fast as we can, and that in one-half of the cases, where now by law these oaths are required to be taken, an oath is the most formal thing in the world, and does not have the least effect. It has become so that - those who administer the oath do not care anything at all about it; it is im material to them whether they use one half the words or not. And I think it grows out of this very fact; I think 1 the tendency is in the wrong direction. - I would, therefore, have it obliga tory on no officer to take an oath, ex[ cept such as the Legislature shall, from time to time, require by law. My present view, arid that has been my view for a long time, is that in the first place there is no necessity for so many of these oaths to be taken; and in the L second place it is wrong to require them to be taken. It is frittering away .-the solemnity of an oath just as fast as it can be done. Mr. BURTCH. I have an amend ment to offer. The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment is in order at present. Mr. BUIRTCH. I suppose it can be received and " held in abeyance," until it is in order. The CHAIRMIAN. The Chair would prefer to have amendments offered only when in order. The question now is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. COOL IDGE) to the amendment of the gentle man from Muskegon, (MIr. HOLT.) Mr. MUSSEY. If I understood the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (MIr. COOLIDGE,) it is to have the section read- "MIembers of the Legislature, and all such other officers as may be designated by law," shall take the oath of office. I should ob ject to that; there is no law creating the executive and judicial officers; they are created by the Constitution; and it would therefore require some special provision of law in order to re quire them to take the oath of office. I think the provision of the Constitu tion should be such as to require them to take the oath of office, if any offi cers are to take it. Mr. PRINGLE. I would suggest to the gentleman friom Berrien, (Mr. Coo LIDGE,) instead of saying "all~officers ] as may be designated by law," he modi fy his amendment, so that it shall read, "all officers except such as may be ex empt by law." j Mr. COOLIDGE. The point is this; the matter is left entirely to the Legis lature, to say who shall be compelled i to take this oath or affirmation, and whoE shall not. c Mr. MUSSEY. A word right there; if the amendment of the gentleman e should prevail, would it not require a t special law to require the Governor 1. and judges to take the oath of office? c I apprehend that is hardly what we want? - Mr. STOUGHTON. I would like very modestly to suggest an amendment which it seems to me will cover both phases of the case. It is to strike out the words " executive and judicial," and insert in lieu thereof the words "elected or appointed under this Constitution;" also to insert after the word "shall," the words " unless otherwise provided in the act creating the same;" so that the section would read-," MIembers of the Legislature, and all officers elected or appointed under this Constitution shall, unless otherwise provided in the act creating the same, before they enter on the respective duties of their offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation," etc. That would make it obligatory on all officers named directly in the Constitution to take the oath of ofice. There are other officers who are provided for indirectly by the Constitution; they would be obliged to take this oath of office, unless the act creating the office expressly provided to the contrary... Mr. T. G. SMITH. I do not think we shall better this section any by any amendments we may make to it. It seems to me the section is the same in substance as the corresponding section in the present Constitution; and a'though I would not adopt it simply because it is in the present Constitution, still when a provision has been found to work well, and no injury or detriment has resulted from it, I think we should not alter it just for the sake of making an alteration. If this section does not cover every possible officer which may be provided for hereafter, it covers enough of them. I think there has been no complaint, at least I have never heard of any, of the section as it now stands. I should object to the amendment of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) because it would require an express provision of law in the case of each officer before he would be required to take the oath of office. I do not think we can make the section better than it now is. Mr. BILLS. It occurs to me that perhaps members feel as though it was an absolute necessity to change.every article and every section in the present Constitution, whether it has been subject to objection or not. Now, I would ask if there is a provision in the Constitution under which we have administered our government for the last seventeen years that is less liable to objection than this section? The section in the present Consitution is precisely like the section under consideration, except that our committee have left out the words "except such officers as may, by law, be exempted." I would hardly deem that a matter of alteration to such an extent as to either i 574 Saturcla'y, Auut3 87.,~ASAi!RC'EIG 55' damage the section or improve it. It is very rarely the case that the Legislature, when they provide for the existence of an officer, or prescribe his duties, enact that he shall not take the oath of office. No such instance occurs to my mind at present. I would be perfectly satisfied to leave that section of our present Constitution untouched. Our committee have also omitted this sentence: "And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust." I have no objection to that omission. I think we shall not improve this section. Perhaps the one reported to us is just as objectionable as the one in the present Constitution. Mr. COOLIDGE. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. BILLS. Of coursb. Mr. COOLIDGE. If the gentleman were called upon to draw up a section of this kind, would he, in the first place, require every officer, however unim portant his duties, to take the oath of office, and then give power to the Leg islature to exempt him from taking that oath? Or would he require no oath at all, but leave it to the Legislature to prescribe the oath when they should deem it necessary? Which would the gentleman do? Mr. BILLS. The clause in the pres ent Constitution, " except such officers as may-by law be exempted," I have just remarked was, in my judgment, unnecessary. I would not require in ,the Constitution that a certain class of officers should take the oath, unless they are exempted by the Legislature. Consequently I should have no objec tion to omitting those words from this section. Mr. COOLIDGE. Is not the amend ment which I have proposed precisely that? Mr. BILLS. Perhaps I have not entirely comprehended it. But allow me to remark that those words are entirely omitted from the section re ported by the committee. And conse quently if the object of the amend ment of the gentleman is simply to insert those words, and to accomplish nothing else, then the amendment is certainly unnecessary. Mr. COOLIDGE. The gentleman misunderstands my amendment. It proposes to leave the matter entirely to the Legislature; to require none but members of the Legislature to take the oath, unless the law prescribes that the oath shall be taken. Mr. FARMER. I have watched with some attention the various amendments which have been offered to this section as reported by the com mittee, with the hope that I would see something that would be clearly and distinctly an improvement of the section. I must confess that if there is any confusion in the section it would be made "confusion worse confounded" by the amendments which have been proposed. No gentleman who has proposed an amendment seems to be clear as to-what he intends or means by it. The committee in drawing up this section followed in part the corresponding section in the Constitution of 1850. We have had some years' experience under that section, and I have yet to learn that its effect and operation have been bad. The com mittee left out a small portion of it, which they considered surplusage. Whether the committee of the whole, or the Convention, will agree with the committee that reported this article in that respect, remains to be seen. Those portions of section one of the article entitled "Miscellaneous Provisions," in the Constitution of 1850, which have been left out of the section under con sideration, I have not yet heard any gentleman say he considered impor tant. I have decided objection to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT.) He pro poses to amend the section so that it will read: 1"Members of the Legisla ture, and all officers, except' such as are exempt by law," etc. He stated that the reason why he offered that amendment was, that this section, as reported by the committee, did not cover sufficient ground, that it left out some officers. The amendment proposed by my colleague, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) would make the section read-"Members of the Legislature and all such other officers as may be designated by law;" ec. He proposes to leave out some of the most important officers in the State; officers who I think should not be left to the Legislature, but should be pro vided for in the Constitution. They are a part andi parcel of the govern ment to carry on the executive and ju dicial powers of the State government, and should not be lef} to the mere will of the Legislature. This provision should be and is general in its charac ter, and I think it covers all officers. I differ with my colleague, (Mr. COOLInGL,) when he says.that the fact that it is made necessary for all officers to take the oath of office, makes the oath nugatory in part, brings it into disrepute. The fact of the frequency of the oath is no occasion for any dis respect of it; that results from the feeling of the person taking it. I hope, then, that these various amendments and propositions will be voted down, and that this section will pass as reported by the committee. It is short, terse, and to the point. Mr. HOLT. I will modify my amendment, so as to insert after the words,,executive and judicial," the words, "except such as may be exempt by law." The section, if so amended, would read: " Members of the Legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such as may be exempt by law, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath- or affirmation," etc. The CHAIRMAN. If no objection' be made, the gentleman will be allow ed to modify his amendment as pro posed. No objection was made, S.TITUTIO~AL COjVE~TIO~. i X x -day1 But, sir, I want to see in this office of Superintendent of Public Instruction such a man as I have already described. When we get such a man, let us pay him a fair salary, andckeep him at the work. It is a first-class business. I want to see engaged in it first-class talent. - If there is any one place where we ought to have a first-class man, it is in the educational department. As our children in the primary schools look up to their teacher, so the teachers ought to look up to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. But if you put a wooden man in this position, what do you say to your teachers? You say: "We do not believe in having much talent in this business; we expect you to keep along in it only a little while, until you can find something else to do." Sir, we ought to endeavor to make the business of teaching a profession an honored and a profitable profession; so that men who have proper capacity for it may follow it all their days. Andl when we findnatural talent in educational matters, developed right here among ourselves, we do not want other States to come and take it away from us, so as to keep us down to the level of a low mediocrity in public school matters. Wherever else we may be parsimonious, let us be liberal in the cause of education. Mr. MUSSEY. ] Mr. Chairman, I propose to answer the question of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. M.- C. WATKINS,) because it implies perhaps, a little'more than was expressed. The time which I stated was required of the Superintendent of Public Instruc tion, for the discharge of his duties, was over and above that expended by his assistant or deputy. I have stated that the Superintendent cannot per form all his duties in forty-four weeks. This is the statement made by both the assistant and the Superintendent himself, with whom I conversed at dif ferent times. This forty-four weeks' service, necessarily and imperatively required of the Superintendent, is inde pendent of all the service rendered by the assistant. Then again, the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LuCE,) inquired whether the Superintendent receives his travel ling expenses. The law at present provides, I think, that one hundred dollars shall be appropriated for the expenses of each institute, the whole number of institutes hold during the year not exceeding eighteen. The Superintendent states that during the last year he has made arrangements for only seven institutes, because he did not feel that he could spare any more time from the otherlabors press; ing upon him, and that with the amount allowed he could not secure lecturers to fill the appointments for any more than seven institutes. Thus, according to the present arrangement, there are but seven institutes only, instead of eighteen. He states that if he could possibly, consistently with his other duties, hold any more institutes, he would do so; but he dare not make any more appointments at present. So much for that point. The gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. ROOT,) has remarked that we have had very good men in this position heretofore. I admit it. W e have a very good man now; but how long can we retain him? How long will he lye willing to work for the State, when he can get a larger salary as a teacher in some city or village,: where he will enjoy the -advantage of being located at home with his family, and relieved from the perplexities and responsibilities that now press upon him? I agree with -the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) that we want for this position a man of first-class talent, native and acquired; and I apprehend we are not going to get it at fifteen hundred dollars a year. I have no doubt that for this salary we can get some one to fill thb:e office; but he will be a fifteenhundred-dollar man. For any such salary we cannot retain in our service talent of the first order. How was it with our last Superintendent? As has been stated, he was obliged to, retire from the office because the pays was inadequate; he could do better; elsewhere. Thus it will:continue to be until we pay a more liberal salary., Now, I think no man on this floor can tail to see that a gentleman properly qualified can readily obtain in some, other position a larger salary than even two thousand dollars; and there are very few men so disinterested as to be willing to give their time and talents at a pecuniary sacrifice, for the benefit of their State. Such men are very scarce; I have not seen any for a long time. When I do meet a man of that kind, I am going to try to make ar'rangements to take him to Barnum's Museum. [Laughter.] Perhaps there may be some such man in this Con vention. If so, I should like to know it.:! Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, at thic late hour, I will not detain the comr tittee with more than a single remarkv I wish to state one reason why the salary of this officer, as proposed in the article, should not be altered. Under our present school law, since we have provided for the election of county superintendents, the duties of the State Superintendent have been largely in. creased; and in all probability they will continue to increase for some time to come. If the salary of'any of our State officers is to be reduced below the amount reported, I would rather that it should be the salary of almost any other officer than the Superintendent of Public Instruction. It seems to me that it would be very poor economy-on the part of the State to reduce the salary of this officer. The amendment of Mr. ROOT was not agreed to. Mr. FERRIS. I move that the comnmittee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to; there being ayes 32, noes 20. So the committee rose; and the PRESIDENT having resumed the chair,. Mr. STOUGIHTON reported that the committee of the whole, having ,had under consideration the article entitled " Salaries," had directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again. The question being, "Shall the commnittee haveleave to sit again?" Leave was granted. Mr. ESTEE. I move -that the Convention now adjourn. The motion'was agreed to; and the Convention, (at fifteen minutes before six o'clock p. m.,) adjourned. SIXTY-FIRST DAY. WEDNESDAY, August 7, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.. -- Prayer by Rev. Mr. McINTInE. The roll was -called, and a quorum answered to their names. ..... LEAVE OF- ABSENCE. :Mr. HOLMES asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. -HENDRSON, during to-day, on account of sickness. M r. HOWARD asked and obtained -leave of absence for himself, for this afternoon. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. GIDDINGS. -I move that the :article entitled "-Legislative Department" be taken- from the table. My reason for making the motion is that I desire to submit -some remarks on the question now pending in connection with the article. The motion of Mr. GIDDINGS was agreed to, and the Convention resumed the consideration of the article entitled Legislative Department." TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING LIQUORS. The PRESIDENT. -The pending question is upon the adoption of the substitute of the.. gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LoTHROP,) for the amendment reported from the committee of i i I i I i c.-ONSTITUTION.AT4 CONVENTION. Wedne'sday',.1 630 DIBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. the "whole to section thirtiy-one of" thisit ,article. The amendment of the comittee of the whole is, as it has:been' amended, to add to section thirty-onethese words: ", Nor pass any act authori7zing the grant of- license:for tt' sale of ardent spirits or intoicating: liquors." The substitute proposed by the gentieman fiom —'Wayne, -as iamended" on: motion of the gentleman' from Kent,;' (Mr. WITHEY,) is as follows: At the election when this Constitution shall be submitted -to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection, there shall also be sep arately submitted to such electors the two following provisions: -. V No. 1. The Legislature shall not pass any act au thorizing the grant of.; license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors.: - No., 2. The Legislature shall provide for the regu-i lation and restriction of -the sale of intoxica ting drinks,, and shall. impose a tax upon the traffic therein.- The sale of such -'drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers : and common drunkards,-shall be wholly pro hibited, and all necessary laws shall be passed to enforce such prohibition. The annual tax in any case upon the traffic, shall nQt be less. than one hundred dollars.. A separate ballot upon the above provis:: ions may be given by any elector, which -shall be deposited in a ballot-box provided for that purpose. On the ballots in favor of the adop tion of the above provision No. 1, shall be the words, "Prohibition-Yes;" and: upon the ballots in favor of the above provisionzNo. 2, shall be the words, -"Restriction-Yeg;" and upon the head or outside of all said bal lots, shall be the words, "Prohibition or Re striction," placed in such manner that the same shall be visible when the ballot,: is folded. If, upon the canvass of such ballots cast at said election, a majority thereof shall be found to contain the words, " Prohibition -Yes," then said provision No. 1, shall be come and stand as section, of Article , of this Constitution, if it shall he adopt ed; but if a majority- of such ballots shall contain the words, Restriction-Yes,", then the above: provision No. 2 shall become and stand as section -, of Article, of this Constitution, if the same be adopted.:.: MIr. GIDDINGS. lir. President, I, have always been in favor' of, every enactment looking towards the pre vention and suppression of the traffic in ardent spirits as a beverage;..'id when I say this, I presume that I -can -say the same thing for the members of this Convention generally. - -This, I doubt not, has been- their feeling. I have stood by the prohibitory clause which we have had in our Constitu tio-n. It has not been such a prohib — ition as many of the people of the State have thought, and still think, proper and necessary prohibition of the sale of liquor. This it never was intended to be. — It was designed simply to restrain the Legislature from granting license, thereby leaving that body at liberty, if it saw proper, to permit -the nmuestricted' sale of liquor. I' start, then, with the assump tion that the general sentiment' of the State is in favor of providing by proper means and at proper times for the- suppression of- the unspeakable evils of intemperance. -I can -readily' see how we arrive atdifferent- conclusions' on this subject. To gentlemen who come from- the rural districts; the smaller aid non-commer — cial -towns, it -appears -quite -evident that the prohibitive clause has been useful, though I think- those gentlemen sometimes confound the prohibitory 'law of our -Legislature with the prohibitive- clause of; our Constitution. fOnthe other- hand,- no one, I -think, will venture to- say that in our towns, the commercial towns and cities, the prohibitive clause of the -.Constitution or -even the- prohibitory law, has been a -success. -.In my- own town-it is - not a very. large one-we worked most indefatigably to secure the results sought by -the prohibitory law....We -had a fine constabulary force; we had a com plainant who -dared to stand up and complain every time an occasion was given-; and we had -aI most indefatiga ble prosecuting attorney. Yet with all our efforts, we failed to make the pro'hibitory law a- success; and I stand here to-day to say'that that law is not worth to us the ninth part of a cipher at,,the left hand of the smallest frac tion. -This -is the fact-as to my town. -It has been so for years., I do not say that at some: future time we may not make the law useful, but we have not done so thus far. - - This is one cause of the difference of feeling on this subject among the peo ple in the county in which I reside. The portion of the people residing out side of the two or three larger towns firmly believe that. they can enforce the prohibitory law, and that if- we in the larger towns would go properly to work,- we could: enforce it. We have been- sustained by the moral sentiment of the county. We have had committees, composed of the very best men in the town, men of high standing, who-have fought nobly in the temperance cause during a long- lifetime. These':men have labored long and well, trn they have become weary and worn. They lhave asked for'others to step forward and take their places; and none others have appeared. They have expended -unstintedly their time, theirs talents, their resources, to make-the law a-suc cess. But when- they have asked oth ers to come to the rescue and take the places they have occupied- so long, no man has come forward. Others say, -as they —necessarily must sayer "-If you. have not been able to make the law a success, how can we?" --' - Thus far the prohibition clause'and the prohibition law have not been a success. Still we have hoped on. In other portions of the State, in'almost all the rural districts of our commonwealth, the -people insist that. the law might'be enforced. But I say-, practically, it is;- not enforced. In this'way arise the different -views of members on this floor.;.- We occupy different:standpoints. When, in conversing- uponthis subject,' I tsay,: " I- do.not believe that such -a provision ought to have been -inscribed in the Constitution at all, but that the subject ought to have been left to the Legislature; for all- the benefit that we get now is through the legisla-tive - enactment,- and not:'through. the Constitution," gentlemen say to me, "But we have taken that step; the provisionis already in lthe. Constitution; and if we- now take it out,- and'.leave the question to- lthe unrestricted power of the Legislature, it would look like a retrograde movement on the subject of temperance; and we dare not -do it." Feeling that there is considerable force in that'view, I do not care to stand up andresistit, though if - this were an orig inal question, I:- should say, Do': not put any provision into your Constitu tion on the subject,'but make all nec essiry provisions by legislative enact ment." - --- Considering the feelings entertained on this question by those. with whom I have acted almost for a lifetime, I do not feel willing to separate from them. I desire that we shall adopt the best method possible for preventing the use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage. But, sir, weare:in doubt as to what is the best method of —accomplishing this result. Our committee are equally di vided on this question-four on one side insisting that we had better retain the prohibitory -clause as it has. stood before-four on the other side contend ing that we had-.better submit this question- to, the people. Thus it ap pears that, in the minds of those who have'most carefully examined this ques tion, there is. a doubt as to the best:-course to be pursued upon the question. In addition to this, about twenty thousand electors have sent up petitions asking provision. for license, while there are, I presume, an equal number- of- electors petitioning for the insertion of a prohibitive clause in-the Constitution. It: is, I -doubt uot, fair to say that there are twenty thousand petitioners on each side of this question — making about one-fourth.-.of the. electors ~ of this State - -differing squfarely- in their views as to how we -can: best prevent the sale and use of- intoxicating drinks as a beverage. One gentleman in my town, who has- been the complainant in most of the prosecutions which have occurred there under' the prohibitory law, said to me a few days ago,- "'- Rad ical as I am in the temperance cause, I 631 A-4gust 7, 1867. It ~3: c C W believe to-day that, if we-want to prevent the sale and use of int6xicating liquors, we can be more successful, four to one, under a proper license law than we can under a prohibitive clause in the Constitution." I mention this to show the state of feeling among strong temperance men. I talked with some of the Good Templars on this subject, and they said, "We see how we are divided on this question; and while we cannot go for license, we are willing to take this question before the people." A clergyman, eminent as a radical temperance man, said to me yesterday, "This question ought, in my judgment, to be placed before the people. If we cannot carry prohibition before the people, and by such a majority as to give it moral power, we shall never enforce it. We ought to be willing to go before the people and try the question." I believe there is much force in that remark. I believe that if the question of prohibition were carried before the people, we should have on our side a tremendous moral power, and if the majority were large, that power would be proportionally increased. If pro hibition should be defeated, it would show that the people are not prepared for the measure. Why should we refuse to submit this question to the people? I believe in the doctrine that the people should rule. When there arises a question of this magnitude, upon which so large a number of electors have sent here their petitions-a question which is not a political question-one which, perhaps, we were not sent here particularly to decide, and which presents a grave and momentous issue, upon which there is a great division of sentiment-we should trust the people; and when the people vote, We go with them to the ballot-box, and we vote as we believe right. I am ready to submit this ques tion to the people. I want the question finally settled —settled with the moral force and effect of a popular vote. I shall vote here for the prohibitive clause, but I shall vote also to submit the question to the people. If there are any men here who are willing to take tie responsibility of refusing the people an opportunity to vote on this question, let them do it. That respon sibility shall not be on my shoulders. I am willing to submit separately, not only this, but other questions. I would have been willing to submit sep arately the suffrage question, i it had not already been settled as a political question by sending these delegates here. I should like to submit the question relative to annual or biennial sessions of the Legislature. Importl ant provisions on which there is seri ous difference of opinion, and which should stand or fall on their merits, I should be glad to see submitted separately, that they may not be carried along by other provisions, or defeated by others. If any of these propositions, standing alone, be not adopted, it will imply that the public mind is not prepared to adopt them. I do-not believe that this Convention or the Legislature should go much faster than the people. They are generally a little ahead of their representatives. They have probably determined this question in their own minds. If they have not, they can do so by the examination and discussion already had on the question, and yet to take place. For one, in voting on this question, I shall feel that I am neither voting for prohibition nor for license, but simply to submit the whole question to the people. Let them determine it. We are here, as we suppose, representing the people; but when there appears such a division of opinion as is manifest on this question, there is a fitness which I cannot deny in submitting the question to the people, and letting them declare what they desire. If I should refuse to allow them a vote-on this subject, I could not hold up my head among the people of my own county. I cannot and I will not deny to the people an opportunity to determine this question for themselves. MIr. TYLER. Mr. President, I desire to say a few words on this subject. I have foreseen from the commencement of this Convention that this question was calculated to cause more discussion and more feeling among the people of this State, including all classes and all ages, men, women and children, than any other one subject or all the other subjects that will be agitated among the people. This has proved to be the fact. In entertaining this expectation, I made no pretensions'to the spirit of prophecy; but I knew that the subject had been agitated by the people for forty years, and I knew that the agitation had been on the increase. I knew also that the people, not only in this State, but in all the free States, have tried in different ways to arrest the progress of intemperance, which has so largely pervaded the whole land. I know that this has been the constant effort of good men during my lifetime, now more than fifty years; and this effort thus far has not been successful. It is said by some that more liquor is drank to-day, than was ever drank before. I am satisfied that this is the case; but I am not prepared to agree that there'is more liquor drinking than there was forty years ago, in propor tion to the number of people. I know, Mr. President, that forty years ago, there was not one person in twenty who abstained from the use of intoxicating liquors. At that time almost every one drank ardent spirits. Men drank; women drank; children drank; ministers drank; church- members drank, and furnished it to their guests. There was not one individual in twenty throughout the community who would not himself drink and offer the intoxicating cup to others as a part of the duty of hospitality. The man who would not "treat'" and be "treated" in return, was considered a mean, insignificant, narrow-minded fellow. But Mr. President, the day when a man had the finger of scorn pointed at him for not "treating" and being "treated," has gone by. A man is not now looked upon with contempt because he does not drink whisky. At this time, instead of there being not one in twenty who does not drink intoxicating liquors, half the people abstain from them. Hence I think the cause of temperance is progressing. ---- There are a greati —many more people in our country than there were forty years ago, and this is the reason why nmore liquor is drank. I take it to be a fact that there are few men who drink liquor simply because there is a prohibitory law forbidding the use of liquor. I think the cause of temperance is progressing in every community, not only in this State, but in other States, as appears by the statistics and reports that we have received. How is it about the State of Massachusetts, of which so much has been said since the meeting of this Convention? It has been urged that the policy of prohibition has not been successful in that State. I look at the statistics, and I find that from the first day of January to the first day of July of this year, the fines collected in Massachusetts for violations of the liquor law amount to more than one hundred and five thousand dollars, the cost of collecting these fines being forty-six thousand dollars, making the net proceeds received into the treasury from fines for the violation of the law, more than fifty-eight thousand dollars. I notice by the report that eighteen hundred dollars were collected in the city of Boston in one day as fines for the violation of the prohibitory law. Now, it strikes me that people will soon get tired of paying fines in this way. The people ate tired of paying taxes to support the honest and judi cious administration of the Govern ment; and this being the case, I am very sure that the liquor-sellers will get tired of paying fines out of the net proceeds they obtain from the liquor which they sell to the unfortunate class that buys of them. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 632 Wedne,sday, August 7, 1867. DE It is said that this law cannot be enforced. -Now, sir, if we have not power sufficient to enforce the law, with our sheriffs, our deputy sheriffs, our constables, our prosecuting attorneys and our magistrates-if our present force is not sufficient to arrest the progress of crime, then let us have a police force, whose special business it shall be to attend to the execution of this law. I think we can organize a police force that can arrest the traffic in intoxicating liquors. Some gentlemen propose to return to the system of license-a system which formerly prevailed in the State. Has that system ever proved effectual I think not. I think it has never arrested the progress of intemperance. Under that system men practically drank without restraint; and this will be the effect, if we now establish such a system. With a " well regulated license system," as the phrase is, I do not see anything to prevent the in crease of intemperance. But it is said that we can impose sufficient restriction by way of a tax or something of the kind, so that the smaller class of dealers-those who carry on their traffic in the low grog geries cannot afford to take outa license. Now, sir, if this class o dealers, under a prohibitory law, can evade that law-can carry on thei traffic in such a way as to escape legs penalties-can they not do the sam under a license system? I think the can violate the law just as well unde one system as the other.. Mr. President, I do not intend t enter into any prolonged discussion i reply to the elaborate arguments whic have been presented on this questio by gentlemen of great ability in thi Convention. I endeavor to look at th simple, plain facts of the matter, E they present themselves; I try to ob serve the case in its true light. And sir, I hold that we should retain in ou Constitution the present prohibitor clause. I hold that the enforcement O this prohibition should be~ provide for by an adequate police system. believe it is our duty to put down th nefarious and destructive traffic in i] toxicating liquors. Sir, if the women of the Stateo Michigan had the right to vote, and this question were submitted to th people, I am confident that they woul with very few exceptions, go to the bal lot box and record their votes in fav of prohibition. I believe that no w man has yet petitioned this Conventio in favor of a license system. The E titions of the women of Michigan ha uniformly been in favor of prohibitin the sale of intoxicating liquors. T women of the State are X pcls Wth Vol. 2 —No. 8.0. .633 EATES AND PROCEE4DINGS. innocently, suffer largely the evil con- tlemen can hardly be expected to ex sequences of intemperance, and they press their sentiments satisfactorily, if have deep convictions on this subject, limitede to ten minute speeches, I move which, were the opportunity afforded that the rule prohibiting members from them, would be emphatically expressed speaking more than ten minutes, be . at the ballot-box in favor of denying suspended for this day with regardl,to any legal authority to the traffic in the pending subject. .liquor. The motion of Mr. MCCLELLA-ND WaS Now, Mr. President, I hope that the agreed to. prohibitory clause will be embodied in Mr. TYLER. I had not intended the Constitution and submitted to the when I arose to speak more than ten people along with the rest of the in- minutes; but this is a question in strument. Some gentlemen say that which I feel great interest and anxiety. this will endanger the adoption of the I am in favor of continuing tile pro Constitution; that with this provision hibitory clause in our Constitution, be the Constitution will probably not ob- cause I believe that the prohibitory ? tain the endorsement of the people. I policy is best for the interests of the do not concur in that opinion. But, if whole people of the State of Michigan. the Constitution we are framing should I cannot believe that the welfare of this ,be rejected on account of the insertion State will be advanced by returning to I in it of this pr6hibitory clause, what the system of license, which we have is the result-? The present Constitution once tried in this State, and aban remains in' force, and that contains a doned. I have seen the evil workings prohibit ry clause. So that, in this re- of that system. Does not every con spect,-I do not see that people who are sideration appeal to us to arrest, so far opposed to the prohibitory clause could as we can, the indulgence in intoxi a be much benefited by voting down the eating drinks? Is not ourr State Constitution which we may submit. Prison at Jackson largely populated e But, sir, I see no reason why the through the influence, airect or indi o people should not endorse the instru- rect, of intoxicating liquors? Look at m- ment which we may frame, if we in- our Reform School, where twohundred a corporate in it the prohibitory provis- and sixty-six boys are under discipline. f ion. I, for one, am willing to take the But for the habits of intemperance n responsibility of placing this provision prevailing in the community, would r in the body of the instrument. I de- not this number be far less? In my sire that we shall declare in the Con- view, all classes of crimes are largely e stitution that the liquor traffic shall augmented by the unfortunate habit of ~y not be legalized by a system of license intoxication which so largely prevails. r or taxation, but that it shall be pro- Mr. President, I am aware that hibited; and under such a provision I while large numbers of petitions have o believe it would be the duty of the been presented in favor of prohibition, Ln egislature to enact such laws as may there have also been many petitions h make the liquor prohibition effectual. presented in favor of auithorizing in It is not for me to stand here and the Constitution "a well regulated s point out the various crimes that are license system." Petitions of this chare perpetrated from day to day in conse- acter came herefrom the borders of our s quence of intemperance. Yet I will State,uponourlakes and rivers, before b say that I'scarcely ever take up a daily any such petition was presented from 1, paper without seeing in it an account the inland regions. At last, there came ~r of some sad crime committed as the from my county, a petition with nearly ry result of the indulgence in ardent two hundred names. It was presented of spirits. We thus are constantly re- by my colleague, (Mr. SToUGaToN.) md ninded that throughout our State Among the names attached to that peI liquor is sold in violation of the laws tition, were those-of some of the most tis which have been placed upon the respectable men of our county; and n-statute book to protect the people from they asked this Convention to provide the perpetration of the offenses and for a "well regulated system of liof crimes which flow from the use of cense." But, sir, I have satisfactory ff liquor. Men violate our prohibitory information that many of those men he-law stealthily; they get behind tile who signed that petition did it to gratify [d, curtain, and there deal out intoxicating their friends, and have so announced al- srinks. publicly. Now, sir, a man who will 'or The PRESIDENT. The ten min- sign sucha petitionto gratify hisfriends ro- utes of the gentleman from St. Joseph, takes, it seems to me, an unforttmate on (Mr. TYLER,) have expired. step. I have no doubt that many of ?e- tMr. PRATT. I move that the gen- those persons signing that paper, did we tleman have leave to proceed. so without knowing what they were .rig Mr. McCLELLIAND. As we are signing. Men frequently sign papers 'he now engaged in the discussion of a to get rid of the importunities of those hoe very i~nresting topic, upon which gen- who urge them to sign. But as I have I. 10 10 631 OOTITUTiOAL COVETIO9 Wedneday, 6i before remarked, note one woman, so far as I know, has petitioned in favor of a license systen. If you go into those places whence come the petitions most numerously signed in favor of a license system, I do not believe that you will find one woman, even among the most degraded of her sex, who will sign a petition in favor.of granting license for the sale of intoxicating drinks. Mr. President, I think the sentiment of the women of our commonwealth on this subject, is a fair index of the enlightened moral feeling of the community generally; and I feel confident that by inserting in the body of our Constitution a prohibitory clause, which may assist in arresting the progress of intemperance, we shall gain, the approbation of good men throughout the State, while we shall not en-: danger the adoption of the instrument which we are about to submit to the verdict of the people. Mr. COOLIDGE. Mir. President, I have thus far had nothing to say upon the question now before the:Convention; audI do not propose at this time to make any extended remarks. I think, Mr. President, that I can congratulate the Convention on having a very easy task in arriving at a pr'oper conclusion upon this matter., The sub ject of the prohibition of license has been before the people of the State for the last fifteen or sixteen years.- -It has been discussed everywhere-in our popular assemblies, in our newspapers, in the social intercourse of our citizens -till we are perfectly:familiar with the arguments for, and against this pol icy. But, sir, lest we might remain-in comparative ignorance uipon this ques tion, we have been favored, during the period that this Convention has been in session here, with four lectures or addresses in this hall from eminent men, imported from abroad to aid Us in our investigations and enable us ito come to a correct conclusion. - We have had "line upon line, precept up on precept, here a little and there a little." I think that in this respect we have been very fortunate. But, Mr. President, it seems to me that we have not all of us very clear ideas as to what this proposition is. It is quite usual to hear gentlemen speak as though the question before us were as to the continuance of a law now in force in this State, a law now in effectual operation. — ow,- in my estimation, all that is proposed by gentlemen who claim to be the friends par excellence of prohibition, is to in sert in the present Constitution, a simple restriction upon the Legisla ture of this State, declaring that that body shall not grant license. There is the beginning, and there is the end of it.- This proviion requires the Legislature to pass no law, to adopt no legislation in reference to-the traffic in intoxicating drinks, in order to suppress that:traffic. It does not require any action at the hands of the Legislature. It simply requests the Legislature to be silent on this subject, to do nothing at all. Looking at the proposition in. thislight,as a proposition without force, without effect, without life, it seeims to me, that quite:too much is made of it. But sitr, we are gravely told that this simple clause requiring the Legislature not to authorize license for the sale of intoxicating drinks, is not only the most-important matter before this Convention, but that it is more important than all other questions submitted to us here.!ow, sir, I presume that the sentiments whicli have been uttered by those lecturers who have come to enlighten us, represent the sentiments of a certain class of men in this- community; and I understand from:the remarks of the genitleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD,) that this very position was concurred in by him. It thus appears to be the fact that there are. gentlemen on this floor who 'hoid that it would -be better for this Convention to pass simply this naked proposition, submitting it, and it alone, to the people, than it would be to pass, with-out - this proposition, all other pro vyisions, however necessary for the ad ministration of our State government. To - me, sir, this sentiment appears monstrous. I cannot conceive howit is possible for any man in his sober senses to come to any such conclusion. If it had not been repeated here pub licly and privately, I never would have -charged such a sentiment upon any man in this State., Why, sir, we have only to look around us to discover how far such a senti.ment is un-yarranted by the facts. This : $Sate was:prosperous when there was (no prohibitory:; clause in the Constitu tion. Other States have been prosper, 0ous with no such clause in their cons stitutions. -... I:think it would be-very difficult for any man on this-floor to :demonstrate the necessity;for such a provision, by showing the superior prosperity of States adopting such a -:provision, as compared with other States repudicatimg this policy. -- Now0, sir, if matters should come-to a point (as I trust they never will) when the advocates of temperance shall place themselves upon that posi tion, and say to us that unless we Walk up to the line which they fix,- they will part company with us;-if that time shall ever arrive, I say here, soberly, speaking in-measured-terms, I shall then. part company with them. I shall do so with grief. and sadness. It is not a pleasurable, sensation for me to disagree on important matters with those with whom I have acted harmoniously for thirty years of my life. :B3ut, sir, if I am to be told by gentlemen on the floor of this Convention that the time has come when, if I do not consider this simple naked prohibitory clause superior and paramount to all the pillars of - our State government, I must take a place outside their ranks, then sir, acting on my best judgment and reflection, and with a due regard to the principles of a higher authority, the oracles of God, I must part company with them. But, sir, I have not the least idea that there are many men in this State who will ever take such a position. Nor does it appear to me creditable to this Convention that men should be imported here from abroad to say to us upon this floor, that unless we adopt this naked simple prohibitory clause, there will be a new party formed in the State, and the party —to which I belong must prepare to go to ruin. Mr. Pres ident, I am always glad to hear an argument, whether I think the argument is correct or not. I have gladly listened to all that has been said here, and have availed myself Qf -all opportunities of .enlightenment on questions of this kind, in reference to which I feel that I am here to represent, not my own views, but those of the people, so far as I can ascertain them. Still, sir, no man shall hold a gad over my head, to compel me to work in the traces. Now, sir, after these preliminary re marks, I will proceed to consider, so far as I may be able to do so in the brief time to which I propose to limit my self, the argument on this question. The simple issue here is, whether this clause prohibiting the Legislature from I-authorizing the grant of license, shall ~ be embodied in the Constitution, or whether it shall be submitted sepa rately to the people for adoption or * rejection. lqow, sir, what can be said against:submitting this proposition a — separately to the people? It is not for us to ordain a Constitution. We have no such power. It is our simple duty to embody in the instrument such prin ciples and provisions as we think best, and then submit the work of our hands to the electors of this State; and it is for them to say whether they will adopt it or reject it.'We have no power to dictate any -propesition to any one of those electors.. What is there unfair L or unreasonable in submitting this sim ple isolated proposition to the people, entirely separate from all other consid erations, unembarrassed by any other provisions in the Constitution.?: I ask the Convention to idulge me i1 .. CONS-TITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Wednesday, 631, DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. while I read, as bearing on this point, a portion of the remarks on this subject, contained in a book which this Convention has seen fit to endorse to no small extent.! allude to Jameson's work on the Constitutional Convention. I read from section 515: "A Constitution may be wholly new, or it may be an old one revised by altering or adding to it material provisions. It may also in a hundred separate -subdivisions contain but a fourth of that number'of distinct topics; or each subdivision may be substantive and in" dependent. It is obvious that the submit.ting body, weighing accurately the public sense, may determine whether the whole Constitution must stand or fall as a unit, or whether some parts, being adopted and going into effect without the rest, the new system would be adequate to the exigencies of the State, and may submit it as a whole or in parts accordingly. Butt i s pertfecly clear t/at every distinct proposition not vital to the scheme as a whole, or to some other material part, ought to be separately submittel." That is this case; sir. All the other parts of the Constitution are as perfect without this prohibitory clause as with it. In leaving out this clause, we do not embarrass the operation of any other provision in the Constitution. It is entirely separate, entirely distinct; and it need not necessarily be a part of the Constitution in order to make its machinery more perfect. Now, upon this authority authority based, as I contend, upon the soundest judgment this proposition with reference to prohibition should be separately submitted to the people. Again, sir, the argument in favor of separate submission becomes more forcible in proportion as there are diversities of opinion on the question in this Convention or among the elect ors of the State. What'is the senti ment of this body on this question? Are we a unit? Is there anything like unanimity on this subject? Are we not about equally divided? Yet, very likely, in my opinion, we repre sent in this respect: the sentiment of the State. From whatias been averred here by several gentlemen, whose opportunities of observation have been sufficient to enable them to state cor rectly the facts, do we not know that the people, without respect to party, are greatly divided throughout the State upon this question? If this be so, then the argument is almost over whelming that it is the imperative duty of this Conventinn to submit this clause separately to the people. I avow here, sir, that I am not act ing for myself. I am bound here in my place to consult the public wishes. I am bound to ascertain, so far as I can, the opinions of the electors of the State upon this point; and I have no busi ness at all to force upon them a propo sition which they do not approve. I cannot do that. But sir, I will:hazard the opinion, that from the evidence which this Convention has -before-it, a large majority of the electors:of- this State-are opposed to this prohibitory clauses -ait is -proposed to be inserted in -the Constitution. I take it:: fot granted, sir, that taking -the- immense number of petitions which have been sent up here on:this subject, the:elec-; tors in this State who are opposed to this provision are at- least equal in number to those who favor it. Yet look over our journal,;- and.you will find that there are comparatively but few places from which have been received petitions adverse' to the retention of the prohibitory clause. My idea is, that those in favor: of this proposition have. had facilities — which those on the-other-side have not,had. The former have, as we all know, organizations throughout the State;:and it was very much easier for them —:tget up petitions and send them here than it was for their opponents. - Taking into consideration the number of petitions' received, the number: of places from which they have comne, and the names of the electors attached- to them, it seems to me quite clear that- a large majority of the -electors of- this State are opposed to this proposition. I may be mistaken in' this conviction; yet I state it from data which I-, have before me, but with which I do not propose to trouble the Convention, as other members have access to the same sources of information. But, sir, if twenty thousand: eletors have- sent up their petitions in fa vor of inserting the prohibitory clause in the Constitution, and twenty thou sand other electors have sent-:up peti tions in favor of omitting that clause from the Constitution, I ask gentlemen to tell me upon what principle there should not be -a separate submission of the question? To me it seems the clearest matter of duty in the "world that we should submit this question separately. What are the objections urged against separate submission? Gentle men have said-I will not use the lan guage which they have used, because I think it rather unbecoming this body -but they have said substantially that we are timid, that we are cowardly, that we dare not march up like men to the line. Who is the man that is tim id? Who is the man that is cowardly? Is it he who comes out with a: clear, distinct, isolated proposition, making a plain and palpable issue, and says here that he will submit this proposition to the very men whose province it-is to adopt or reject it? Who is the man that is timid or cowardly? Is it he who is willing to risk the issue by it self, upon its own merits, distinctlyand clearly submitted; or is it-he who wiU place a proposition in an instrument along with a mass of other provisions, so that those other provisions may help that-proposition along-so that many a man voting on the question, will be obliged -to say," I-do not want the whole instruiiment to fail, and, although, I do not like:that provision, and would vote against it taken by -itself, yet to save the Constitution, Iwill vote for the instrument as a whole?. Such a proceeding, -it seems to me, is unfair to every eletor-r in the State. By the theory bf our government-by the very theory of this Covention-every man ought to have an opportunity, so far as convenience will allow, to vote upon every distinct and important proposition that concerns the welfare of the community. Sir, I hurl back the charge of timidity and cowardice. I may do so, and ought to -do so. I am ready, willingly and gladly, to go with this proposition before the people, and submit it to them as: an isolated and distinct issue, saying to them, the sovereigns of this State, "Are you in favor of this, or are you not?" What sensible man on this floor can impute any blame to me for takingthis position? :But,:Sir-, gentlemen who take the po sition which I do upon this floor, are charged- and I think most uncourte-ously and uncharitably charged-with being among those who favor the in discriminate traffic in'ardent spirits. That accusation is not true. Gentle men-here never should have made it; it is uncourteoulls, it is unfounded. Nothing is to be gained by such impu tations. In speaking upon this point, I will not allow my feelings'to be ruffled; but I will say that I would treat no man in that way; or if I should be be trayed into making such unfounded charges, I would promptly make my apology as broadly and publicly as I had made the charge. I am not, nor are the men of this Convention with whom I am acting, any more in favor of the indiscriminate sale of intoxicating drinks than any other gentlemen on this floor. I disavow any such sen timent; and the records of our lives will:support the disclaimer. Nor -need men.deliver to me long lec:tures upon the evils of intoxication. Ihave seen them from childhood; and znothing'that can be said here in elo quent addresses, can portray them more fearfully than they have been pre sented to me in my daily walks —in almost every hour of my professional life. Why are those charges made upon -us? Why is it said in this hall in a :public leeture, that men taking the position we occupy, (and eminent gen tiemen now on this floor are included in the charge,) are to be ranked with I Au ust 7 1867. 635 t 636 ~ OO-TTOA OOV-I~ X M e~ay those who are opposed to the restriction of the sale of intoxicating drinks? The very proposition here presented, and the submission of which, along with the prohibitory clause, we advocate, is a proposition for restriction. That proposition is a living provision, designed to compel the Legislature to do something tangible and efficient. How is it with regard to the prohibitory clause? Under such a clause, all that the Legislaturd has to do, to. perform its whole constitutional duty, is to remain perfectly silent upon the subject of the traffic in intoxicating drinks. That is all that the friends of the prohibitory clause require in their proposition. The Legislature may sit silent and do nothing, allowing the flood-gates of intoxication to remain open. But we come here with a proposition which will require the Legislature to move in this matter. We propose to. require the Legislature to impose absolute restrictions in four different cases; and as to other matters we propose to direct the Legislature either to regulate or restrict, ,as in its sovereign power it shall see fit, or as the people by petition may aslk. Is there anything wrong in that? Yet gentlemen say that the system we propose is a system of "license." I do not know exactly what they mean by "license." They say that this system will sanction the indiscriminate sale of intoxicating liquors. Such is not the fact. This proposition requires the Legislature to prohibit the sale in certain specified cases; and, as to other cases, to regulate or restrict, as in its wisdom may seem best. I am amazed that gentlemen should say that we are in favor of a license system, that we desire the Legislature to authorize and sanction the traffic in ardent spirits, when by the very proposition of those who claim to be the especial friends of prohibition, the Legislature itself must of necessity permit the traffic, as a gentleman from New York conceded in his lecture on this floor last:night. Take any of the laws with regard to the sale of liquor, which have been passed during the existence of our present Constitution, and do we not find in them a permis sion that certain men may sell? Do we not find a permission that there may be appointed in townships and cities men whose privilege it shall be to sell? Now, sir, is not such pernmis sion as directly a "license," (using "license" in the ordinary sense of the term;) as any law can be? It- being, then, the fact that under the prohibi tory clause in our Constitution, men are permitted to sell, and will be per mitted to sell, why do gentleman turn upon us and say, "According to your proposition, the Legislature may sanction the sale"? Now, sir, allow me to say, (and here lies the difficulty of this whole matter,) that no man in his sober senses can pretend that it is of necessity wrong in principle to sell intoxicating liquors. No man will deny that the sale is right for mechanical purposes, for medicinal purposes, and a variety of other purposes. Everybody knows that; and hence I say that it cannot be pretended that the sale is per se, wrong. We can only say that there is a node of selling which is most cruel and wicked. This being the case, why not leave the matter to the Legislature, and let that body impose such penalties as it may see fit upon the improper and the wicked selling of intoxicating drinks? In my estimation this should be done. . In the lecture given in this hall last evening, arsenic, plrussic acid and opium were mentioned as furnishing fair analogies.in connections with this question. I admit that position to be correct. It is not necessarily wrong to sell arsenic; it is not necessarily wrong to sell intoxicating liquors. There is a selling of arsenic which is wrong and wicked; there is' a selling of intoxicating liquors which is wrong and wicked. Would it not be very strange for a gentleman to rise on this floor and make a proposition that the Legislature should be prohib ited from granting license for the sale of arsenic, for the sale of prussic acid, for the sale of opium? Would such a proposition find favor on this floor? And yet, this champion of the prohib itory clause from another State, and from the great city of the nation, put these commodities in the same catego ry, and I think he was right. The question has been raised on this floor, and discussed pro and con, whether the prohibitory clause in our present Constitution has been a failure. Every man will judge for himself wheth er it has been a failure or not. It has been in force for a long period of years, and the Legislature has undertaken.from time to time to pass proper laws in pursuance of that provision. I am not disposed at'this time to admit or deny the efficacy of the system which we have heretofore had; but I will say that the champions of that clause on this floor have admitted that up to the pres ent time, it has been a failure. The gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. How ARD,) virtually admits this, and he gives us the reason why it has been a failure. .Mr,. HOWARD. I most emphati cally deny that. I admitted' no such thing. The PRESIDENT. Does the gen tleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) yield to the gentleman from Genesee, (.Ir. HOWARD)? Mr. COOLIDGE. No, sir; I will not yield. There is a gentleman at the desk who takes down what is said by every member; and if I have wrongly stated the purport of the gentleman's remarks, the official report will convict me of error. I repeat that the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD,) in his lengthy speech, has virtually admitted that the prohibitory clause has been a failure. He has given us the reason why-it has been a failure-because there have been so many among the professed friends of temperance always crying out that it was a failure..He says that if you will stand up for this clause, and support it heartily, instead of denouncing it as a failure, it will prove its efficiency. Now, sir, I do not advocate that men should stand up here and say what they do not believe; I do not advocate that they should proclaim the prohibit.ory clause a success, when in their hearts they believe it to be a failure. I will, however, ask this question: if, with fifteen years' experience and observation, men have in their sober judgment pronounced this measure a failure, how many years will it be before they shall be convinced by the facts that it is a success? But, sir, another member of this Convention, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) of more logical mind-a man of more years and more observation-a man who has served as judge upon the bench-has arisen here and stated frankly that the system of prohibition has been a failure. And how does he get out of the dilemma? He says, you must have an efficient constabulary force throughout tlie State; you must put an informer at every man's door, to see what every man, woman and child drinks from day to day. This is the only measure which that gentle man advocated as calculated to make prohibition effective. This was the only measure which, so far as he inti mated, could make that system effi cient. Yet he is a gentleman of ac knowledged ability and observation. Now, sir, I say the day will never come in this State when you can carry out a system of that kind. The day will never come when in this State, a man will allow an officer to stand at his door, or walk into his dwelling, to see what he and his family drink. If this, and this alone, is the measure that will carry out the prohibitory clause and make it effective, then that clause is forever a failure. But, sir, it is admitted on this floor that the prohibitory law is a failure in Boston, as is shown by the published accounts and by the reports of the CONSTITUTIONAT., CONV'PNTION. Wedliesday, 636 I t I Augur~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. 7, 16..........E v~ -~CED~S - number taken before the police magistrates for intoxication. "But," says a learned gentleman,' there is a reason for this. Before the law was passed they used to send the drunkards home in cabs and sleighs, and make them pay for it. But since that law was passed they have sent no one home in this manner. So that, in point of fact, there has been an immense diminution in the amount of drunkenness in the city of Boston." Those who can find satisfaction in such an explanation as tiat may do so. It is not satisfactory to me; nor would I, if I were a champion on this floor from New York city, have ever said such a thing, even if I had believed it. But, sir, a venerable gentleman (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) who has devoted a long life to the cause of temperance, states that the prohibitory law was carried out successfully in the State of New York; that thirty years ago, in a town in that State in which he resided, he advocated a prohibitory measure, and that it was put through, and worked well in his little township. Why did not the gentleman add that within two years that law was repudi ated by the courts and by the people, and that there has been no attempt to revive it up to this day? But the same gentleman informs us that when he came to the city of Pon tiac, in this State, he succeeded in enforcing the prohibitory law, though he admits there was a vast deal of fric tion. Now, sir, I beg that the well wishers to the prosperity and virtue of this State will give their attention to this poin-that the very friction which the prosecution of this law creates is a fact worthy of consideration. You never can make a convert of a man by fighting him. The Gospel of Jesus Christ points out no such method of reforming mankind. We had better by far adopt the course of the early and honored'leaders of the temperance reformation in the days of the Wash ingtonian movement. Go to the drunkard in pity and sympathy, and lift him up; tell him that he is a man, and that he can rise to sobriety and to a position in society. Never go to a man with the language of menace and compulsion, if you would reform him. But the gentleman says that he did put that law through in Pontiac; and he would have us understand that the effort was a success. Now, sir, let me read an extract from the Peninsu lar HIerald, of Detroit, good authority on this floor for some gentlemen. I read a paragraph from the issue of July 31st: I IPontiac is a-growing and energetic city, blessed with churches, schools, and a large business, and horribly cursed with rium. There is not a hotel without a bar; and the temperance elements of power are most sadly scattered, and therefore deplorably inefficient.". Mr. ELLIOTT. From what paper is the gentleman reading? Mr. COOLIDGE. I will explain.. I see that the gentleman is a little afraid of my authority. It is the Peninsular Herald. I hope that is satisfactory. If g6ntlemen of this Convention have been in the habit of reading this paper, they.will recollect that about eight weeks ago, it contained an address by the editor, in which he truthfully stated, as he was bound to state as an honest man, that intemperance in Michigan is fearfully on the increase. Most of the gentlemen of this Convention must have read that statement. Mr. HOWARD. I rise to a point of order. I do not expect the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. COOLIDGE) to be courteous enough to give way to me; but I am authorized to say The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Berrien (Mr. COOLIDGE) has'al ready stated that he declines to yield the floor. MIr.IOWARD. I wish to say, as a constant reader of that paper, that it is not so. Mr. COOLIDGE. Does the gentle man say that I read this paper incor rectly? I read no paper incorrectly. - Mr. HOWARD. No, sir, I do not say that; but I do say that the Penin sular Herald has never admitted any such thing as the last remark of the gentleman would indicate. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman fri-om Berrien is entitled to the floor, and must not be interrupted unless he consents. Mr. COOLIDGE. He must be a rash man who, on this floor. or else where will deny that in the State of Michigan, intemperance is upon the increase; who will say that it is not creeping up into the higher and better regulated families of the State; who will say that lager beer and porter are not now more largely recommended to feeble persons-not invalids, but feeble persons-than they were five or ten or twelve years ago. I only state what adl gentlemen know, and what all ought to admit. Now, sir, the argument, as I under stand, has been made here by perhaps two gentlemen, that this question of prohibition has already been twice sub mitted to the people of Michigan-I ithink one gentleman said three times - and that the measure has been sanc tioned by them. I do not understand this to be the fact. I understand that the question was submitted in 1850, and it was voted upon without respect to party. I understand that prohibi tion was then approved as a substitute for a worthless license system, under which any man, by paying from two dollars to twenty dollars, could get a license to sell al kinds of liquors to whomever he chose. Everybody condemns such a system. There was at that time a feeling which does not exist now. We had then recently experienced the effects of the Washingtonian movement, which were little less than miraculous; and men at that day hoped and expected Mr. SHETLDON. I will ask the gentleman whether the question was not submitted to the people in 1845 at their township meetings-the question of license or no license? Mr. COOLIDGE. The question was submitted, whether certain townships should vote that certain men might or might not sell. But there is no man here who will advocate such a system now. This question was not submitted at all at that time. But, sir, in 1850, as I was saying, there was a wonderful unanimity on the subject of temperance —probably .more than will ever be seen again in my day. We had recently had the Washingtonian movement. Father Mathew had. been pursuing zealously his advocacy of the temperance cause. His doctrine was moral suasion; and he preached it with a devotion worthy of all admiration. It was at that time supposed by many that very soon the intoxicating bottle would be deposited in Barnum's Museum as a relic Of the past. I, not being at that time so ardent as some others, entertained more feeble hopes. But, sir, under that condition of things this prohibitory provision was voted upon. In 1853 the Legislature enacted a law which was submitted to the peo ple. And let me say that in regard to that measure, my expectations were blasted in an hour. That law proposed tlie seizure and destruc tion of liquors; and in this view it seemed to me a measure which promised to be more efficient than other and less stringent measures. I know that when a mad dog is running in the street, if you kill him he cannot bite. I know that when the poisonous fount is dried up, it can no longer yield its destructive drafts. I knew that, if the law could secure the seizure and destruction of liquor, then liquor could not be drank. But, sir, that law was brought before the Su preme Court for adjudication; and the court declared that, according to the policy of our laws, the measure was unconstitutional. Thus by the decision of the Supreme Gourt-and no man will doubt the correctness of its ruling-the most efficient provision of that law was destroyed. FErom that t 8 i I t DF4BATES AND PROOF'PT)INGS. Aug'u'st 71 1867. 637. 11 6-11.,3..8 —-.;-. —-. —.-~ —~-~- ___ --- - ---.. ee _____. I - -e sd day the inefficiency of the prohibitory clause has been seen and felt. Sir, I have said- about all I wish to say on this- question. Let me, however, repeat that if-any man:'charges me with being in favor, in anydsense, of the indiscriminate sale of mintozicating liquors, he does me wrong. -I will act with any and all men, so far as my judgment will permit, to suppress" the improper sale of intoxicating drinks. In the cause of temperance, I shall, I trust, ever be willing, as I have been welling, to do and to pay in proportion to- my' means as much as any other man. I am a father; and the evil of intemperance may overtake my- children, and bring me to the grave in sorrow. I feel all this. But, sir,'in acting on this question, I have considered fully my duty as a delegate. I have been concerned, as many of my associates on this floor know, in regard to what- measure is really best to be adopted on this question. But, sir, I have now come calmly, and if I know myself, in entire sincerity and good faith, to the conclusion that these two propositions ought to be submitted to the people. I know that the people must settle them. I believe that we - should let them do so in separate and distinct issues. Let me make a single additional remark, in justice to the character of many of those gentlemen- who have signed the petitions against the retelntion in the Constitution of the prohibitory clause.- When gentlemen have intimatad that those who have signed on that side of the question are among the aiders and abettors of the traffic in intoxicating drinks, they have not said truly. Is' —E. C. -Walker/, of Detroit, an aider and abettor of this traffic? Is there a more exemplary man in the city of Detroit?'Go with me to that city, and I pledge you that, going from block to block,< I will introduce you to signers of these petitions who are as steady, sober, discreet., temperate and religious men as any who can be found in that city. Or, sir, go with me to the place where I reside; and I will show you men who have signed these petitions, unasked by me (for I have asked no man directly or indirectly to sign any petition)-men-who have been known as temperance men for fifteen or twenty years —men of'active business-sober and Christian men. Such are some of the men who have signed-their names to these petitions,and it is not right that geitletmen here shall say that those men belong to a class of very doubtful morality. It is not true. I entertain no passion upon this subject.- I- have no political feeling about it. I have.no personal amBiti6oni in regard to it. I wish to know and to do whatever is right and best in- this trying hour; and, sir, I- have — come deliberately to the conclusion to vote for submitting both these propositions to the-people, and submitting them -separately. Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I hope that in the-little I have to say on this subject, I shall not add anything to the irritation which may have arisen in the course of the discussion. I desire and expect to be treated fairly as a member of this Convention; and I wish to extend to every other member, whether his views accord with mine-or not, the same treatment. I had not intended to enter into this debate at all; and I do so now with very great reluctance, simply because I- feel that I ought to do so. In the first place, I wish to notice, (lest II should forget: it,) one point made by the gentleman last on the oor, (Mr. COOLIDGE.) If Iunderstood him correctly, he made the statement that the question is simply thiswhether we shall put this prohibitory clause in the Constitution, or submit it separately to a vote of the people. Now, as I understand, that is not the precise position of the question. The proposition on the one side is, that we submit to the people in the Constituti6n a simple prohibition upon the Legislature, as has been well stated by the gentleman; but in connection with that we are called upon to submit to the people another proposition, allowing or directing the Legislature to regulate and restrict the traffic in intoxicating drinks. Now, I understand there is a very great difference between these -two propositions. With other gentlemen who have spoken, I can truthfully -say that I am not afraid of the people. I am willing to submit to them everything necessary to be submitted to them for their vote; and were' the proposition simply to submit separately to the people this one clause, without any alternative- proposition, I should be far more willing to submit it than I am to favor the submission in the present form of this question. The whole force of the argument of the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. COOLIDGE) upon this point was, in my view, based upon an erroneous statement of the question. The gentleman has told us that the people are divided in sentiment upon thiaquestion. That is very true. There is now' more division upon this question among the people of this State, as weU as in this Convention, than there- was two months ago. When the petitions upon'this subject-began to come in, there was not this division of opinion among the temperance men of the state to any very great extent. Those petitions were on the ore side in favor of retaining the prohibitory clause in the Constitution; and as we all very well know, the understanding of these petitioners was, that the clause should not be submitted separately'to the people, but that it should be embodied in the Constitution and presented to them alonge with the rest of the instrument. But petitions came here also from the other side. And here let me remark that the petitions on the other side did not ask for the submission of-this question to the people. The statement which has been made that the people have petitioned for a separate submission, is entirely a mistake. With some few exceptions, the twenty-five thousand. petitioners against the retention of the prohibitory clause, have not petitioned for the separate submission -of this naked-question to the - people for their votes. They have not requested this; but they have asked that we would insert in the Constitution, a provision for " a well-regulated license law." This was the'phrase used in almost all of those-petitions. This fact puts a different aspect upon the question from that which it is made to assume in the remarks of some gentlemen on this floor. If those twenty-five thousand petitioners had come here asking us to submit this question separately to the people, we would have-listened to such a demand. But when they come here, asking us simply to embodyin the Constitution a provision for a license law, we tell them that that is another question entirely. We are not prepared to act on:that as we would have acted on the other. There is another error into which gentlemen- have fallen in the discussion of this subject. We are not -discussing here the merits of the prohibitory law of our State, as it now stands upon the statute book.'We are not called upon to decide whether that law is wise or unwise; whether it is' efficient legislation, or whether it is not. That question. does not necessarily enter into our discussion here at all. The simple question here is in regard to the embodiment of a fundamental principle in the organic law of: our State. The question is, as it has been well stated by gentlemen on the other side'of-this question, whether we shall. insert in the Constitution a simple prohibition upon the Legislature. And let me say right here that I regard it as the great excellence of the iprohibitory clause, that it does in fact~ leave so much to legislation; that we are called upon to do so little in this Convention in regard to matters of detail; ot 638 CONSTITUTIONAL C01'qVENTION. Wednesday, DF,PBATES AND PROCEEDTINGS. that it implies our willingness to trust the future Legislatures of our State to enact such laws as may be necessary in regard to the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. But, sir, the other proposition-however gentlemen may argue it, however the question may be stated-will in effect give us, if it be adopted,.a license system. I know that this is not the name which is applied to it. The medicine which we are to take is to be sugar-coated and made palatable for us, so'that we shall not nauseate in taking it; but after all, this provision proposes simply a legislative regulation-a legislative restriction. It makes vely little difference whether the officer, finding a man selling liquor, imposes a tax upon him; or whether the man goes to the officer for his license before he opens his shop. If this proposition be adopted by this Convention, and by the people, it will be found that to all intents and purposes it amounts to." a well regulated license system "-just what a large portion of the petitioners to this Convention have asked-just what many of the defenders of those petitioners also desire. I am willing to grant, and do concede most cheerfully, that gentlemen on this floor who advocate this propo sition are not in favor of the general sale of intoxicating liquors as a bever age. I accord to them the pu rest motives and the best intentions. I know that many of them are most earnest and worthy temper ance men, so far as they go; and I only regret, sir, that they cannot go with us to the full extent -which we be lieve to be right. Most certainly I should be very sorry to be comepelled in any sense to ",,part company" with them. They are wort]hy citizens —men of earnest convictions, prepared, I trust, to defend the right everywhere. But after al, if we come to a point where our convictions disagree-if we reach a stage in the enactment of an organic law, when those gentlemen must vote on the one side, and I on the other, then I would say to them, "We have canvassed this whole matter; we cannot come to the same conclusion; we have adopted different positions.; I am willing that you should vote as a man on your side, and I will vote as a man on my slde; and. nQ love shall be lost." But sir,. as a citizen, I claim the right under all circumstances, and especially in. this crisis, I claim the right as a member of this Convention, to tell- my brethren lahinly what I think of this whole question. And I clal'm too, that' my convictions are as honest, and I hope they are as well grounded, as the convictions of gen tlemen on the other side of this' ques tion. I know very well that we look upon this question from different stand.points. I know that gentlemen who come here from the city of Detroit, or gentlemen likie my colleague, (Mr. GiDDINGS,) coming from the larger towns in the State, do not view. this question, and perhaps cannot view it, in precisely the same manner as those coming from the rural districts. At the same time, I think those gentlemen make far too much of the difference of our local position. I think that my colleague, in opening the discussion this morning, made too much of this difference, in speaking in regard to the enforcement of the prohibitory law in his own town. I know very well that there was an earnest effort made there for the enforcement: of the law; and if that earnestness had only had fifty per cent. more of earnestness added to it, and fifty per cent. more of endurance, it might have accomplished the object. But, sir, men's courage sometime flags; their earnestness sometimes droops. When men engage in a fight, a panic sometimes seems to overtake them, and they have a,, Bull Run"..time of it. This has been far too often' the case with our temperance men in regard to the en forcement of our prohibitory liquor law. Mr. President, I am fully aware that, as has been declared on this floor this morning, no other State has embodied in its Constitution a provision similar toq our prohibitory clause. Yet that, it seems to me, should hardly be brought in here as an argument why Mifchigan should not insert such a provision in her organic law. There is no reason why we should not.be in advance of the other States of the Union in this movement. There is no reason why we should not take the precedence of other States in embodying in our Con. stitutian a prohibition upon the Leg islature in regard to licensing the sale of intoxicating drinks. T he question then arises here-and it is simply this question that we are to meet-why adopt this prohibitory clause and embody it in the Constitu tion, and reject this other proposition contemplating the submission to the people of two provisions, one of them being substantially the present prohib itory clause? I call the attention of gentlemen again to the marked differ ence in the propositions submitted. The report of the standing committee of this Convention contains one single proposition. The report as proposed to be amended by the gentleman from |Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) and the gen tleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHIY,) em bodies two distinct propositions to be separately submitted to the people. The question, then, is put to- us here, "Why should you accept the first of these propositions and embody it in the Constitution, while you reject the other provision?" We do it heartily; we do it understandingly; we do it on a full view'of the argument upon both sides; we do it on the ground that it is necessary for the interests of the people of our commonwealth. In behalf of this restriction upon the Legislature as contained in the prohibitory clause, I say, in the first place, it is so simple that, under it, we can always deal with this question by necessary adaptive legislation from time to time. If we accept this first proposition —a single simnple restriction upon the Legislature —we may vary our legislation from time to time to meet the wants and necessities of our State. If the law now existing is not a proper and efficient one, it can be amended. If it is an entire nullity, and of no use whatever, it can be swept from the statute book, and replaced by another and more effectual statutre. But,- sir, if we accept the other proposition, we are narrowed down in our legislation. It then becomes a necessity for the Legislature to do what it might not do under the first provision to go on to regulate and restrict" the sale of in toxicating liquors; and this word "reg ulate', may include a great many things. This provision does not leave the matter to the judgment and discre tion of the Legislature, but binds that body to a certain course. On this ground I object to it heartily and ear nestly. Again:' if you declare that the Leg islature shalt regulateand restrict the sale, you open the door for a conflict in legal decisions, and in"m your annual or biennial legislation, as to the inten tion of the fundamental law. But with the first provision, which is well understood by the people of our State -the construction of which has been well settled by legislators and judges -we are prepared to act intelligent ly. '....'.. Again: by a provision for regulation and restriction, we give at least the senblanice of legal sanction to what is conceted to be a wrong. I know that this is denied; I understand the argument by which the denial is supported; but I repeat the proposition without the fear of contradiction in any successful argument, that by this provision for regulation and restriction, we give the semblance of legal sanction to what is conceded to be a wrong. Gentlemen of this Convention have all conceded the wrong of the liquor traffic. They have said, "We do not wish to discuss that question; we do not undertake to deny or I Augurat 7,,1867. 639 I 640 COSiUI~LC~ETO.Wded ignore the great and burdening evils growing out of this traffic." They have acknowledged that we cannot by any legislation make that wrong a right. Now, sir, this concession being made, I say that when-an individual pays his annual tax for pursuing the liquor traffic, and gets his receipt, issued by the authority of the State, he follows his business, sanctioned by the tax that he pays. It is true there is a small offset in the opinion of those who are looking out for funds to go into the State treasury, as we get from each individual one hundred dollars for granting him liberty to go on and sell. But; sir, you cannot make anything else out of it than that the individual so selling has the sanction of the government in what he does. If I engage in any other business in the State-if I keep a dry-goods store or 'a mechanic's shop, or engage in any branch of the arts, and pay my annual tax upon the business in which I am engaged, I have the sanction and authority of the government to con-tinue in that business forever, if I choose to do so. I understand that the same principle applies to the liquor traffic. There might come a time when it would be necessary to put into the organic law a provision like this: "The Legislature of the State shall never sanction polygamy." And this is not an entirely imaginary state of things, considering the facts exhibited in the Territory 6f Utah. Now, do we say by such a provision that the family relation with all its duties, responsibilities and affections is a myth? Do we say by that, if such a state of things should come to pass, that we may no more institute the family relation in our midst? By no means. Yet gentlemen in their discussion of this subject, seem to argue that we cannot strike at the root of this evil without striking at that which is really lawful — just as though it were impossible that we should have a system by which liquor might. be morally and legally sold for medicinal, culinary and -manufacturing purposes, etc., without opening the flood-gates of iniquity for the improper use of the article. If I had time to carry out such illustrations, I think it could be shown very clearly and conclusively, that we are simply taking in regard to this question, the same common-sense ground which we would propose to take in regard to any other question which might arise in the formation of the organic law of the State, or in framing its legislation. I think I am not mistaken in saying that the people of our State have not asked and do'not ask for a separate submission of this question to their decision. While I would appeal to them as confidently as any other gentleman on this floor-while I believe that a majority of twenty thousand votes at a popular election, in favor of a prohibitory law, would be a great moral gain to the temperance cause-]I do not see any necessity for such a submission ot this question; for, as has been well said, we have twice had the sanction of a popular majority in favor of prohibition, either as a constitutional provision, or as a measure of legislation. In all the petitions that have been sent here, embracing the names of more than fifty thousand persons, scarcely one word has been said in regard to a separate submission of the question to the people. It was remarked by my colleague, (Mr. GIDIxNGs,) that the suffrage question need not be submitted separately to the people, because that had already been decided before we came here. How had it been decided? Only in a political contest, by a vote of party arrayed against party. I agree with gentlemen that it had been decided, and most conclusively decided; but not so conclusively decided as this question with regard to the liquor traffic. We have had more expressions of the popular will upon the latter than we have had upon the former; and if we are to refer the liquor question to the. people for another vote, I claim that we ought also to refer to them the suffrage question, the question of biennial or annual sessions, and several other important matters which we propose to embody in the Constitution. If we need to consult the people further upon this question of prohibition, much more do we need to consult. them upon these other questions. But, sir, we are not desirous of imposing on the people this further warfare, this further struggle with the liquor interest. We have fought our battles. We are now in our intrenched camps. We do not propose, simply for the sake of fighting-simply for the sake of expending munitions of war and losing a large number of men -to go outside of these defenses, and proclaim to the opponents of the prohibitory law, "Another field-fight for you!" We think that all good strategy, all safe generalship, would dictate that our army should maintain its position where it stands. If we should be driven out of these intrenchments, if we must-fight the battle over again, then I say to gentlemen on the other side, we will fight it out with you manfl. But having the advantage now in the organic law, we do not propose to throw that advantage to the winds, in order to have what our opponents may regard as a free and fair fight. Nor do we propose to enter upon this contest for the.sake of spending our time and our money. We have other workto do. We are not prepared to match our two hundred thousand dollars, against two hundred thousand dollars collected by the liquor interest. We are not prepared to canvass this State (unless we are obliged to do so) in opposition to the whole multitude of men in the interest of the liquor traffic, who, if we give them the opportunity, will canvass the State from one end to the other. I say again, that if we must do it, we will; but we deem it proper to hold and prudently use the advantages'which we possess, and to save our time and our money and our labor for other work. Mr. President, let me say one word further, because I think I may appropriately say it. I stand outside of any political ring. I: am not of this party or of that party. I have no political record in the past, nor have I any to make for the future. - But rsay to politicians of every party, on every side of this question, have you not learned that principles are victorious? Have you not learned, in the history of the past ten years, that parties rise or fall just in proportion as their policy and conduct arie based upon the princi ples which lie at the foundation of Christian governments? If' we have not learned this lesson, we shall have another opportunity to learn it during the next ten yea-s. And were I a politician, were I seeking the inter ests of party, were I looking for political advancement, I should snake clean my record here in regard to prohibition; and I should then go home to my constituents, ready to face any foes from any source or any party, with the certainty that ere long the party based on principle would come out victorious. Such will be the history of this question in this State. Mark it, and let it be recorded here in the debates of this Convention, as the prediction of one who is not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but who, looking on parties, has observed how theyt,have drifted during'the years of the past, and who in this way knows, perhaps as well as mere party men, what constitutes the life, the power and the success of political organimations. .Nor do I drop this remark with any purpose to throw out a threat. I disclaim anything of that kind. I have no disposition to indulge in threats. I believe that gentlemen ton this floor, upon all sides of this question, mean Simply to be honest, mean simply to be true,to their constituents, them CONSTITUTION.AT, CONVENTION. .640 Wednesda,y, 1. August 7, 1867. DE] selves and their State. When we have done this, it is all that we can do. Uponthat issue we may safely stake everything. Having cast our votes upon this and other questions according to the purest dictates of our judgment and our consciences, as patriots and Christian men, we may then calmly and courageously await the developments of the future. Mr. BLACKMAN. I move to amend the substitute by adding to provision No. 2 the following: The Legislature may also provide for the seizure and confiscation or destruction of intoxicating liquors in possession of persons selling the same in violation of law." Mr. President, I am not going to make a speech on this subject. This amendment was suggested to my mind by the remarks of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) when he spoke deprecatingly of the failure of a similar provision in the law of 1853. Believing with him that this principle would be more effective than any other, I have offered the amendment. If the gentleman from Berrien and other gentlemen sincerely think that this principle would be effective and are desirous of adopting such a pro. vision, this amendment will afford them an opportunity of demonstrating that fact. I have not drawn the amendment in an imperative form so as to provide that the Legislature shall adopt legis lation of this kind. I propose toleave the matter to the discretion of the Legislature. I think, however, that the amendment is not obnoxious to the objection that has frequently been raised here to similar amendments, that the word "may" does not amount to anything. There-is an obvious ne cessity that there shall be an explicit grant of authority to the Legislature on this subject, because a provision of this kind in the law of 1853 was, as has been stated by the gentleman: from Berrien, decided to be unconstitution al. Hence, if the Legislature is to possess this power, it must obtain it by some express provision in the Con stitution. If, then, we desire that the Legislature shall possess the power, there is propriety! in the adoption of this amendment. - Mr. CONGER. If it be in order, I move to amend the substitute by add ing to proposition No. 1 the following: " The Legislature may also provide for the seizure and confiscation or destruction of in toxicating liquors in possession of persons ,selling the same in violation of law." The PRESIDENT. That. amend ment would not bee in order at the present time, as an amendment to the substitute is now pending.: Mr. CONGER. I will withhold: the Vol. 2-No. 81. ATES AND PROCEEDINGS amendment, then, until there:shallb be a suitable opportunity for offering.iti Mr. NORRIS. Mr. -President',when. this debate opened, I had partly obtained my own consent to make somewkat extended remarks upon-the- subject; but as the debate has: progressed it seems to have developed a. pretty distinct understanding: that- the: respective parties in the Convention: are so classified- and - crystalized that: any further extended- debate with the view of affecting: votes, would be almost useless. Concurring in this impression, I shall. not:go -very largely into the discussion of this question, but shall content rmyself with making a few. remarks:upon some points which have not yet beentouched upon by any member,s supposing. that possibly there may be one, two -or more, doubtful persons in the Convention who are hesitating as to the.proper course to be taken on this question. The minority on the floor of this Convention occupy perhaps a some what different position from: those who have discussed the-. question on the opposite side., We are. unconditionally in favor of. a license law, and we are so upon prinmciple. We are not here for the purpose of sha ping our policy and molding our meas ures to influence or to catch either- the "German vote" or the "temperance vote." We are not. here -to: perform any great act of riding two horses-of different breeds and different colors, around the political arena. But be cause we are in favor of the principle of license, or the principle of restric-, tion, or the. principle of regulation call: it what you please-believing this principle to be right, and believing' that a prohibitory clause is wrong in principle, oppressive to. the people, contrary to the maxims of all correct legislation,-we advocate this principle in whatever form it may be presented to us. - - Now, sir, the fundamental error of the prohibitionists-:and it is. an error which has led them into all their Qmistaken theories from the time that the first prohibitory law was passed to the present day-is in assuming that alcohol is a poison in the sense in which strychnine or opium or other. deadly drugs are poisons. If you grantsthem that assumption, then the theory of prohibition is correct and right. But, sir, I take issue with that position at the very outset. Years ago this question was sup posed to have been settled by positive proof, and there was none- to dispute ' in regard to the matter; but recently there has been more light' thrown on the subject. Within the last few months o a body of intelligent men assembled in 611 the State of Massachusetts, have gohe over this question which is now agitat-ing the people of the State of Michi-.gan. The facts which have been brought out there, the arguments which have been adduced-the position which Massachusetts has taken upon this question-are affecting the young Masachusetts of the West. The General Court of the State of Massachusetts recently appointed a joint committee comprised of five members of the Senate and nine members of the House, who sat from the nineteenth of: February to the third of April, meeting four days in the week. This committee took down the testimony of a large number of witnesses. The. report of that testimony covers 894 pages Among the numerous witnesses. examined were thirty-six clergy men, eleven professors, seventeen phy scians,-thirty-one judges, in addition to mayors -and ex-mayors, police magis tratesj and other persons who were sup posed to be capable of giving useful evidence upon this subject. This is the first time in the history of the liquor agi tation:that;there has been any. system atic attempt made to ascertain the facts bearing upon the question, and the true mode of dealing with it. The majority of this committee made a re port- which- recommended a strictly regulated license law: That report did not meet the; approval of the General Court. — The petitioners in favor of such a license law numbered 34,968, while the remonstrants numbered only 25,000. The example set by Massa chusetts in this respect has been imi tated in the State of Connecticut, where a similar investigation has been prosecuted. Thus it appears that in New England, the people at large are waking up to the idea-it begins to break upon them-that perhaps after all a prohibitory law is not the best method of controlling and restricting the sale of liquors and forwarding the great, cause of temperance. In the course of this discussion of the question in the State of Massachu setts, a very able argument was made by Hon. John A. Andrew. In his ar gument, he has collected various au thorities bearing upon the question whether alcohol is a poison or a food; and I propose to refer here to some of the authorities which he has collected. Those authorities are completely over whelming in favor of the proposition (startling as it may seem) that, tested by scientificprinciples, alcohol as aprin ~ -ciple is an article of food, rather than ia poison. I propose to read some r opinions of scientific men upon this - question. They are not the opinions 3 of John A. Andrew, but the views of x men who have given this subject spe .. I i6 -!....11- ... -I -- - 642 CO~~~~~~~~~TITUTIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AL CO~~~~~~~~~~~VE~~~~~~TIO~~~~~~~. Wednesday,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cial attention with no other object than to arrive at absolute scientific truth. In the first place, Dr. Carpenter, the well known English physiologist, who is quoted as a leading authority upon the side of the prohibitionists, has himself in one of his works admitted alcohol into the category of food, although in another work written as a prize essay upon the prohibitory law, he denounces it as a poison. Even in the latter work, he makes this important concession: "This is a class of individuals who can scarcely be regarded as subjects of disease, but-in whom the conditions are essentially different from those of health. * * * These are such as from constitutional debility, or early habits, or some other cause that does not admit of rectification, labor under an habitual deficiency of appetite and digestive power, even when they are living under cir cumstances generally most favorable to vigor, and when there is no indication of disordered action in any organ, all that is needed being a slight increase in the capacity for preparing the aliment which the body really needs. Experience affords ample evidence that there are such cases, especially among those who are engaged in avocations which involve a good deal ol mental activity; and that with the assistance of a small but habitual allowance of alcoholic stimulants, a long life of active exertion may be sustained, whilst the vital powers would speedily fail without their aid, not for want of direct support from them, but for want of the measure of food which the system really needs, and which no other means seems so effectual in enabling it to appropriate. * * * To withhold- the assistance of alcoholic stimulants (it is in their very mildest form, such as that of bitter ale, that they are most beneficial), would often be to condemn the individuals in question to a life-long debility, incapacitating them from all activity of exertion in behalf of themselves or others, and rendering them susceptible to a variety of other causes of disease. For it seems to be the peculiar character of their condition that no other medicine can supply what is wanting, with the same effect as a small quantity of an alcoholic beverage, taken with the principal meal of the day." My next citation is from Dr. Liebig, one of the most eminent of German chemists. In his Letters on Chemistry, he says: 'As a restorative; a means of refreshment when the powers of life are exhausted, of giving animation and energy where man has to struggle with days of sorrow; as a means of correction and compensation!w/ere mni.sproportion occurs in nutrition, wine is surpassed by no product of nature or of art. * * * In no part of Germany do the apothecaries' establishments bring so low a price as in the rich cities on the Rhine; for there wine is the universal medicine of the healthy as well as the sick. It is considered as milk for the aged." Pereira writes as follows, concerning beer: " Considered dietetically, beer possesses a three-fold property: it quenches thirst, it stimulates, cheers, and if taken in sufficient quantity, intoxicates; lastly, it nourishes or strengthens. * * * Beer proves a refreshing and salubrious drink (if taken in moderation,) and an agreeable and valuable stimulus and support to those who have to undergo much bodily fatigue." In the article "Diet," in Chamber's Encyclopedia, the writer says: "The laboring man, who can hardly find bread and meat enough to preserve the bal ance between the formation and decay of his tissues, finds in alcohol an agent which, if taken in moderation, enables him, without disturbing his health, to dispense with a cer tain quantity of food, and yet keep up the weight andstrength of his body." Mr. George Henry Lewes, in the "Westminster Review," sums up the question concerning alcohol as a stimu lant, in this language: "Life is only possible under incessant stim ulus. Organic processes depend on inces sant change, and this change is dependent on stimuli. The stimulus of food, the stimulus of fresh air, the stimulus of exercise, are called natural, beneficial: the stimulus of al cohol seems selected for special reprobation, without cause being shown, except that: peo ple choose to say it is not natural. How not natural? The phrase can have two significa tions, and it con have but two: first, that al cohol is not a stimulus which man employs in a state of nature; second, it is not consonant with the nature of his organism. The second is a pure begging of the question, and the first is in flat contradiction with experience. * * No nation known to us has ever passed into the inventive condition of even rudimentary civilization, without discovering, and, having discovered, without largely in dulging in, the stimulus of alcohol. Man discovers fermentation as he discovers the tea-plant and the coffee-plant. "Of two things, one: either we must con demn all stimulus, and alcohol, because it is a stimulus, or we must prove that there is smething peculiar in the alcoholic stimulus which demarcates it from all others. Here, again, the reader sees the question narrowed and brought within an arena of precise de bate. Only two propositions are possible; indeed, we may say, only one; for who is mad enough to condemn all stimulus? The ground thus cleared, the fight narrowed to this one point, let us do justice to the strength of our antagonist; let us confess at once that there is a peculiarity in alcohol which justifies in some degree its bad reputation-a pecu liarity upon which all the mischief of intoxi cation depends; one which causes all the miseries so feelingly laid to its door. And what is this peculiarity? Nothing less than the fascination of its virtue, the potency of its effects. Were it less alluring it would not lure to excess; were it less potent, it would not leap into such flames of fiery exultation. Mr. MILLER. I rise to a point of order. I submit that there is no use in taking up our time in reading such nonsense. [Laughter.] It was dis covered long ago, that if a man kept plenty of whisky in his family, he need not keep a cow. [Laughter.] ~Mr. NORRIS. I have no doubt that the gentleman from Saginaw, -Mr. MILILER,) is disposed to denounce as "nonsense," these disquisitions of learned physiologists and chemists of various countries. Such denunciations are the basis of the whole argument of the prohibitionists. Their great weapon of controversy is simply to denounce as so much "nonsense," all the science, all the practical knowledge and all the- political wisdom that may bp arrayed on the opposite side. Thus summarily disposing of everything that legitimately bears upon the question, they rush blindly on, simply because they have resolved to maintain a certain position, in spite of all argu ment to the contrary. But, sir, I ap peal to the thinking men of this Con vention, and submit to them that, if these positions of scientific men are true and cannot be refuted, then we have no business to legislate in the way of absolute and entire prohibition against an article of food. W'e may, perhaps, regulate to a certain extent, but we have no right to prohibit en tirely the use of such an article. But, sir, I will continue my citation of authorities on this question, though, out of deference to the feelings of gen tlemen in this Convention who, like my friend from Saginaw, are so sensi tive that they cannot listen with pa tience to views antagonistic to their own, I may perhaps abridge somewhat these citations. The distinguished chemist, Prof. J. F. W. Johnson, in his Chemistry of Common Life, says: "It is ascertained of ardent spirits: First, That they directly warm the body, and by the changes they undergo in the blood, — supply a portion of that carbonic acid and watery va por which, as a necessity of -life, are con stantly being given off by the lungs. They so far, therefore, supply the place-ot food-of the fat and starch for example-which we usually eat. hience a schnapps in Germany, with a slice of lean dried meat, makes a r-ix ture like that of the starch and gluten in our bread, which is capable of feeding the body. So we either add sugar to milk, or take spirits along with it, (old man's milk,) for the pur pose of adjusting the proportions of the in gredients more suitable to the constitution, or to the circumstances in which it is. to be consumed. Second, That they diminish the absolute amount of matter usually given off by the lungs and the kidneys. They thus lessen, as tea abd coffee do, the natural waste of the fat and tissues, and they necessarily diminish in an equal degree the quantity of ordinary food which is nesessary to keep up the weight of the body. In other words, they!ove the property of making a given weight' of food go further in sustaining the strength and bulk of the body. And in addition to the saving of material thus effected they ease and lighten the labor of the digestive organs, which when the stomach is weak, is often a most valuable result. "Hence fermented liquors, if otherwise suitable to the constitution, exercise a beneficial influence upon old People, and other weakly persons, whose fat and tissues have begun to waste.: * * * This lessening in weight and substance is one of the most usual consequencs of the approach of old age. It is a common symptom of the decline of life. *a * * Weak alcoholic drinks arrest or retard,eand thus diminish the daily amotnt of; this loss of substance. * * * Hence poets have called wine the'milk of the old,' and scientific philosophy owns the propriety of the term." Dr. Francis E. Anstie, lecturer on M~ateria Medica and Therapeutics, and formerly on Toxicology, at Westminster, says, in his recent work on "Stimulants and Narcotics:" "If anything deserves the name od a fooc assuredly oxygen does, for it is the most necessary element in every process of lite. It is highly suggestive, then, to find that that very same quiet and perfect action of the vital functions, without undue waste, without I CONSTITUTIONAT4 CONVENTION. 'Wed.nesdaI Y) August 7, 1867. DEBATES AD PRO()EEI)I 613 hurry, without pain, without excessive material growth, is precisely what we produce when we produce any useful effect by the administration of stimulants, though, as might be expected, our artificial means are weak and uncertain in their operation, compared with the great stimulus of life. "A stimulus promotes or restores some material action, and is no m6re liable to be followed by mnorbid depression than is the revivifying influence of food. And if it be sought to distinguish foods by the peculiar characteristic of being transformed in the body, then I answer that this is the worst definition pof food that can be given, since water which is not transformed in the body at all, is nevertheless the most necessary element of nutrition, seeing that human life cannot only not be maintained without it, but may subsist lbr weeks on water as its only pabulum besides the atmosphere and tissues." "Alcohol taken alone or with the addition alone of small quantities of water, will prolong life greatly beyond the period at which it must cease if no nourishment or water only had been given; in acute diseases it has repeatedly supported not only life, but even the bulk of the body, during many days of abstinence from common foods; and in a few instances persons have supported themselves almost solely on alcohol and inconsiderable quantities of water fobr years. "We may be at a loss to explain the chemistry of its action in the body, but we may safely say that it acts as a food. "Another grand argument against the propriety of comparing stimulants with true foods has always been that stimulus is invariably followed by reaction. * * * It is not true that stimulus is ot itself provocative of subsequent depression; but there are circumstances in which this might easily appear to be the,case. For instance, when the superabundant mental energy of a man whose physical frame is weak, induces him to make violent and determined physical efforts, he is apt to find at the end of a short'spurt' of exertion, that his energy is exhausted. But here the exhaustion is no recoil from a state of stimulation. * * * And the case of drunkenness, that is of alcoholic narcotism, affords another excellent example of the fallacy we are considering. The narcotic dose of alcohol * * * is alone responsible for the symptoms of depressive reaction. Had a merely stimulant dose been administered, no depression would have occurred, any more than depression results from such gentle stim ulus of the muscular system as is implied in a healthy man taking a walk of three or four miles. What depression is there, as an after consequence, of a glass or two of wine taken at dinner, or of a glass of beer taken at lunch, by a healthy man? What reaction from a teaspoonful of sal-volatile swallowed by a person who fbels somewhat faint? What recoil from the stimulus of heat, applied in a hot bath, or of oxygen administered by Mar shall Hall's process, to a halI-drowned man? Absolutely none whatever." The same writer, comparing alcohol with ether and chloroform, says of alcohol: "It was intended to be the medicine of those ailments which are engendered of the necessary, ever-day evils of civilized life, and has therefore been made attractive to the senses and easily-retained in the tissues, and in various ways approving itself to our judg ment as afood; while the others (ether and chloroform), which are more rarely needed for their stimulant properties, and are chiefly valuable for their beneficent temporary poi sonous action, by the help of which painful operations are sustained with impunity, are in a great measure deprinved of these atttrac tions, and of their facilities for entering and remaining in the system.,", Dr: Wm. Brinton says, in his Trea $ise mu Food and Digestion: "From good wide in moderate quantities, there is no reaction whatever. * * * That teetotalism is compatible with health, it needs no elaborate facts to establish; but, if we take the customary life of those constituting the masses of our inhabitants of towns, we shall find reason to wait before we assume that this result will extend to our population at large. And in respect to experience, it is singular how few healthy teetotallers are to be met with in our ordinary inhabitants of cities. Glancing back over the many years during which this question has been forced upon the author by his professional duties, he may estimate-that he has sedulously examined not less than 50,000 to 70,000 persons, including many thousands in perfect health. Wishing and even expecting to find it otherwise, he is obliged to confess that he has hitherto met with but very few perfectly healthy middleaged persons, successfully pursuing any arduous metropolitan calling under teetotal habits. On the other hand, he has known many total abstainers, whose apparently sound constitutions have given way, with unusual and frightful rapidity when attacked by a casual sickness." These are the views of learned men, experts in the sciences of chemistry, physiology and medicine. I might go on and read similar views as expressed by the venerable Dr. James Jackson, in his Letters to a Young Physician; by Dr. Gairdner, of Edinburgh, in his work on Clinical Medicine; and by others equally eminent. I might quote in support of the same positions the testimony given before the commnittee of the Massachusetts Legislature by Dr. James C. White, Dr. Edward H. Clarke, Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, Dr. J. B. S. Jackson, Dr. D. Humphreys Storer-all professors in the Medical School of Harvard College; and of Dr. Charles T. Jackson and Prof. E. N. Horsford, both eminent in chemistry and other branches of natural science. But, I need cite no further authorities upon this question. The substance of the whole argument is —this: it is a matter of scientific demonstration (and I defy any member of this Convention to controvert it) that alcohol is not a poison in the sense in which strych nine, opium, etc., are poisons; but that t is a stimulus; that itis in certain cases afood, and that to certain persons of the laboring classes, whose diet is low and whose health is poor, it is almost an absolute necessity. Mr. BRADLEY. Will the gentle man permit me to ask him a question? Mr. NORERIS. With pleasure. Mr. BRADLEY. Was there no con Ilicting testimony taken in that inves tigation? - Mr. NORRIS. There was; and I will furnish it to the gentleman, if he will take the pains to read it. I have the whole of it here; but it is rather too long to quote in extenso in this Convention. M~r. BRADLEY. Is not- the con flicting testimony equal in credibility with regard to the standing of the witness, and much stronger in credi bility when the number of witnesses is f considered'? - Mr. NORRIS. Testimony upon what particular point? Mr. BRADLEY. In regard to the whole question which the gentleman is examining. Mr. NORRIS. The question of food? Mr. BRADLEY. The question of food and other questions connected with this subject. Mr. NORRIS. I will reply to the gentleman that upon the question of food the testimony is completely over whelming in favor of the license men -entirely so. Even those who con tend most strongly upon the other side of the question cannot dispute this point for an instant. Mr. BRADLEY. I had read other wise; thatisall. Mr. NORRIS. I have the full re port of the testimony, and also the ar guments on both sides-the argument of Dr. Miner and that of Ex-Governor Andrew. The gentleman is welcome to these documents, if he desires to refer to them. Now, Mr. President, I say that we of the minority are opposed to prohibi tion on principle. We regard it as sumptuary legislation. We are op posed to any species of legislation which has a tendency to interfere with what a man shall drink, or what he shall eat or what he shall wear, or how he shall control himself in the exercise of reasonable intelligence and personal liberty. I say that laws of this character never have been en forced, and-never can be enforced; that by such statutes, which are- in fact dead-letters, the conscience of the peo ple is corrupted, and the moral power Of the government diminished. As an evidence that such laws never can be a success, we deem it sufficient to cite the workings of this prohibitory system from the time it originated down to the present hour. It has been said by the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) that the law heretofore has not been en forced, because it has been no one's particular duty to enforce it. Now, I take issue with the gentleman on that point; I say that our law on this sub ject has been drawn as carefully as any law could be; that if any law of the kind can be enforced, this law ought to be enforced. It is better that even a bad law (and I hold this to be a bad law) should be enforced rigidly, than that it should remain on the statute book a dead letter, and an object of contempt to the people, engendering disrespect for all law. Now, sir, I wish to show Why the i t August 7, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEFDINGS. 613 - .,4t 64;O~TTOA COY~TI. f v(dedy law cannot be enforced, even if officers be appointed for this special purpose. The illustration which I propose to use may appear somewhat remote from the subject, but I trust its appli-: cation will appear before I get through. Our present Constitution provides inn section twelve of Article XIV, that c"all assessments hereafter authorized shall be on property at its cash value." Turning to the law made in pursuance of that provision, I find on page 291, (section thirteen,) of the Com piled Laws, this provision:. "The term' cash value,' whenever used in this act,-shall be held to mean the usual selling price at the place where the property towhich the same is applied shall be at the time of assessment; and if there be no usual sell. ing price known to the person whose duty it. shall be to fix the value thereon, it shall be held to mean the price at which such property shall be appraised in payment of a just debt due from a solvent debtor, or such price as the property assessed may in the preceding year have been sold for." Again, it is provided, on page-293, (section 19,) that "In any case where any person shall neglect or refuse to make out and deliver a statement of his real and personal property, moneys and credits, or to exhibit the same to the supervisor, as required by. this act, it shall be the duty of said supervisor, and he is hereby authorized to examine on oath the person refusing, and any other person or-persons who he may have good reason to believe, and does believe, has knowledge of the amount or value of any property, money, or credits owned or held by such person so refusing, and said supervisor shall assess any property, money, or credits, owned or held by such persons so refusing, at its true cash value." It is also provided, on page 296, (section 26,) that the following certificate shall be signed by the supervisor: SI do hereby certify thatI have set down in the above assessment roll all the real estate in the township of liable to be taxed, according to my best information; and that I' have estimated the same at what I believe to be the true cash value thereof, that- the said assessment roll contains a true statement of the aggregate valuation of the taxable personal estate of each and every person named in said roll, and that I rave estimated the same at its true cash value, according to my best information and belief." The following is the form of-oath prescribed in the Constitution, (Art. XVIII, Sec. 1,) to be taken -by all officers, legislative, executive.and judicial, including of course the- supervisors. "I do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State,. and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of, according to the best of my ability." Now, I will not say whether.these duties, thus solemnly prescribed by law, in pursuance of a constitutional,, provision, and enjoined upon officers who are sworn to "faithfully discharge" them, have been performed; but I will read the evidence of members of this Convention upon this subject. I{read from the Debates, vol. 1., pages 281-6: "Mr. ELLIOTT. * * * There has not been: a single instance, so far as I know, where any officer has endeavored to live up to the requirement of this section-where he has:attempted, at any time, to assess property at its cash value, for he would know .that if he did so the inhabitants of his township would leave him out of office thereafter. I- think it is a fact that the people throughout thee State are not.prepared to have, and -will -,not have, theirsproperty assessed at its cash value." "Mr. CrHAPIN. * * * We all know that if we go further and say that property throughout the State shall be taxed at its cash value, the rule will be entirely disregarded as it has been heretofore." ",Mr. PARSONS. * * * It is well -known to every one here that this provision of our present Constitution has never been lived up to by any supervisor elected since the adoption ot the Constitution of 1850." "Mir. PRINGLE. * * * Men with tender consciences will not take the office of ,supervisor. , Mr..HOLMEs. * * * There is no gentleman upon this floor who believes that, as the valuation now stands, it is more: than half the cash value of the property of this State." "Mr. MUSSEY. * * * It only amounts to this, that no conscientious man can be a supervisor; that is all it amounts to. ~And: for this reason: Iventure to say that if any one or more supervisors should discharge their duties strictly according to their oath, there would be a change of supervisors in their towns at the very next election." ."Mr...LMAcI. * * * To say that this section should be stricken out of the Constitution because it has hitherto been dis obeyed and disregarded, strikes me as not at all wise." -Mr. FARMER. * * * Every gen tleman-who has spoken upon this subject admits that this section in our present Constitution:has been perfectly useless." "Mr.- BILLS. * * * I desire for one moment to examine the character of that as an argument. The members of this committee will recognize the correctness of the Statement I now make; that no argument has been adduced for striking out this section but the one I have named. It is not argued that the -section is wrong, nor that it is not the just and proper rule. The argument is that the.section should not be retained here, sim ply because in the past history of this State it has not been ob.eyed.: .-, * * * *. * !I A witness will come upon the stand and take an oath to testify truly, and immediately disrezard- that oath' and testify falsely, and thereby.perjure himself. What is the argu ment?: Better indeed that he had not taken any oath; therefore strike out all requirements for such an oath. The argument urged against t~hissection would justify the striking out of every oath required by our Constitu tion or statutes." "Mr. LONGYEAR. * * * The other proposition upon which there is equa' unanimity, is-that, as a matter of fact, prop erty is not assessed at- its value, -but iq uni versally assessed below its value within the entire bounds-of the State. * * *, * * *, In: the:election of supervisors, two different candidates are usually supported by two different parties, and the vote of the people for these candidates, may, under ordinary circumstances, be nearly equally divided. But let- one otf the candidates be pledged to assess property.at its cash value, -and the other to assess it at twenty-five, thirty or forty per cent. of its value; and how. many votes I, ask, would be cast for the man who announced himself as intending to:assess property at its cash value? Why, sir, such a-candidate after the votes were counted, would need, I should think, an affidavits o elbQw that he had been a-candidate at all, It Mr. President, I might, - were it necessary, cite similar remarks of various other members. Now, sir, there are, we will say, seven hundred and four townships in this State. The supervisors of these various townships are men occupying a high position in their respective com-munities, and exercising a large influence upon-nancial matters over the whole area of the State. Back of these gentlemen now acting as supervisors are their various predecessors in offce, making an aggregate, we may safely assume, of five or six thousand men. These men, scattered all over the State, stand publicly charged upon the record-with what? With a violation of: the Constitution and the law- a violation of their oath of office, and of their oblitions as men of honor. Now, sir, every one of these supervisors is, by the prohibitory liquor law, set aside specially as the guardian of that law in his township; he is made the special prosecutor; it is' made his duty to see that the law is enforced, and that every place for the sale of intoxicating liquors is closed up. Now, with what face can the supervisor, occupying the position that he does before the community and before this Conven tion,. say to the "poor, miserable, ignorant, brutalized rum-seller," as he is called, "Shut up your shop; you are violating the law"? The supervisor equally with the liquor seller is a violator of law, besides disre garding his solemn oath of: office. All we can say in -regard to the matter is that public opinion sustains —the super visor in violating his oath, and public opinion also sustains the liquor seller in disregarding the prohibitory law; but in the one case -public opinion has a heavier burden to carry than in the other. I ask gentlemen of the Convention, -whether under such circum stances they will continue to insist that this prohibitory law shall remain upon the statute-book, imposing such duties upon these supervisors, occupying the position that they do before this Convention, and before the people. If they will, then, I humbly submit that all they can do is to go home, and finst remove the beam out of: their own eyes, before they turn their attention to the mote in the eye of their neighbor.+ Mr. ROOT. Mr-. President, I have listened with no little interest to the discussion of the question which is -ow before us; and my attention has been called to the persistent and determined effort of gentlemen upon this floor to defeat by some means the principle of prohibition: some by loudly proclaiming themselves to be temperance men, wishinkg or entire pro Wednesday, CONSTI.TUTIONAL CONVENTION. 641 Auu# -, 1q7 EAE N POEDNS hibition, and still the earnest advocates of the restriction of the sale of intoxicating drinks by placing a tax upon the traffic; ignoring at the same time the idea of a license, and very ingehiously striking from the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne,* (MFi. LOTHROP,) that term wherever it occurred: others by unhesitatingly denouncing the principles of prohibition, and advocating openly and in all fairness the license system as the only correct way of controlling the traffic in intoxicating liquors. And now, Mr. President, what do we see? What is the position taken by these professed temperance men? We see those that claim to be its earnest advocatespresent ing to this Convention a proposition restricting and regulating the sale and taxing the traffic in intoxicating drinks, joining hands with the open advocates of license, combining all their superior talents and untiring energies to defeat a principle sacred to the heart of the Christian and the philanthropist, and essential to the moral and political in terests of the State.+ What is this "proposition" pre sented for our consideration by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHrEY)? "The Legislature shall provide for the reg ulation and restriction of the. sale of intoxi cating drinks, and shall impose a tax upon the traffic therein. The sale of such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, pau pers and common drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited, and all necessary laws shall be passed to enforce such prohibition. The tax in any case upon the traffic shall not be less than one hundred dollars." The language of this provision is, "The Legislature shall." If, on the submission of the two alternate prop ositions, prohibition should fail, then the Legislature would be-bound to do away with the present efficient pro hibitory law, one that has been sanc tioned by the people, and enact -in its place a "regulated license system" a principle which I hope and trust the members of this Convention are not willing to assent to. Further on in this proposition we fintd it provided that "the sale of such drinks to minors, persons under guar dianship, paupers and common drunk ards, shall be wholly prohibited." This is the "prohibitory" clause of the proposition. Now, who is to determine the age and condition of these several classes when they approach the grog shop or the "respectable" bar for a dram of these intoxicating drinks? The vender of course, that high-minded and moral individual; he who defies and has defied for ages the laws in this regard! He is the-man to whom you would entrust the carrying out and enforcement of the prohibitory clause in your-much prized "retrict mg" and regulating system! "The tax," this provision goes on to say, "shall not be less than $100." The advocates of this system say: " We don't intend to license the sale of liquor; we don't expect it will be sold; but if any one should possibly be so degraded as to engage in the sale of intoxicating drinks, he must and shall pay $100, for such an injurious privilege." And this is the proposition that the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) advocates with so much spirit and eloquence, holding the proposition in his hand, and with uplifted arms and extreme emphasis declaring it to be a principle which has a heart in it. "On his soul he believes in it;" and is very desirous to go upon the record thus believing and thus advocating the prin ciples therein contained, denouncing at the same-time prohibition as a failure -a " cold and naked proposition "-a "shadow that does not reach the sub stance;" and calling upon its friends to join him; in a "living, breathing proposition," one that will prohibit the sale. Mr. President, I have here such a proposition, and I hope the gentle man from St. Clair and his friends will accept it as the true principle that should guide us in this regard: "The Legislature shall prohibit the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors by suitable and appropriate penalties." Believing, as I do, that there is no safety in any principle but entire prohibition of license to sell intoxicating liquors as a beverage, I shall vote against any and all propositions which do not lead us to the attainment of that object, believing that if we retain in our Constitution the prohibitory clause as it now stands, it will be a source of great moral power, and willcall to its aid the combined energies of the better portion of the people, thereby securing the adoption of -the instrument. Believing thus, I shall use my feeble efforts to secure its retention in the body of the instrument which we are now preparing to submit to the people for their approval or rejection. As the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) has brought to our notice a class of poisons, and has admitted al cohol among them, I hope I may be pardoned for following that idea. The gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NoR Ris,) says that if alcohol is a poison, then prohibition, is right. On this point, I concur with my venerable and much respected friend from Oakland, (Mr. VANEVALKENBURGH,) who, inhis re marks upon this sutibject a few days since, referred to alcohol as a poison, acting as such upon the human system. I desire very briefly to sustain that prop osition by such testimony as I have been able to obtain. Intoxicating liquors and their influences are felt in various ways. They lower and degrade him that partakes of them as a beverage, derange his physical organization, producing ruin and death. That they derange and impair the system when in health, cannot successfully be denied; for alcohol in all its forms and in all its mixtures is a narcotic acrid poison, acting as an irritant and stimulus, producing in different individuals various results, according to the ability of the system to resist its deleterious effects. Many by its habitual use are hurried on to an early grave. Men look on, knowing its effect, and yet sip from this fountain of destruction and death. Yes, Mr. Presi dent, they do more. They even ask us to sanction its use, and give to the traffic in it a high and dignified position with 'the lawful business transactions of the State; taking it out from behind the screens and painted windows, the low damp cellars, and miserable degraded doggeries,,and placing it out in full view, in "respectable" saloons; pro tecting the vender, giving the dignity of the law to this hellish traffic. But I have said that alcohol is a poison. Let me cite some of the evi dence in support of this proposition. Prof. Traill, the distinguished edi tor of the eighth edition of the British Encyclopedia, and professor of medi cal jurisprudence, says that "a poison is any substance capable of impairing or extinguishing the vital fanctions;" and he thus classifies poisons: 1, those derived from metals; 2, from earths; 3, from acids; 4, from ele mentary substances; 5, from gases; 6, from vegetables; 7, from animals. And he places alcohol among the vegetable poisons. He also says that alcohol is "a narcotic poison, producing at first intoxication, and afterwards stupor, cerebial congestion, and death." And sir, how can we behold its effect upon the human system when in agony and delirium, and without believing it to be a poison? Prof. Christison classifies alcohol with the narcotic acrid poisons, such as prussic acid, opium, strychnine, bel ladonna, aconite, hellebore, etc.; and says that it acts upon the brain and spinal marrow, producing stupor, coma, delirium and convulsions. Alcohol is an irritant to the stomach; and when moderate use of it does not produce death, it often gives rise to delirium tremens. Prof. R. D. MHussey, an eminent American surgeon, (and I love to quote from:him as a great and good man,) says: "A poison is that substance, in whatever form it may be, which, when applied to a living surface, disconcerts .lifec's healthy movements." Such a .645 ,A-agust 7, 1867.. DEBATES AND,PROCE'PT)INGS. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. poison, he says, - is alcohol-such in al its forms, mix it as you will. Dr. Bence Jones, whose opinion stand high in the medical world, says " As a poison, alcohol is placed by it effect upon the nerves and muscles between ergot and arsenic." Dr.- E. Johnson, of London, says that, "spirits is a poison of the same nature as prussic acid, producing the same effect, killing by the same means It paralyzes the muscles of respiration and so prevents the necessary change of venous into arterial blood." Dr. Kirk says that, "alcohol, the base of ardent spirits, is a narcoti( stimulus, similar to opium, but more irritating to the tissues of the body." Dr. Carpenter, the first of living physiologists, says: "The action of alcohol upon the animal b)ody in health is essentially poisonous. * * * Although alcohol is A poison and in julrious to the system when in health, I would not discard its use in sickness, in a deranged state of the body, or where there is a lack oI tone to the vital energies. As I would use opium when the system is in a high state or irritation, suffering with pain and nervous ex citement, so I would use spirits to bring up the flagging energies, arouse the inactive se'etions, and give an increased action to the nervous energies. * * * As a medi cine, alcohol may, with opium, arsenic, bella dona, etc., be administered with safety, pro ducing great good; but as a beverage, it can never be taken without injurious or dangerous results. For any efficient remedy or medi cine, if it has a powerful and controlling in flrence over the system in a diseased state, must' be injurious to the healthy or normal condition, just in proportion to its efficiency as a remedy." And, sir, as alcohol is a powerful stimulus and an acrid poison, causing so much misery and death, I would restrict its baneful influence and pro hibit the traffic in it among our people. Gentlemen have doubtless observed that Liebig and other chemists whose opinions were read by the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NoRRIS,) from the argument of ex-Governor Andrew, state that alcohol is beneficial, and acts as a food, only in those cases where-the system is below the normal standard. Now, I will not deny that it acts beneficially upon the system, when it is below its normal condition. Mr. NORRIS. If the gentleman will allow me to interrupt him, I ask his opinion as a physician upon the question, how many men in this country who have reached the age of forty-five years are above the normal standard? Mr. ROOT. I hardly know what the gentleman means by a man being "above the normal standard." Mr. NORRIS. The gentleman admits that alcohol is beneficial when the human system is below the normal standard-where the system is worn out or diseased. Mr. ROOT. Where there is an unhealthy and diseased condition-where the system needs repair. 1 Mr. NORRIS. I ask the gentleman how many persons are there abov s forty-five, who are wholly in repair? Mr. ROOT. I do not know how s many. I should judge that at leas , the gentleman from WVashtenaw (Mr NORRIS) and myself are. s Mr. NORRIS. We ought to be. e, Mr. ROOT. Now, Mr. President, I e shall continue this argument but a lit . tle farther. , We have heard in this Convention e the cry that " prohibition is a failure.' Whence comes that cry? We have heard it particularly from Wayne county. Now, let us see what effort is being made in that county for the en forcement of the law. I find, by the annual report of the Attorney Genera] that, during 1866, there was not a 1 single prosecution in that county for the violation of the liquor law. We also hear from St. Clair county, that "prohibition is a failure" there. f This is the statement of men who claim to be temperance men; and I . have no doubt that they are; for I do not impugn the motives of any gentle man. Mr. CONGER. If the gentleman - alludes to my remarks, I only wish to say that the record will not show any such statement as having been made by me. Mr. ROOT. I did not allude par ticularly to the gentleman's remarks. But, sir, by reference to this same re port, I find that during 1866, not a sin gle individual was prosecuted in St. Clair county for transgressing this law. Of course the law is a failure there. Again, we heard from my friend from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) who opened the discussion this morning, that in his county the temperance men had labored zealously, but could not succeed in putting donm the traffic in intoxicating liquors. We might infer fiom his remarks that they had been very earnest in their en deavors to put down this traffic. I find, however, that during last year, there was in that county but one pros ecution for the violation of this law. I go on, and examining the returns from the county of Kent the county of the gentleman (Mir. WITHEY) who introduces this proposition for regulation or restriction and taxation-I find in that county a little better state of affairs. There were three prosecutions there during the last year. We listened this morning to the able remarks of my learned friend from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) a gentleman for whom I have the highest respect. He declared that "prohibition is a failure," and stated that if we insisted on prohibition, he is going to "part company" with us. Now, I do not like that way of talking; for we expect him to be with us here and after we go away from here. But with reference to his remark that prohibition has proved a failure, I think it is answered by the fact that during the last year there has not been in his county a single prosecution for the violation of the liquor law-not one. Mr. President, I have occupied much more time than I intended, and I will simply say in conclusion that I intend to stand by this prohibitory clause; that I intend to use my efforts to put it in the body of the Constitution, believing that it will give the instrument strength before the people, and,-assist in securing its ratification. One single remark further. In this restrictive or regulating provision, the word "license" has been ingeniously stricken out, but it means nothing more nor less than license. Gentlemen say that they are anxious to go upon the record on that proposition. — Now, I will tell those -gentleman that the temperance people of this State are awake; that there is in this commonwealth, a power, arrayed on behalf of the righit,'-which is bound to become victorious; and that if they place themselves in antagonism to that power, they must take the consequences. Mr. ESTEE. I move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion was agreed to; and the Convention -(at 12 o'clock, m.,) took a recess till half-past 2 o'clock, p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at halfpast two o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. CONGER asked and obtained leave of absence, for the afternoon, for his colleague, Mr. MILES, on account of sickness. TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING LIQUORS. The'PRESIDENT. At the time the Convention took a recess to-day, it had under consideration the article entitled Legislative Department." The question was upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole to section thirty-one of that article, which section had been amended to read as follows: "The Legislature shall not authorize any lottery or permit the sale of lottery tickets; nor grant divorces; nor audit or allow any private claim or account; nor pass special acts extending the time for the colllection of taxes." The amendment of the committee of 646 We.dne's'day, Augll$t , 1867. D]BATES AD PROOEEDIG 647 the whole was to add to the section the following: "-nor pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors as a beverage." For this amendment the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTHROP,) had offered a substitute, which had been amended to read as follows: At the election when this Constitution shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection, there shall also be separately submitted to such electors the two following provisions: No. 1. The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant ot license for thesale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors. No. 2. The Legislature shall provide for the regulation and restriction of the sale of iintxicating drinks, and shall impose a tax upon the traffic therein. The sale of such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers and common drunkards, shall be wholly pro hibited, and all necessary laws shall be passed to enforce such prohibition. The an nual tax in any case upon the traffic, shall not be less than one hundred dollars. A separate ballot upon the above provisions may be given by any elector, which shall be deposited in a ballot-box provided fbor that purpose. On the ballots in lavor of the adop tion of the above provision No. 1, shall be the words "Prohibition-Yes;" and upon the ballots in favor.of the above provision No. 2, shall be the words, "Restriction-Yes;" and upon the head or outside of all said ballots, shall be the words, "Prohibition or Restric tion," placed in such manner that the same shall be visible when the ballot is folded. If, upon the canvass of such ballots cast at said election, a majority thereof shall be found to contain the words "Prohibition-Yes," then said provision No.1 shall become and stand as section, of Article, of this Con stitution, if it shall be adopted; but if a ma jority of such ballots shall contain the words " Restriction-Yes," then the above provision No. 2 shall become and stand as section of Article, of this Constitution, if the same be adopted. Pending the consideration of the sub stitute, the gentleman from Van Buren (Mr. BLACKMAN) moved to amend the second proposition by adding thereto the following: " The Legislature may also provide for the seizure and confiscation or destruction of in toxicating liquors in possession of persons selling the same in violation of law." The first question will be upon the amendment of the gentleman from Van Buren to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wayne.'' Mr. STOIUGHTON. I will detain the Convention only long enough to state the conclusions at which I have arrived, and which will control my vote. While I am well satisfied that there is nothing in this question, or in the cir cumstances surrounding it, that re quires a separate submission, I very cheerfully accord to those gentlemen on this floor who entertain a different opinion, the same sincerity which I pos sess, and perhaps superior wisdom and foresight. It is, after all, a question which recommends itself to our indi vidual judgment and discretion. - If there is any one question, in the whole range of moral and political subjects, which is well and definitely setfled by the uniform practice of all well regulated governments, by our own convictions of what is right, by the opinion of all good men, it is that the traffic in spirituous or intoxicating liquors is a proper subject matter for legislative action. The real difficulty, I apprehend, consists in the application of the remedy. There are two antagonistic systems, differing materially in character, and leading to different results. One is that of prohibition, aimed at the absolute prevention of the public traffic in those liquors, and designed to prevent that traffic, so far as it is public and promiscuous; the other is the system of license, based upon the continuance of that traffic, recognizing it as legal, making it a source of revenue to the State, and giving it a character and authority which it could not obtain in any other way. The sentiment of the people of this State on this question is well known. The principle of prohibition has twice received their approbation and endorsement at the ballot-box. Does any one seriously believe that they will now reverse their action, roll back the wheels of time, and return to the exploded system of licensing this traffic? It is wholly impossible. They desire no revenue drawn from the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and they will never consent to give the sanction of law to a known evil, to a known wrong. Why, then, should this question be submitted as a separate question? Is it because a large number of petitions have been received for license? A larger number still have been received asking for prohibition. Is it because the prohibitory law is not effective? I affirm that the present law.is the most effective one we have ever had on our statute books. The experience and observation of the members upon this floor, the records of our courts, will afford abundant proof of the correct ness of that statement. Look into the last report of the Attorney General of this State. and you will find that every prosecution, with scarcely an ex ception, resulted in a conviction. If you look further you will find that in Wayne county, and in the other coun ties, where we are told the law was-not enforced at all, there was no effort made to enforce the law there. It will not do to concede here or elsewhere that the people of Michigan are incapable of enforcing a law called for by a large proportion of our people. It may be. required that the execution of this law shall be placed in the hands of men, whose du ty it shall be to see that it is enforced. If that is done, the case will not be entirely exceptional. We, have revenue laws which would scarcely be executed if they were not confined to the hands of men, whose only business it is to enforce them. It may be necessary to have a constabulary force for the execution of this law. But that force will not be compelled to invade private rights, or stand at the doors of private residences, as suggested by gentlemen here, unless those private residences are made the places for selling these liquors. In fact there are no arguments urged in favor of separate submission, which in my opinion will stand the test of rigid examination. On the other hand there are, it seems to me, many reasons why.there ought to be no such separate submis sion. The act providing for the organ ization of this Convention contem plates nothing of the kind. It pro rides for the revision of the Constitu tion as an entirety-not in detached fragments, to be submitted to the peo ple for their adoption or rejection. Such, too, is the language of the Con stitution of this State, under which that act is passed. Many other important questions have been presented for the considera tion of this Convention. In every other instance the decision of the ma jority of the Convention has been con sidered final and conclusive. Is there anything in this liquor question which will justify a departure from the rule which has governed us in every other case? Ought we not rather to take the responsibility of deciding this question as we have decided every other question, and submit to the peo ple a Constitution perfect and com plete in all its parts? Again, the separate submission of this question would produce an agita tion upon a subject that ought to be considered as settled and determined. The object-of placing this prohibitory clause in the Constitution of 1850, was that the policy of this State upon this question might be established beyond all question, and beyond all contro versy. In this respect it was a proper subject-matter for constitutional law; it came within the legitimate province of Constitutional enactments. A pol icy deemed detrimental to the best in terests of the State was prohibited; all else ~as left to the judgment and dis cretion of the Legislature and the will of the people. I cannot believe, with some gentle men upon this floor, that it would add anything to the moral force of this question again to submit it to the peo ple. We ought rather to consider it already settled and decided by them. You might as well tell us that we should August 71 1867. DEBATES AND -PROCEEDINGS. -647 618 ()O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TITUTIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AL CO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VE~~~~~~~~~~~~TI()~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wednesday,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ have nothing settled; that the case of a person convicted of crime might be opened up at any time, because, forsooth, if the man ought to be convicted, he would be convicted the second time. Let us rather consider this a question passed upon by the people, not again to be opened; that the policy of the State has been settled, that that policy is prohibition and not license. We have been told upon this floor, and it has been argued with much eloquence- and vehemence, that the alternative proposition offered here contains something more than a mere license system; that it is, in fact, an enactment in favor of temperance. I cannot view it in that light. In the first place, I cannot believe that the gentleman who brought forward that proposition, (Mr. LOTHROP,) intended it in any way to embarrass the execution of the present law, or to overthrow our present judicial decisions upon this subject. But whether it be so or not, I call the attention of members of this Convention to a single consideration. If there be a license law in this proposition, then I say it is contrary to the moral sense of the people of Michigan, and ought not to be adepted. If, on the other hand, it does not contain a proposition for a license system, then it is wholly useless and unnecessary, for under the present system the Legislature of the State can pass any law upon the subject, except a license law. The Legislature can do anything except that. Why, then, is there any necessity for this alternative proposition at all? The real question is whether the State shall be committed by its Constitution to the policy of prohibition, or whether it shall not. In either case, the alternative proposition here is not what is wanted. There is another argument brought forward here to which I will refer for a single moment. It is the argument of the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIs,) who urges that the prohibitory law rests entirely upon the theory that intoxicating liquors are a poison. I disagree with the gentleman both in his premises and his conclusions. If the public sale of intoxicating liquors produced the death of many of our citizens, then it would be within the proper province of the Legislature to prevent and prohibit that public traffic. But are not intoxicating liquors poisonous? We have had some authorities furnished by that gentleman, taken from the distinguished action of the General Court of Massachusetts. I would respectfully submit that that gentleman can hardly expect a few extracts from the argument of Gov. Andrew to carry conviction to this Convention, when all the argument of the Governor, and all the testimony there taken failed to convince the General Court of the State of Massachusetts, but produced just the opposite result. We might perhaps very easily settle this question whether liquors are poisonous, by the general acceptance and understanding of the people, not only. of our State, but of the whole civilized world, upon this subject. They would tell you that. anything that impaired the health and produced death, was poisonous, and they could point you to hundreds and thousands of cases where intoxicating liquors, publicly sold as a beverage, had impaired the health of citizens and produced their death. Thus there can be no question, so far as that is concerned, but what intoxicating liquors do have a poisonous effect. In conclusion I will only say that this question, in our Constitution and in our statute law, and in the decisions of our courts, is now settled and established, and in my judgment it ought not to be disturbed. Mr. STOCKWELL. I do not rise to take any particular part in the discussion of this question. I leave that to those whose ability gives them a fitness for that which I do not possess. I rise simply to state some of the reasons which will control my vote on this subject. As has been frequently stated during this discussion, the subject of prohibition of license is no new question in Michigan. It is a question which has been discussed in every neighborhood, and perhaps I might say in every family. It is a question in which the people feel a deep interest, and of that interest we have been frequently reminded since we have been on this floor. On no other subject havelsomany petitions been presented, signed by the best and the wisest of the men and women in all parts of the State. They have said to us-" Give us prohibition of license in the Constitution." The moral sentiment of the people has been expressed in these petitions to my entire satisfaction. And now the question-for us to decide is, shall we defeat their hopes and disappoint their expectations? I am slow to believe that this Convention will so far neglect or forget the obligation that is resting upon them, as not to discharge their dut in the way that I believe the moral rectitude of this State demands. I know that it will be said by the friends of license, or restriction, or whatever you may call it, that large numbers of petitions numerously signed have been presented;here for -a license system. That is true; and no doubt many of those who signed those petitions, asking for a license system, are good men, men of influence and men of worth. But I think it cannot be denied that a large majority at least of those who signed those petitions are men in whom the peop!e have not the most implicit confidence, in whose -hands they would not wish to trust so important a mattter. I have in my mind no doubt in regard to the wish of the people in this respect. And is there any doubt in the mind of any member on this floor in regard to the wish and expectation of a large majority of the most intelligent and worthy citizens of Michigan upon this question'? I think we cannot be mistaken; the people have spoken.plainly. They expect and they demand that we, as their representatives, shall stand by and maintain in the Constitution the principle of prohibition of license. They do not wish in any way, directly or indirectly, to license that unholy traffic. The people do not wish, and miost certainly I do not desire, to see this Cdnvention inaugurate a system which will again open these fountains of iniquity under the sanction of law, to send forth .,their streams of death throughout our State. I know it is said by some of those who do not deny the justice and the right of prohibition, that we should compromise and- meet on some middle ground. Mr. President, I have no compromise to make with this unholy traffic. It is a matter, of principle with me. No vote of mine shall ever be given to authorize the Legislature to regulate the sale of that liquid poison. In my judgment it is wrong in principle and demoralizing in effect. There is but one course for me to pursue. The vote I have to cast will be given in favor of placing prohibition in the Constitution. In sustaining prohibition, I believe I shall act in accordance with the wish of a large majority of the constituents which I have the honor to represent, and in -accordance most assuredly with my own judgnient. I feel that there is a great principle involved in this question. And while I have a vote to cast, or a word to speak, it shall be in favor of what I believe to be truth and justice. No matter of expediency for mere party purposes shall control my'action on a question of so high moral character. I do not desire that any inebriate just ready to stagger into a drunkard's grave, shall be able to say to me: " It is your vote to license this unholy traffic that has brought me- here." I do not desire that any widow, made such by this unholy traffic, shall charge it to my rec I CONSTITUTIONA.T4., CONVENTIO.N:. WednesdayY' 618.: Augus 7,16.DB-SADP'O]~)~+. 4 ord or to my vote in favor of the restriction, or license, or call it what you may, of this unholy traffic. These are some of the reasons that will control my vote; and believing them to be correct, I hope that they will prevail. But if in this I shall be disappointed, I shall quietly submit to the decision of the majority, according to them what I claim for myself, honesty of purpose. I believe there is but one course to pursue to meet the great demand of the people of this State. And "in casting my vote, it will be in favor of retaing the prohibitory clause in the Constitution, and submitting that with all other questions to the decision of the people of this State. And I have no doubt of the triumphant result of that principle. Mr. RAFTER. After the very able and elaborate arguments which have been adduced on this subject, it is with a great deal of diffidence that I rise to participate in this discussion, or to express my views on this subject. We are assembled here, as the representatives of the people, to revise the Constitution, the fundamental law of the State, as the increase of our population and the development of our resources demand. I claim that such changes should be made in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electors of this State; so that when they come to pass upon the work of this Convention at the ballot box, they mlay stamp it with the seal of their approbation. But I.do not believe it is the province of Conventions or of Legislatures to say to men what is absolutely right, or what is absolutely wrong; to legislate a moral code for men, to be enforced by penal measures. I think that is a matter which should be left strictly between man, his conscience and his God. Prohibitionists upon this flooi seem to claim that the sale of intoxicating liquors is. wrong; and they seem to. base their arguments upon the fact that men frequently become drunkards. I am not among those who really be lieve that the sale of intoxicating drinks is wrong. I- believe, however, as many here believe, that the iramod erate use of those drinks is not right. I believe also that it is right and proper that laws should be made to restrict or to punish the immoderate use of those drinks. But I am unable to see that a man who indulges temperately inthe use of those drinks is an immoral man. We are told that the traffic in intoxi cating drinks is immoral- and wrong. But gentlemen on this floor, who advo cate prohibition, do not by their own actions say to us or to the people of this State that the sale of these drinks ~ol. 2-No. 82. is wrong. If I should be in the habit, of each day indulging in one glass of beer, or something stronger, accordiing to the arguments of genitlemen on thfis floor, my conduct would be immoral and wrong. But prohibitionists who daily associate with'me in my walks and avocations of life, and thereby countenance me in those acts, are themselves continually in the wrong).. according to their own arguments. I am opposed to the clause in'tlie present Constitution prohibiting the granting of license, because it is a dead letter there. It cannot in and of itself have any influence either for good or for evil. We have been told here to-' day by gentlemen upon this floor, that in discussing this question we shouiid not go beyond the question of prohibition of license to the statutory provisions in our laws regulating the manufacture and sale of these drinkS.: But after a11 we find that those gentlemen who advocate this principle, in order to sustain that dead letter in thie Constitution, are under the necessitJ of resorting to the prohibitory laws upon our statute books. And in discussing this question, therefore, I am justified in pursuing the course that has been pursued upon this floor by other gentlemen; namely, to speak from my own observation. And from my observation, I am obliged to say that the prohibitory clause in the Constitution, and the prohibitory legislation under it, are a failure;' that to-day there is more intemperance ini our State than there was seventeen years ago, when this clause was first enacted. We have had seventeen years of constitutional prohibition; we have had twelve or fourteen years of legisla;tive enactment, regulating the manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks; and what benficial results have flowed from.those enactments? ; We are told that the law is strong enough, that it is sufficient to dry up these fountains of iniquity, as they are termed. If that is the case, what-havw those prohibitionists been doing for the last twelve or fourteen years? Th6se men, notwithstandinig their convictions of right in this matter, have allowed these fountains of immorality toe'fli'w without drying them up. If the law is sufficient, it seems to me they sliould have enforced it. We have been told here that the reason why it has not been enforced has been because-it was made the duty of everybody to enforce it;! and a law which itRWas the duty of everybody to enforce, was the duty Of nobody to enforce. Though that as sertion was made by the distinguished gentleman from Saginaw, i(Mr. SUv'rER LAND,) I am obliged to differ with him. And to sustain my difference of opin It is thereby made the imperative duty of the officeris therein named to enforice the law, and yet men have been elected right along from year to year, have discharged the other duties of their'' respective offices and have violated 'tis provision of the law. The people have acquiesced inthat violation; these men i'ave' been elected and reelected to office, notwithstanding these violations; plainly showing to'me, as it 'seems to me it might show to any :gentleman'on this floor, that the moral sentiment of the people is not so strongly in favor of prohibition, as is claimed by many gentlemen on this floor.. I am as much opposed to intemperance as any other member of this Conventibn. I deplore the evils of intemperance. I would gladly resort to such :masures as in my humble judgment would bring about a reform in that direction. But from the experience I have had in connection with this matter, I am convinced that a step has been taken in-the wrong direction. I -think that more could be done if the moral sentiment of our people was -edicated to an abhorrence of frequent -and immoderate use' of intoxicating -drinks. Besides, I think this principle of prohibition is an infringement upon the rights of individuals. There are many abuses which exist in our community which should be remedied. With all-due deference to the ladies I think I may be allowed to say that thousands and. tens of thousands of young ladies in this country have been taken to premature graves-by tight lacing, thin slippers, and other things injurious to their health. There would be just as much propriety in legislating in reference to those matters, in order to preserve the health and lives of -thbose who injure themselves in thai way under the influence of fashion. Cannot we find many persons wh'o go to excess in other things as well as in drinking? who go ato excess in eating? There would be just as much propriety in passing a law to regulate eating, as there is in passing a law to regulate drinking. I do not see any difference between the two. ion, I will read from our statute laws, from the compiled laws. Speaking of suits, the law provides Such suit may be instituted by the prosecuting attorney of the proper county; and it shall be the duty of the common council, attorney or,alderman of any'city, the board of trustees of any village, and each one of them, and of the supervisor of'any township, when any offense under the provisions of this act 's.hallhave. been committed, who shall have knowledge thereof, or reasonable evidence by af-idavit thereof, served on him, to institute such suit without delay." DjBATE-:'S AND:k ixgs., August 71 1867. 649 65 O4IUI~LCNETO.Wdedy I want to say a word or two with reference to the separate submission of this question. We were told the 6ther day by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD,) that this prohibitory law could be enforced, and the argument adduced by him on that occasion was that majorities should rule; that if majorities should not rule, then pur republican institutions were a mere myth. Now, if it is the principle of prohibitionists up6n this floor that majorities should rule, why are they afraid to trust the voice of the majority of the people upon this question by a separate submission of it to them? The dodge is just this: if it can be embodied in the Constitution and not submitted separately, then let the people vote as they will, vote the new Constitution up or down, they have a prohibitory clause; for, if they vote down the new Constitution, they fall back upon the old one, which has the prohibitory clause in it. That is the reason why they seek to embody it in the new Constitution, and are opposed to allowing it to be submitted separately. We are told that the moral sentimQnt of the people of this State is such, that prohibition can be carried. If that is the case, then why not rely on that moral sentiment? Are we afraid to trust the people of this State to vote on this matter separately? If this proposition should not be embodied in the Constitution, but when submitted to the people separately it should be voted down by forty thousand majority, would it not be right to leave it out of the Constitution? Do gentlemen upon this floor, living under the benign influences of republican institutions desire that minorities shall rule in this State? Do we desire to force laws upon the people of this State in advance of the moral sentiwent of the people?; I think not; I think it is not wise or judicious to do so. If the public sentiment of this State to-day does not endorse the principle of prohibition, then it is better that it should'be left rout of the Constitution, as well as the statutes of the State. Any law which does not meet with the respect and confidence-of the people had better not be there. It is giving an example to men to violate the laws. And for the last twelve or fourteen years we have had a constant violation of this law. I do not know to-day a city or a village of any considerable extent in this State, where the prohibitory law is enforced. There may be some, but if so, they have not come to my knowledge. I think that all the cities in the State allow the sale of liquors. It is true that temperance men, or rather prohibitionists-for I do not admit that every man who opposes prohibition is not a temnprance man. In that connection I will say that I myself claim to be as good a temperance man as any prohibitionist on this floor. I have never found it necessary to have thrown around me the influence of any society, to restrain me from the immoderate use of these drinks. I do not pretend to say that that is anything in my favor; it is nothing more than I should do, not to indulge in that practice. It is perfectly right for those who deem it necessary, or who feel that by the influences that they may bring to bear upon those who use these drinks immoderately they can restrain them-it is perfectly right for them to enter these societies. But I claim that those on this floor who advocate a license law can be just as good temperance men as those who are prohibitionists. Now, with reference to the character of the petitioners in favor of a license law; I am sorry that the prohibitionists upon this floor should take the ground they do with reference to the character, standing and position of those who have petitioned in favor of a license law. As my observation and acquaintance throughout the State is not very extensive, I can only speak in that regard with reference to my own county. In so doing I am obliged to say that just as respectable and just as honorable men there are found in favor of license as any in favor of prohibition. Those petitioners are not, as was asserted by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD,) the other day, rum-sellers. It is true, that the names of some of those who are engaged in the traffic may be found upon those petitions; I do not attempt to deny that fact. But I may safely say that of the names of two thousand petitioners sent from our county, not fifty of them are the names of persons engaged in the traffic in intoxicating liquors. The gentleman from Genesee says that a large portion of those petitioners are of that class. That is not the case in our county. I do not know how it is in other counties. I think that those who believe that license is the best system, that less intemperance will result from it than from this prohibitory clause, should receive the courteous consideration of this Convention to just the same extent as those who favor the opposite view. Now, with reference to the proposition before this Convention, being in favor of a stringent license law, I dO not fully endorse'either proposition No. 1, or No. 2. We have been told upon this floor that these propositions are for prohibition and against pro hibition, not for license and against license. I believe in a stringent, wellreguLlated license law, which will prohibit the sale of liquors to minors, common drunkards and paupers; perhaps other classes might be enumerated. I think a law of that kind would do much more to stem the tide of intemperance than the law we now have. At least so far as my observation has gone, I am obliged to say that I can see no, beneficial influences whatever from the present system. Now, if this traffic in intoxicating drinks is so immoral and so wrong in itself-not the~ immoderate use of it, but the traffic in it-then it is surprising to me that the wisest men of our nation, our legislators in the halls of Congress, should have licensed so great an evil. Be it an evil or not, they have licensed the traffic. I hope that this Convention, in view of all the experience we have had on this subject, will adopt a course that will best serve the interests of our State. Mr. WILLARD.- I do not rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of discussing at any great length the subject now under consideration, inasmuch as the ground has been already quite fully occupied, and arguments have been presented in the course of the discussion of this question, for and against prohibition, from some of the ablest members of this body. But I have felt it incumbent upon me to make at least a few remarks, in order that my position might be-understood, and in order if the cause should go against us, that I might not be without the reflection that I had done what I could to prevent so great a public mis'fortune as I should deem it to be, should the prohibitory clause be taken froin the Constitution, or rather should the new Constitution be submitted to the people with the omission of that important provision. I need not say that I feel a very great-interest in regard to this subject. There is no question which has come before us, it seems to me, at all equal in importance to that which is presented to us to-day, and upon which we shall be called to vote to-morrow. This is a great moral question. The other questions that have come before us have been financial ones, questions which concern the material and comemercial prosperity of our State; at least very many of them have been of that character. Now we approach one in which the moral welfare of the people of this State is concerned, and upon which hangs in some degree the moral destiny of future generations. The question before us is the great moral question of the age; it is one which htas agitated the public mind CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Wednesday, 650 DEBRATES AND PROCEEDINGS. during the present century. The time has come in the history of the world when the attention of mankind has been called to this great and increasing evil; the inordinate use of intoxicating drinks. The attention of governments, especially on this side of the Atlantic, has been of late particularly called to this subject. Laws have been passed in most of the States, regulating or prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors. Our State, directed by the moral sense, and moved onward by the moral energy of the people, took the ground seventeen years ago, that it would not, under any circumstances, license the great wrong.. They did not say they would prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks, but they did say that the seal of this commonwealth should not be affixed to any paper which granted the right to any man to traffic in intoxicating drinks. That was a grand position for this State to take; it was one which filled the hearts of philanthropists throughout the world with delight. And it is this simple ground then taken, upon which those to-day 'plant themselves, who are opposed to the substitute which is now presented for our consideration; upon the simple ground that this State shall not grant a license or permit for the sale of in toxicating drinks. We take this ground, as I need not say, because we are determined that the State shall not have any complicity with a traffic which is in itself immoral and wrong. Every body knows that if, during the great rebellion, our troops came across a guerrilla chief and found in his pocket a commission from the head of the confederacy, they did not fail to charge him who issued the commission with complicity in the crimes which were committed by that guerrilla chief and his gang, though acting in a subordi nate capacity, and carrying on an irreg ular warfare. Did we not charge upon the head of that confederacy, aye, upon the whole confederacy itself, the assault upon Fort Pillow, and many of the sim ilar crimes which were committed by those marauding and plundering chiefs? Why? Because they were acting un der the commission, under the license, call it what you will, of the president of that confederacy, and we and the civilized world held that confederacy responsible. Now what do we ask here? We ask that if certain men in our State shall go on in their traffic in intoxicating drinks, the State of Michigan shall not be held responsible for it. It is because this traffic is a wrong that we plant ourselves upon this ground. And the only logical position which those who oppose us can tEke, it seems to me, is the one which has been boldly taken by Gov. Andrew, that the use of these drinks is beneficial to the community. And the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIs,) the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BIRNEY,) and the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. MORTON,) sank the plummet right down to the very depths of this question, when they took the ground that the traffic in liquors was to be sustained because the use of these liquors was beneficial to the community. They say that these liquors are useful, that they even are a food; and yet, with a peculiar inconsistency, they are found arrayed here with those who are ready to impose a tax upon this traffic or sale.'Now, it is not proper to place a tax upon these liquors, if they are- beneficial, if they are-a food. If they are required for the sustenance of human life, and the welfare of the community, why impose a tax upon them, I would ask these gentlemen, so as to put them beyond the reach of the poor? Such is the consistency of even the most logical advocate of the license system! Those who plant themselves in favor of the prohibition of license for the sale of intoxicating drinks, on the ground that it is wrong, have logical consistency throughout; they are not forced to any make-shifts whatever. The argument before them is as clear as the beams of the noonday sun, But whatever po sition they may take upon the other side of this question, they are driven to subterfuge in order to sustain that po sition. Gentlemen have opposed the principle that we are advocating to day, on the ground that it is an in vasion of individual rights. And Stuart Mill, much as I admire him, loses his logical consistency, when he dares to take the position that the license of the sale of these drinks is to be sustained, because the prohibition of them is an invasion of individual right. Now, I would ask, if the prohi bition of the sale of these liquors is an invasion of individual right, is not the taxing of them, so as to place them be yond the reach of a large class of the community~ an invasion of individual right also? If these liquors are bene ficial, let them come within the reach of the poor. If they are calculated to benefit mankind, if men need them to sustain the human system, when over borne with labor, why do you virtually prohibit them to the poor man by ta ation? Are you the friend of the poor Irishman, and the poor German, I would ask, when you tax those articles and place them beyond their reach, and only allow them to the luxurious a and the rich? But I apprehend that the most of those in this Convention who are opposed to a prohibitory clause in the Constitution, are opposed to it on the ground that it is impracticable, that it has not worked well, that it has not abolished the evil. Now, that is a question which must be determined mainly by experience and observation. I should think, however, as the gentlemnan from St. Joseph (Mr. STOUGHTON) has said, that there is sufficient authority and power in this commonwealth, even-if they have not yet been put in force, to carry out any provision of the Constitution, or of the laws, which the people see fit to adopt, especially when it is to prohibit and to restrain so enormous a wrong. But how has. this prohibition worked? When this State was under the license ,system I was in my youth. Seventeen years have passed away while we have been under another system. It seems to me that I can see a marked contrast as I look back to the days of my boy hood. I see a very different sentiment in general prevailing among the people of our State, in regard to the use of intoxicating drinks. I observe in my own community very much few er drunken men than I did in those days; I observe very much fewer per sons in proportion to the whole popu lation, resorting to those places where these liquors are sold. And if we may refer to those bodies which may of all others be supposed to be expressive of the character of the people, I mean legislative bodies, we must confess there is a very great contrast. For the past few years we have seen very few men in either Hlouse of the Legislature who have been addicted to the use of intoxicating drinks. Twenty years ago it was different, as the experience of many men uponi this floor will corrobo rate. In this Convention which is as sembled here to-day, how few there are whose personal habits do not identify them with the temperate, and even with the most abstemious. Much less than a quarter of a century ago, it is but little to say that no such claim could be made. In looking over the whole field, we find a great progress, due in a great measure to the position taken by the people in prohibiting by a constitutional provision, the license of the sale of intoxicating drinks. The: gentleman frorm Monroe (Mr. MORTON,) the other day referred to moral influences as the chief cause to be relied on, in overcoming and abel ishing this great evil. I take the gen tleman up on his position, and I say ~ there can be no greater moral influence exerted, than by putting in the Consti; tution of the State this declaration, that no man whatever shall be licensed ~ to sell intoxicating drinks. Why? Be Ii August 7, 1867. 651 I '. cause the people have,pronounced it a great moral wrong. Every one throughout the State will regard this declaration as the expression of the moral sentiment of the people. Our children will grow up under the influ ence of this Constitution. As they read this provision in the organic law, they will be led to see what the people have pronounced to be a wrong. And this would have a thousand-fold more influence over them than the private lectures and addresses of legislators, who individually pronounce what is right, but are unwilling to throw around the right, the protecting aegis of the law. I am opposed to the whole principle of - licensing the sale of intoxicating drinks, for a reason which has been already presented on this floor by gentlemen who have addressed the Convention upon this subject; and that is because it throws a respectability about the sale which it could not obtain by any other means. We all know that this. question of respectability is an important one. Men do not like to be seen doing a thing whichis not respectable; they do not like to be seen to even give their support to anything which is not respectable. There is perhaps no class of society more influenced by this consideration than that very class whom we wish to save from these haunts of temptation; I mean the young. We know that at the present day-it is the case at least in my own community-very few young men who have a regard for their good name and. standing in society, indul.ge in the use of intoxicating drinks. But let the State license these haunts of temptation, let, as it were, the broad seal of the State be placed over every door that marks the entrance to one of these places where these liquors are dealt out, and how different will be the appearance which these haunts will at once assume in the eyes of these young men. If any man now visits them, he steals away by night as though he were doing something wrong. But then he wilL walk boldly forth, and feel that he is girted about by the panoply of State authority. Now, he feels that he is a transgressor of the law of the land, in sustaining such places, either directly or indirectly, for they have no right to be open, and he has no right to enter there. But repeal your prohibitory law, which is the object of those who wish to strike down the license prohibition in the Constitution, and these places are made respectable, and they become a thousand-fold more potentin their influences than they are to-day. I am aware there is a class in this Convention, not included among those who think the traffic in these liquors is right, nor included'among those who think that prohibition in itself is im practicable; they are those who favor .a separate submission of this question :tot the people. I have no doubt those men are sincere and believe that it will -be better that this question should be submitted separately. Some think that it will clothe the question with more importance, that it will give -the law a greater influence, if it is adopted by the people on a sin:gle issue. Others, and perhaps the larger class, fear that if this question is not submitted separately, it will endanger the adoption of the Con stitution by the popular vote. Now, in regard t'o this question;,' I must say that I am firmly convinced that it is better for us simply to do right than to seek for what we may deem to be ex pedien-t. I cannot bring myself to think it would be right and proper for us, by a separate submission of this -question to the people, to confess, as it were, that the principle for which we are contending is not a vital and im portant one. What should we think of a man who should to-day urge that we should separately submit to the people the question whether it was right and proper to license.theft or not? We should regard' this absurd, because the moral sense of mankind has long since determined that theft is wrong. And I believe that the moral sense-of the great majority of the people of the State of Michigan has deter mined long before to-day that the licensing of the sale of intoxicating d,rinks is-wrong. -At least most believe that the sale is wrong, and they can only be brought to believe in the licensing of the sale by the plea that it His the better method of.restricting it. I apprehend that but few men in this Convention will say that the indiscrim inate sale of intoxicating drinks, or even their restricted sale, is right, pro vided we can prohibit it. I believe that is the position of most members here; it is the position of nearly all of those who. have expressed them-selves upon the subject. Now, if this rule be wrong, if it is the sentiment of this Convention that it is wrong, if it is -the sentiment of the people that it is wrong, if it has been settled in this State for seventeen years thatit is wrong, then why should we separately submit this question to the people, and thereby seem to acknowledge that it is not wrong? I say that we should seem to acknowledge that the question of the wrong or the right of theft was doubtful if we should submit that question separatelyretothe people. And just so I say -that the right-or wrong of license or prohibition would be considered a very :doubtful one in the estimate of this Con vention, if it should be submitted sepa rately. 'Again, I think it has long since been settled in European countries, as well as in our own, that it is not right and proper for the people by a popular vote to enact laws. I do not say that it is the enactment of a law to submit this question separately; but is very niuch like one. This substitute which is before us has very much the charac ter of a law. And I shiould regard it, if it should go singly and separately before the people, as a measure of very doubtful propriety, to say the least. But when it is coupled with another question, where it is an alternative between two propositions, then the impropriety, it seems to mie, is greatly increased. What would be thought of the passage of a bill in the Legislature of this sort-those who are in favor of this section in prefer ence to that section, will say yes; and those who are in favor of the alternate section will say no-what - would be thought of a bill so framed and cofi structed? Must we be given the choice simply of two things? I say that no bill could go before the Legis lature in that shape. It must in all cases go before them to be voted upon simply yes or no; and the proposition which we submit to the people should be presented to them precisely in'that way. We should put in the Constitu:tion something simple and plain, and go before the people for an affirmative or negative answer. Mr. President, in this brief discus sion; I have not by any means endeav ored to exhaust this question. I have presented some few thoughts that have occurred to me, which have'not been dwelt upon so fully by others who have spoken before me. As I said when I com menced, I have spoken because I was compelled to do so by the deep anxiety I feel in regard to this subject. It seems to me that it is for us, if we are not prudent in the direction of our L votes which shall be cast on the mor row, it ismfor us to turn back the index that marks the progress of true reform -in this State for half a century. It is for us to stay the progress of a refor mation which has. been fraught with the best interests of society, and which, together with the emancipation of the slave, is the principal moral feature of this age. We have seen our own ;country in the past, like Laocoon, wreathed about and encircled by those two slimy serpents, slavery and intem perance, that have come up as it were from the great deep and have sought its destruction. Qne of these happily has been torn away from thevictim by an iron grasp. It remains for us, for the separate States, to go on and tear I CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION., WednesdaY) 652 August 7, 1867, DEBAT] AD PROOEEDIG p653 away the folds of the other; and then our nation will stand forth in its glory and in its strength, a blessing to the t world. I hope we shall not falter at this l time, that we shall not go back and undo what those men, who were as- sembled here seventeen years ago, did for the real welfare, and the substan- tial interests of the people of the State. Be sure, Mr. President, and members of this Convention, that though we may now falter, the work will in the future still go on. It cannot be stayed; i it may take a century to undo what we shall do to-morrow, if we adopt this substitute, instead of the prohibitory clause, which has been called for, 1 I think, by the moral sense of the peo- ple. A moral enterprise of such im- portance, and so vital to the true in- terests of our confmonwealth, will be carried onward, though by hands more fortunate and more successful thanl our own. God must prosper it; and the good sense, the moral sense, the religious sense of the people of the State, will sooner or later, most fully and cordially sustain it. Mr. LONGYEAR. I had not in tended to make any remarks on this question, and consequently I am not prepared with any set speech, written or unwritten. I should not now make any remarks, did I not believe that we were wandering from the main ques tion upon which we are to vote to morrow. I do not, of course, assume any superior wisdom to point out or to dictate what the isssue is; but it is my right as well as my duty to state to this Convention what my view is of that issue, what my view is as to where is the proper forum for the discussion of the merits of license or no license. If my statement of what that issue is, and where is the proper legitimate forum for that discussion, shall be such as to address itself to-the judgment of the members of this Convention, then I shall have accomplished a purpose and been of some use. If it shall not meet their judgment, then we shall have but lost our time, and I shall aim to have that as small a loss as possible. Now what is the question, in the first instance for I do not presume to say that this is the only question, or rather, all there is of ilwhat is the question, in the first instance, that we are to consider.? Is it: on the one hand whether we shall adopt the clause pro hibiting the Legislature from granting license, or on the other hand-to leave it for the Legislature to grant license, or to empower them to do so? Is that the question we are to decide by our vote to-morrow? I appeal to the good sense of the members of this Con vention to say. if that is the question? I undertake to say that is not the question before the Convention for their decision. Whatever we may decide upon, whatever form of clause or provision we may here adopt, is to be submitted to the people in any case. That is a proposition that is evident to all, pnd it may seem that it does not need to be enumerated. Yet I state it here, because it forms a part of the foundation of the proposition I am about to state. Whatever form of clause or provision we agree upon here, is to be submitted to the people in either case, no matter which side succeeds.. - On the one hand it is contended that that submission shall be in the body of the Constitution, which I shall term, for brevity and for convenience, a close submission'of the question; that is, it forecloses all other questions. On the other hand, it is contended that this proposition'should be submitted separately from the Constitution; which I shall term an open submission. Now that is the issue, in the first instance; that is the question upon which we are to vote to-morrow. And so far as the first proposition is concerned, in the one case it is exactly, verbatim, like the one proposed to be submitted in the other case; and that is the distinct, unqualified prohibition of license. So far, then, there is no issue as to what shall be submitted. The only issue so far is as to the manner of submission; not as to what shall be submitted, but as to the manner of submission. That, then, is the issue, in the first instance, upon which we are to vote to-morrow; whether we shall submit this question din the body of the Constitution, make a close submission of it, br whether we shall submit it separate from the Con stitution, or in other words make an open submission of it. Now, if the policy of close submis sion is adopted, that of course ends the controversy, so far as we are concerned. If it is concluded to make an open sub mission, then, and not till then, comes in the alternative proposition of regu lation or restriction. But each mem ber first decides for himself whether he wants a close submission, or an open submission, before the question can properly come up in his mind at all, whether herwants the alternative prop osition or not. Therefore I hold that I am correct in saying that the issue, in the first instance, is the manner of sub mission. The question upon the alter native proposition, to wit: that of reg ulation or restriction, with partia] prohibition, comes up only in the sec ondary point of view, after members have decided to vote for an open sub mission. Now, why submit this alternative proposition, in case of an open submission of the question? For this simple reason: if prohibition of license shall fail, then it is desirable to have some regulation upon the subject. In case of an open submission, if prohibition of license shall fail, and there be nothing else submitted, nothing else decided, no proposition upon the subject put into the Constitution, then the whole subject is left open, without any provision whatever for regulation, or restriction, or partial prohibition. I say that, in my view of this matter, that is why it is desirable to have an alternative proposition, in case of an open submission. Let me put this question to gentlemen who have been arguing here against this alternative proposition as an original proposition, which I contend it is not, but merely a secondary one. Suppose that open submission is decided upon by a majority of this Convention. Are they willing to submit the question of prohibition of license alone, simple and puree without any provision for restriction, regla tion, or partial prohibition, in case they shall fail? Are they willing to take that position? Mr. BRADLEY. May I answer the gentleman? For one of those who have taken that ground, I answer that I am. Now, I want to ask the gentle man a question. Suppose that both were lost; is it not within the province of the Legislature to control the mat ter perfectly in that case? Mr. LONGYEAR. I will answer that question, when I come to consider the alternative proposition. I have some remarks to make upon that prop osition, and I will answer the question at that time, so as not to confuse my remarks now; if I do not, I will thank the gentleman to call my attention to it before I sit down. The gentleman's ansi er to my ques tion, taken with the qualification he makes, would be just as complete an answer to any question which might be asked by the strictest license law man, in regard to his provision, and the putting that provision in the Con stitution. If, in case both are defeated, the subject is left to the control of the Legislature, then why does the gentle ~man from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRAnLEY,) and his coadjutors upon this floor desire L any provision upon the subject in the Constitution? It is for no other reason than this-I believe I state it correctly — they desire to tie the hands of the l Legislature, in a certain direction. That - is, they desire to forestall the action of 3 the Legislature, and to say that they - shall not act in a certain direction. Is not that it:? That is the only purpose of putting in this prohibitory clause, ci p r s t I 0 a t DF,BAT.TS AND PROC.ET"'.T)INGS. Auzur,t 7, 1867. -653 65w CO-STITUTIO~AL CObeyond the bounds of moderation. When gentlemen, with their extreme sensitiveness on this sub ject, are thus found adopting, in de bate here, only an ideal statement, which they cannot reduce to practice, and do not aim to reduce to practice, it is of no use for them to tell me that they regard a man who uses liquor as committing a sin. "But," says some gentleman, ".it is not the man who uses the liquor who commits the sin." Now, sir, I tell you that, by the clearest law in the world if there is any sin or crime about the matter, the crime is in the use. There is undoubtedly a great crime commit ted against a man's self-a sin against that likeness of the Godhead in each man-when any one abuses his own nature by the indulgence of the appe tite for strong drink. A crime also ik committed when a man uses the traffic in such a way as to seduce another to such excess and abuse. These are sins or crimes. Gentlemen may attempt to drill and discipline their minds to a different conclusion, but I tell them that they cannot in sober reason main tain that:there exists any sin in refer vonce to this matter except' in the ex cessive use, or in the seduction of an other person to the impure and exces sive use. Now, sir, this measure of prohibi tion as I have said, has succeeded nowhere, and can succeed nowhere, a, a universal rule. I lay it down as ar axiom on this subject, that you cannot maintain in any community a law which requires a constant strain for it execution. Thisis a princple by which :en should be governed; for it is universally true. I am speaking now, of course, of a community not restrained by absolute and despotic authority; I am speaking of a community in the fair enjoyment of personal liberty. In such a community, I say, no law can be executed which requires a constant strain for its execution. I do not care what may be the subject of legislation, when you go beyond' certSain bounds, the law, by its excessive strain, defeats itself. From the facts around us today, I might, were it necessary, pro duce a thousand illustrations of this truth. The principle is true to-day of that system of taxation which the gen tleman from Calhoun, (HIr. HOLMES,) said' he would abrogate. When that gentleman was speaking of the stain and pollution which infected any government having anything to do with the taxation of alcoholic liquors, he was hardly conscious, I think, of the sort of indictment he was framing against his political friends who now rule the councils of this nation. But in that very law of the United States, imposing taxation upon spirituous liquors, we see the mischief of any law which requires extreme strain for its execution. It is said that to-day, two thirds of all the alcoholic liquors made in the United States escape the inter nal revenue tax, because the,taxation is 0so excessive. Perhaps this maybe a somewhat' exaggerated estimate; but recent investigations in the city of New York, say that beyond ques tion at least one-half of'the liquor made in that portion of the country , escapes taxation, because the law has been pitched too high. We have seen the same truth illustrated in the former legislation of Great Britain. Let any. gentleman call to mind the history of the repressive legislation which was at tempted to be enforced in Great Britain -under her high protective system. s The whole of that island~ was sur rounded with government vessels; there was a coast guard everywhere on s the shore; yet smuggling prevailed t from one end of that kingdom to the other. Force enough could not be enlisted in the~- country to repress - smuggling. Finally an English states - man said that the smuggler, instead of being a nuisance, was one of the wise - provisions of Providence, to teach leg -islation its proper bounds. So, too, with regard to the excise tax. Does .not every man know why this term has l come down to us impregnated, as it s were, with the very odor of intoxicat i nag liquors? The excise tax in Eng t land, Ireland and Scotland, upon the manufacture of alcoholic liquors, cre s ated illicit stills in hovels and in holes h in the ground. Liquor was illegally DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. August 7, 1867. -669 6~O CO{IUIiA OV~I~ Wdedy manufactured from one end of the kingdom to the other. Thus, whenever you adopt this violence of method, and undertake to enforce a law beyond reasonable and moderate bounds, you undertake to fight against the ordinary instincts of humanity-against the natural propensities of men; and when you undertake that, you undertake a battle in which you mast fail. And I tell my friend from Kalamazoo (Mr. BRADLEY) that the "entrenchments" of which he thinks the prohibitionists are entitled to take all possible advantage- those defenses behind which he thinks it wise to fight-are but walls within which he and his associates are imprisoned, while their enemies stalk at large all around. His boasted "entrenchments" are not mtmiments of protection; they are but imprisoning walls. "But," say my friends on the other side, " are you going to license a system of liquor-elling, and thereby give it the sanction and endorsement of law?" The objection is that regulation commits the government to some complicity with the system. Now, let me say that, if this question of spirituous liquors and their use comes within the domain of human legislation, government must deal with it; and I say to gentlemen here and everywhere that government cannot convert itself into an absentee institution, to stand aside and see this thing go on, without lifting its hand to deal with it. The sin on the part of the government, and those who carry on the government, is not in dealing with it-in putting their hands upon it. The sin of the government is in refusing to deal with it, and refusing to keep itself in a position to deal with it at all times. Does the government endorse the traffic in spirituous liquors when it licenses it? What do gentlemen mean by "license "? They seem to suppose that license implies the authorization of something which is in itself illicit. Now, sir, that is not the meaning of license with us; nor is it the meaning of restriction or regulation. I do not care anything aboutthe word " license." I am perfectly willing to throw that word away, if it offends anybody. But in point of fact, license means with us restriction and regulation. It simply implies that the subject to which you apply license does not belong to the domain of free, ungoverned, unrestrained trade; that it does not belong to the sphere of untrammeled individual action, needing no regulation. It simply implies that the mat:, ter is one requiring the intervention of government to control and restrain it, lest it assume some evil form or pro duce some evil result.' License is re striction or restraint. It is not the endorsement or authorization of any thing. Wvhat community is -there that does not regulate the sale of gunpowder? Yet gunpowder may be used in the pistol of the assassin to smite down the peace ful citizen. The murderer may commit a great crime through the agency of gunpowder. Is the govern ment responsible for that crime, be cause it permits gunpowder to be sold? Why is gunpowder to be sold? It is in its very nature property; it has various uses; but its nature is such that it is not to be permitted to be sold without regulation; -and government regulates its use in such a marner as is deemed consistent with the welfare of society. It says to the man who uses it in an unlawful, wicked manner, "We will punish you." But to say that government, because it permits gun powder to,be sold, is responsible if the Houses of Parliament are blown up, is responsible for any nefarious use to which the article - may be devoted, would be to utter what every one would recoghize as mere nonsense. But," says another gentleman,'" by license, you want to make the pursuit respectable-do you? I do not want to make it respectable." Now, sir, when I say that I want to make a pur suit respectable, I recognize the fact that the pursuit. must be carried on and will be carried on; and therefore I say it is better that it should be carried on under the restraints and supervision of law; that it should be so carried on that the incidents which constitute its great abuse shall not exist. lDly friend on the other side does not want to restrain this sale by law. He wants, he says, to put up in the tippling-shop the "bloat," to be a warning to everybody. Why, sir, does not my friend know that the "bloat" to-day wanders all over the.community; and yet the warnings does not serve. As with all the seductions to indulgence which beset us through life, so it is in regard to the indulgence in liquor. There is no man but feels himself strong enough to resist the temptation to improper indulgence. Every man pities the victim of excessive drinking, but no man expects himself to become such a victim. What I desire that we shall do is to recognize the fact that this traffic will go on-that it will go on either illicitly or lawfully; and as I have already said, I prefer that it shall go on under the open restraints of law; that the traffic shall be carried on by men who will not be likely to deviate from their legal duties and obligations, rather than that liquor shi0old be permitted to flow everywhere. If prohibition prevented the "bloat;" if prohibition reached where it must reach to be of use to the cure of excessive indulgence-it would be efficient; but it does not do that. I have a right, in behalf of the community in which I resid6, to tell the sad story of prohibition for the last fifteen years.' It is not a story told of us alone. It is a story as old as man's experience in reference to this matter. For the last fifteen years, prohibition has had no other -fruit than to open the flood-gates of this traffic, and pour it upon us with all its worst consequences. I can go into the streets of the city where I reside-and the thing is duplicated generally in your various towns-and trace the ravages of tlhi traffic almost from door to door. Intoxication is not simply found in the "low doggery," to use the term of gentlemen on the other side; it profanes the domestic circle in innumerable instances.(. I can pass along the streets of my city, and see standing within the house the bottle, or the little keg, with perhaps a single, glass. The laborer or the youth can find no refuge; liquor is presented to him at every turn. He is enticed to it.in every form. If he has the appetite for drink, that appetite teinpts him at every moment. I say that such drunkenness, such crime and such misery never before flowed upon us, as have been inflicted upon us by this fatal gift. Not for one day, not for one month, not for- one year, gentlemenprohibitionists, but for year after year, with no hope of relief, has our community been cursed in this way. Now the question with us is, shall this evil be continued still longer in its present aggravated form, or shall it be restrained and controlled by law? Gentlemen ask, "Do you expect, by license, restriction or taxation, to suppress the sale of liquor?" I answer, as I have already answered, we do not expect to prevent the sale. I have already said that no large community ever existed in which this traffic has been suppressed entirely, or in which the use of liquor (for this is the point,) has been effectually prevented. Inasmuch as you do not and cannot accomplish this ob'ect by prohibition, we do not expect to accomplish it by license. But by regulation we do expect to recognize distinctly the fact so far as I am personally concerned, I do recognize the stubborn fact-that here is an article which addresses the appetites and wants of men-an article known and used, not only throughout the civilized world,. but - throughout all the world wherever the slight CONSTITUTIONAL. CONVENTION!-' Wednesday, 670 I Nugut 7, 1867. DEBATES AD PROOEEDI. 671 est human intelligence has dawned. This article, standing in this relation to the community, can be regulated in its use. What then? It shall not be found everywhere; it shall not address the laborer in his household; it shall not address him when he visits his neighbor socially; it shall not be presented to the eye of youth and of age everywhere; but it shall take its true position in society, as an agent necessarily existing, but dangerous an agent calling for the intervention and regulation of law, and therefore dealt in under the restraints and guardianship of law. The open tippling-house, whereyouths and men resort, can be regulated and controlled. Intoxicating liquors can be kept in the hands of responsible men, in- places of known resort; and these can be controlled. This system will not destroy intemperance; it will not put an end to the use of liquors. This result cannot be accomplished by any agency of this kind. The only way in which any such result can be accomplished is in the manner in which you address mankind with regard to all other appetites. and indulgences. You can restrain the evil and control it, so far as the individual is concerned, by improving his moral condition, by teaching him the danger of this indul gence, and by restraining him in the inordinate use of the article. But sir, in talking here, we greatly exaggerate the extent to which the ex cessive indulgence prevails. From the remarks of gentleman in this Conven tion, it might be supposed that the great mass of men are plunged in in tokication; that they have fallen into the grasp of intemperance beyond'he control of reason.- Now sir, in the very worst community in the worst times, the percentage'of men who have surrendered themselves to the inordi nate use of liquor has been but small. It is of course deplorable that there are any such; but with al the oppor tunities for indulgence, with all the weaknesses of human nature, with all the strength of our appetites, the vast majority of men do control them selves in this matter, just as they con trol themselves in other things. They are controlled in the only way in which individuals and communities can be effectually controlled with referenceAo this evil-by being educated up, mor ally and intellectually, to a condition above the indulgence of-their appe tites. Now, sir, as gentlemen have spoken of the question of taxation, I will say that I would have this traffic taxed, if you please, so that it shall be an agent in furnishing revenue. I concede that where government taxes for purposes of -revenue, the direct purpose is not restraint; but you can combine with a system of taxation, an effort to restrain. By a system. of taxation, you can close up all those small places where liquor addresses itself to men at every step of their lives. You can permit the Hle to be carried on only by men who are able to pay this tax. You can accompany it (for this is a part of every properly-regulated scheme on this subject) with restraints as to the time, place, and circumstances of the sale, the persons to whom the sale can be made, etc. For instance, it is declared here, in the proposition of the gen:leman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) which has been embodied as a part of the substitute, that,, " the sale of such drinks to "ninors, persons under guardianship, paupers and common drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited." What is the reason for such prohib ition? A gentleman on this floor, in his remarks the other day, seemed to think it very strange that any dis ticntion of this kind should be made. Now, sir, these distinctions run all through the ordinances of society. All our legislation recognizes the fact that there are certain classes of persons in the community who cannot be allowed that measure of liberty which is per mitted generally to all others. Your veiy ordinance of suffrage does not permit the youth under twenty-one yearsof age to vote. Why not? He may have the same intelligence as others whio do vote; he may have all the qualifications possessed by others, except that of age; yet the ordinances of society do not allow him -the privi lege of suffrage. Thus we restrain the exercise of this and other privileges, because certain restraints are found necessary for the proper conduct of society. And you may provide in a restrictive liquor-la~w, that if it be transgressed in a single instance, the individual transgressing shall be forever deprived of the priv ilege of selling; his place may be rig orously closed; he may be deprived of all further rights in this respect, as a punishment for his violation of the law. So you may impose other re strictions. But, sir, inasmuch as this traffic can not, in large communities, be sup pressed-inasmuch as we cannot anni hilate drunkenness we maintain that the traffic is one that should be regu lated by law-one that should be car ried on openly, under such provisions of legislation as shall best protect the community. Now, I undertake to say, without one moment's hesitation, that the community in which I reside, would be infinitely benefited by hav ing this traffic placed under legal reg ulation. After what I have said, I can scarcely be misunderstood on this point. I do not expect that such a system will abolish drunkenness. There is, and there will be, among men an appetite so morbid and so depraved that even if, by an Almighty fiat, all forms of alcoholic preparations were annihilated, that appetite would find its gratification in some other form of indulgence. Indeed, there are whole nations that find this indulgence in some other form-an indulgence producing often - greater evils than the indulgence in the use of spirituous liquors. Therefore, I say there is no possibility that intoxication shall be entirely removed from the community; there is no possibility that we shall entirely escape its evils; but we propose to restrain these evils to a certain extent, to prevent irresponsible places from being opened, to suppress the viler class of tippling-houses, to re move the worst forms of seduction to youth and men. You might prohibit (for it would be perfectly competent for the Legislature to do this under the proposition which I advocate)-you might prohibit the use of the liquor at the place of sale; you might require that it should be taken home, where there would not be the same social temptations which are found at the tippling-shop. Other matters also might'be regulated according to the wisdom of legislation. What would be the best method, I do not under take to say; but I do undertake to say that we cannot live in peace and safety under the form of this traffic which now exists. But gentlemen say to us,,, We are going to enforce the prohibitory law. Endorse prohibition again in the Con stitution, and we will enforce the pres ent prohibitory law, or replace it by another which shall be efficient." A gentleman sitting here on my right, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) for whose judgment I have much respect, said the other day that the present prohibitory law has failed because it is defectively framed. And what did the gentleman point out as the defect in the frame-work of that law? I was amazed when he declared what he regarded as the proper remedy for the defect in QurI present law-when he stated that he would organize a constabulary force which should extend throughout the bounds of the State, and which should have as its sole object the enforcement of this law. Now, I say to the gentle man, that if he should organize a stand ing army in this State, and if he should devote to this Work the whole pecu niary resources of the commonwealth, vast as they are, he would be baffled in this undertaking. The effort t f I i I A —ugust. 7. 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 671. 6'72~~~ CO-IUTOA ()sE~I~ Wded would be as futile as if a man should undertake to plow a furrow through the air or through the ocean, and to leave a visible trace behind The object sought would escape him just as fast as he might think he had grasped it. Do gentleman know what they are about when they propose to saddle upon the State a constabulary force of this kind? Why, sir, we have in the city of Detroit a police force which is not half large enough for our police purposes, but which costs us, I believe, some seventy-five or eighty thousand dollars a year. This is the expense of a small municipal police force, not serving effectually our local police purposes. Now, here we have a potent agency which is to be combated-an agency before which all the morality of the community, all the Christianity of the community, lies prostrate in the dust, confessing its inability to enforce the law; yet my friend from Saginaw is going to enforce this law by' the aid of some few additional constables or other officers! Why, sir, permit me to say that a gentleman who talks in this way has no- just estimate of what constitutes the majesty of law and in what lies the power that enforces law. I tell that gentleman, and I tell others who may entertain similar views, that though they should covertthe whole State with their constabulary force, they could not enlist men enough to enforce a law which wars against a condition of society like that which I have described. You may put a padlockonthe door of every man in the State; yet the ingenuity of man will evade the law just as successfully as in the instance to which I have already referred, where all the shipping of Great Britain- and all her coast-guard armed to the teeth, were foiled by the ingenuity and activity of the smuggler. If a man cannot succeed in the day, the shades of-night follow, and he who pursues an end for appetite or for fraud, will by wile or stratagem, or purchase, inevitably accomplish his end. Now, gentlemen, let us act upon this question, not as mere theorists, not as mere idealists, not as men who are attempting some Utopian project. Our duty-rests here at our own doors, in tour own communities. Let us as lawgivers devise a scheme which, if it does not save society from vice and crime, may in some measure repress this vice and crime, may remove some of its more flagrant evils and some of its temptations. Let us plant a law of this kind upon such foundations that it can be enforced without a constant strain.'Let us thus realize some of the effective benefits of a law founded on right principles, sustained by the judgment of the community, and suc cessfully enforced. It is of no ser vice to place upon our statute books the most delightful theories. We cannot pretend to the powers of Him who said. "Let there be light, and there was light." We cannot say, "Thus far shalt thou come, and no farther." This is the prerogative of a higher Power. We can only say that it is given to us to frame laws for the government of a community, not per feet either in its organization or in its forms of life; and the utmost that we can attain, is to frame such laws as will best serve these imperfect commu nities, whicb, changing from time to time as our circumstances change, ad vancing from time to time as our civil ization advances, will reach nearer and nearer the desired ends, although never attaining perfection either in their administration or in their objects. To do this is our office. Let us try to con form ourselves accordingly. Let us deal with this question, gentlemen of the Convention, as we deal with all other questions that stand in similar relation to society. Let us not by an empty prohibition, standing upon our statute book, commanding no respect and securing no enforcement, strive to draw about us a mantle which we flatter ourselves will secure us from all other duties in this regard. Let' us apply that law of regulation and re straint which will secure to us the best attainable good. Let us not strive to put ourselves in a better position than that which has been permitted to us by Him who created us and sustains us. Let us' not assume that the existence of this agent in society is either a sin or a crime; for let us re member that there is nothing given to man that has not its uses; and the proper use of anything is not a vice, is not a crime. It is the excess that con> stitutes the wrong and the crime. Let us remember that He who ordained X wine at'Cana ordained us; and that our ordinances, when they do not con sist with His laws, His regulations, His 3 wisdom, are the merest vanity and f emptiness. Let us endeavor torestrict, - so far as we can, vice and crime where they exist; and though we shall not i eradicate sin or suppress its evils, yet - we may save the community from some of the effects of vice and crime. And, sir, whatever we do, let us re member that we in this Convention 3 do not make law absolutely. Let us remember that all we do is to frame f propositions for the endorsement of t others. If the people of this State deem prohibition to be a wise measure, we present it to them with the one l hand. If they deem restriction and e regulation to be a wise measure, we present this to them with' the other hand. When:we have thus presented to them these alternative propositions that they may make their choice, we are not respon sible for their action. Let me say to my friends here, that we cannot be responsible for the people of this State. All that we are responsible for is the wise performance of our duity here in framing such propositions as shall intelligibly present to the peo ple the subjects for, action. When we have done this, we have done our duty. If the people of this' State shall think that the measure of pro hibition ought to be still further tried, then, however erroneous I deem that conclusion, however strongly I am convinced that it is an unwise poli cy, I shall cheerfully submuit, and in the community in which I reside, shall patiently await, if life be spared Ve, the result of that experiment-delighted if it should succeed, not disappointed if it should fail. On —the otheriand, if the people should-deem it — wise-: and best as society is now constituted, that. we should try the other system-if they should not deem it sufficient-to adopt any of these short methods of theoretical prohibition, but should pre fer to try the other policy, that of con stant restraint, constant regulation, day in and day out, as circumstances shall require-then I shall go forward and do my duty as a citizen according to the best of my ability, in sustaining and upholding such a system. I believe that this would be a wise policy to adopt; but I am prepared to submit to either, as it is the duty of a citizen to submit to the will of the people. What I deem it the duty of this ,Convention to do is to frame these tvwo systems in proper shape for the action of the people to submit to themrupon the one hand the proposition for pro [hibition-for to prohibit license is to Lrequire prohibition; nobody woulUd: permit the unregulated, unrestricted -traffic in intoxicating liquors; the? i traffic must be regulated, restrained Ior restricted in some way; when , we prohibit license, it is a decla~ ration that the traffic shall be pro hibited, that, it shall not be authort ized. If the people should indorse ~ -that proposition, it becomes a law of their own making; and I say to my friends on the other side that they will X have obtained a great gain. I do not mean for one moment to imply that I believe such a system could be enforced, f even if it were endorsed by the people; but I say, without the slightest reserve, , that the system would then have a moral strength which it can have in no 1 other way. If you submit prohibition 3 in the body of the Constitution, and it cc i i I 8 r a i i CONSTITUTIONAL - CONVIMNTION. Wednes4 672 August 7, 1867. DEBATES AD PROOEEDI(+S. 673 [s in that way carried-floated into its place by the merits of other provisions -how will you be better situated with regard to this matter than you are today? To-day this system stalks abroad a ghastly spectre, terrifying and desolating, not conferring good. That is the position of prohibition to-day. Let it be again floated into its place in the Constitution, not by its own merits, but by the merits of other parts of the Constitution, and this prohibitory clause will have no better position, no more efficacy, than it has to-day. But if this clause be submitted directly to the people, and be approved by them, it will have what it has never yet had, the primal approbation of the people of the State in favor of it and its support. It never has stood in this position heretofore. So far as regards the provision in the present Constitution, how was it adopted? It was submitted with the other parts of the Constitution, and floated into its place along with that Constitution. Yet there is no man on this floor who does not know that our present Constitution, with or without that provision, might have been defeated in 1850 with perfect ease. Ten or twelve men of this State, whom I could name, who did not approve of that Constitu tion, although they permitted it to go into operation by sufferance, could by active exertion have defeated it. As it was the Constitution was very heavily voted against. After the adoption of this Constitution, em bracing the prohibitory clause, there came the prohibitory liquor law; and that was submitted to the people. With that provision in the Constitu tion, what had the people to do but vote for the prohibitory law? They could not regulate the traffic in liquor by license; and there is no class of people in this State, of any magnitude, that would permit the traffic to go on unrestricted and uncontrolled. Our citizens would rather throw upon that traffic, though ineffectually, the dead weight of prohibition than suffer it to go on unrestrained. They concluded that they would at any rate try the experiment. But, sir, what sort of an endorsement did that prohibitory liquor law have? It did not have in its favorm majority of the voters of the State. That law was approved, as many of the amenid ments to our Constitution have been adopted from time to time, almost by default, comparatively few men voting upon the question. Now, if it be true, as gentlemen here say it is —(I do not know whether it is true or not, for I have not myself the means of ascertaining the preponder ance of sentiment on a question of this Vol. 2-No. 85. kind)-if it be true that a majority of the people of this State are in favor of prohibition, why should gentlemen hesitate to seek and 6btain what will certainly be a great gain to their cause a direct endorsement by the people of this prohibitory clause. Why do gentlemen hesitate? I will not assume that their hesitation arises from a sense of weakness, though I confess that it is one of the badges of weakness when men, claiming that they have the people on their side, decline to appeal to that great umpire. It will not do for gentlemen to say that they stand within their defenses and do not intend to come outside of them. So intelligent a gentleman as myfriend from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) a gentleman who has girded himself for warfare on this subject and others by the dedication of his life-needs not to be told by me that in regard to great questions, moral or political, there are no defenses behind which any man may shelter himself. Every man must stand in the open field ready to do battle against all comers; and the moment a man fails so to stand and so to assert his championship, he thereby surrenders the whole question. He who does not meet me and others on this question before the people, per mitting them to decide for themselves whether they will endorse this provis ion or not, has laid down his armor in this contest, and is already a defeated knight. Let us then go to the people. Let us submit this question to them. As I have already remarked, we are not here to make law; we simply frame the outline of law, and sub mnit it to those whose image and superscription must be stamped upon it before it can have the weight and power of law. Let us go before the people without any subterfuge, pre senting our proposition on the right hand and on the left. Let us appeal to the moral feeling, the intelligence, the experience, the wisdom of this great 'State. Let us say to the people, "Decree what shall be the law!" When their will shall have been de clared on this question, I, as a good citizen, will acquiesce in the decision, though my judgment may remain un convinced. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. President, sup pression of the sale and use of intoxi cating liquors as a beverage to be drank in places of public resort, is the settled policy of the party in power in this State. Suppression is precisely the meaning of the proposition intro duced by the chairman of the commit tee, the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS.) Precisely that is the proposi tion introduced by my colleague from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) Indeed, the aim of every man in this great and controlling party, if he acts at all on this question, is to carry out either wholly or partially, the policy of suppression. Prohibition means suppression; so does license, to the unlicensed dealer; and taxation to the party unable or unwilling to pay the tax. Sir, I differ with my friend from Ingham, (er. LoNGYEAR,) who, speaking on this subject this afternoon, stated that it was simply a question whether we should prohibit the Legislature from authorizing the granting of licenses, and not whether we should prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage. I cannot assent to that statement. That statement may be true, as the lawyers of the last generation would say, so far as the'" paperbook" is concerned; that is, in the written form of the section under con sideration. But the real issue in this Convention, as we all know-the real issue as understood by the public-is that of prohibition or no prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors- Al though the form of the issue, as we have made it up here, is prohibition of the granting of licenses only, yet it means suppression. Sir, I propose to examine the propriety of submitting that question separately to a vote of the people, not from the stand-point of a lawyer or an advocate, but from the higher level of statesmanship, if I should be able to attain to it. Mr. President, I am in favor of sub mitting this question directly and sepa rately to a vote of the electors; not because I doubt that a majority will be found in favor of prohibition, but, sir, because, as I shall endeavor to show, we have reached that stage in the pro gress of suppressing the sale of intox icating liquors, where we are called upon to take a grand and important step-a step almost as great and mo mentous as the original one of passing from license to prohibition. Now, sir, so far as regards the mere question of prohibition on the page of the statute book —whether we have legal prohibi tion at all —and without reference to our past experience in various por tions of the State, and without refer ence to the necessary measures for compelling obedience to the law, to which that experience tells us we must now resort-I should differ from some gentlemen who have spoken during this discussion. I should say that even this question of the law itself should properly be submitted again and at this time to the decision of the people of this gen eration; and that, too, notwithstanding the question was submitted seventeen years ago. For, sir, gentlemen must DEBATES AND PROC'P,-PoDINGS., A.uzust 7, 1867. \ 673 674 COSTITUTIOAL COVETIO. recollect that a new political generation is living now, and occupying the field of action-a different generation entirely from that which passed upon this question at the time mentioned. I am one of those who hold that, so f' as regards the customs and regulations of society, each generation has the undoubted right to settle all these matters for itself, and is not bound by the opinions of any former one. And this, by the way, is one of the reasons for these periodic changes in the organic law of the land-these constitutional conventions once in seventeen, eighteen or twenty years. These revisions of our fundamental law become necessary, because the old constitution was made by a generation that has passed away. The dead have no au thority to bind the living without their consent. Hence all these great ques tions should, from time to time, be sub mitted anew. Again, MIr. President, this question was submitted and passed upon at a time when the population of our State was much less than it is now. If I recollect aright, we had at the time of the former submission, less than 500, 000 inhabitants, whereas we have now nearly a million, one-half of whom have never spoklen on the subject. Sir, I ask whether the 500,000 who have be come inhabitants of our State since the previous decision of this question at the ballot-box, have not just as much right to say whether or not they prefer pro hibition, as the first 500,000 had? The first comers into a territory or State have no right to dictate a policy to all succeeding generations. To submit this question again to the electors of the State, appears to me to be only doing justice to that large class of our population who never have had an op portunity to give a vote upon it, and whose daily business and lives are affected by it; for to them the proposi tion of legal prohibition is one of first impression, as much so as it was seven teen years ago, when submitted to the generation that has passed away. In this connection, I would also say that I prefer to have the question sub mitted anew as an original proposi tion, so that that large and respectable portion of our population, who since then have come from abroad and set tled amongst us, may have an oppor tunity of being heard. I prefer this, because of the character of that popu lation. Most of them, the Germans in particular, have come within our bor ders from countries where the customs and habits of the people are entirely different from ours. They have l'rought with them here, those cherished cus toms and habits which conflict with prohibition. And, as I said before, suppression of the liquor traffic being proposed as the settled future policy of the State, and as we desire the aid and assistance of that class of people in conducting the affairs of government, it is only fair that we should submit it also to them, and take their opinion ipon it. WVhen our foreign-born citizens, upon a fair submission of the question, shall find themselves overruled by a majority, they, like good Republicans, will feel and acknowledge the obligation to yield to the decision of the ballot-box. We have assurances to that effect. Sir, I will not apply to that class of our fellow-citizens the opprobrious epithets which, I am informed, were so unjustly applied by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HowAnRD.) Those people are as worthy as ourselves. They are good citizens in every respect-industrious, fiugal, in telligent. But a social custom of theirs conflicts, as I have said, with the policy of prohibition —a policy which the Democratic party inaugurated, when in power, and which we have but con tinued; and therefore they appeal to us who have the destinies of the State at this day in our hands-they ask of this Convention, an opportunity to be heard; and I say here, in my place, it is a proper and reasonable request. I will 'do all in my power to grant it. Mr. President, as one of the com mittee that recommended the separate submission of the question, I now ask the attention of the Convention to this great fact; that so far as the cities of the State are concerned, the law is comparatively inoperative and insuffi cient to suppress the sale of intoxicat ing liquors as a beverage, without having resort to stronger and more radical means to carry il into effect. And here I find a powerful argument in favor of a separate submission. Sir, when the first 500,000 people passed upon and approved the law, they sup posed that it could be carried into effect by the ordinary police machinery throughout the State. It was believed that the enactment of the law and its enforcement were equivalent terms. Now, so far as regards the greater part of the State —the rural districts, as they are called —the law, I beg leave to say to my friend from Wayne, (Mr. Lo vero,) is not by any means a fail ure. There it can be,ffectually applied. It has suppressed the sale of intoxicating drinks throughout vast portions of the State; it has lessened the evils of intemperance; and with the aid of the moral influence which in the rural districts clusters around the law, it has banished the dangerous bottle, which he spoke of, from the sideboard and the tempting glass from the home of the laboring man. The Wedlies, it has succeeded so well' t the police force, as at p zed in the rural distric~: sufficient for the suppres.j affic. But in Detroit, and , and l mount Clemens, and:-? hich I have the honor in pm 1 ent, and the other cities of:i, it has been demonstrated?L t dinary police system wlidely h t present is not sufficient fobi ement of the law. But if p force the law in the c the population is sparse,'m lat power in proportion: ers are aggregated together; enforce the law there likes easonable extent. X President, the question that' p ts itself to the majority in i and on this floor, and who r sible, let me say, for the a[-B Convention on this as welt er matters, is as to the best p nethod of enforcing this la1 places where heretofore it to have a practical and benAa =; Sir, I apprehend we aroC" to take any step backlward it to intemlperance. We are to return to the license sy< nly not-no more than we: ck to the system of thumbsc[ tort testimony from witn(' — a ith all due respect, I will: lleague, (Mr. W1ITHEY,) wI i uced this substitute, we ar back to the system of e. system has utterly failed * d of suppression, wherever i{' tried. Both have failed. tx e years ago, and it failed; an from Wayne, (3fr. Lo0: old me this evening that t'-; i stem was tried in Englanc. to such an extent that fre? surrounding countries theism ed article was poured upo:~ hil. Why try these explocd ver again in our time? 1; I_h ee in repeating again the..~ o t generations; such is c? ne. Not backward, but,!~ rogressive age is going mX& as well as policies, andl W~t th it, or cease to be a g in the State. — E} the enforcement of ia.-: on of power alone. Dis an argument in favor of? E act designed to suppreSB~ il; but it is an argumen[? engthening the hand i it into effect. Subml: voluntarily yielded, me , or else society will bet ized, and the statute-.b', tepible thing. Here, 2'. ht face to face with the,: hibition is to be cont'min~ s s t s c 8 f s t t CONSTITUTIONAT, CONVENTION. 674 US 7, 1867. i- of M[ichigan, we must orga >~the police of the State, so as to ; the law in the refractory places. SJ- sir, as I have already said, E re.ached that stage in the prob "p:ressing by law the sale of jgtig drinks when, if we contin -pohicy, wo must resort to m agent and powerful measures. is of execution must be ma Jil to the emergency. If the X ity of the people of the State tigan are, as prohibitionists e, in favor of entire suppressi Ln' the law must be made equa uniformly operative everywh hp our borders. It is the duty ~people of the State, as a State, is —not to make Detroit an fln, and Grand Rapids an exc f,ad Port Huron an exception f0orcing the law in the rural distri aallowing it to be violated where Ale are congregated in the cit iemen cannot contemplate a c ince of the law and a continuan the systematic breaking of it in ctOly localities at the same tim t at all. What, then, must we ,Onteen years have we trusted iple of the cities and villages to i this law by their own volition E ion. They were called upon /~ the will of the majority of pl0 of the State, as expressed 6statute-book. But they say t] ro not power enough to enforce t !, What then? This surely: 8S, namely: the people of the St At bring the power of the State i: ..disobedient communities and ~c its laws. In other words, a St ic must be organized, superior il 1ocal authorities, and whose acti igLlnot be affected by local pre [OS. This step, it will be seen : as radical as the enactment : bition into law in the beg ge Moreover this necessity w 'cOntemplated in the beginni X.]tep, which we are now compel He, or abandon the policy, was: i'ipated in the remotest degree .0 who originated prohibition, n gal say, by the people who sev vi years ago approved of it. It w U volved in the proposition th ~ttad to the decision of the ball a Yet this momentous step m h be taken, or else another pa A- radical, more vigorous than ,mad less timid,will rise up and ca ~to progressive ideas of the E 'People of Michigan are not going [ down before the interested de i: itoxicating liquors, and th I.ents in any locality. Cities in . are not above the law of the St g?ower of the State will be cal ~:exercise for the enforcement DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. tioning the organization and exercise of that great power which is necessary to enforce this law uniformly throughout the State? Such a submission will be a stupid sham. Mr. President, I urge the separate submission of this question, not because I want the sale of intoxicating liquors to increase, not because whisky is " good for food, and drink, and clothing, and lodging," as one gentleman has wittily suggested; I urge it because we need anew impulse and authority coming directly from the people, to carry out the measure by the use of the necessary and indispensable means. I put it to gentlemen here as a question of statesmanship. By submitting the proposition separately, we shall get the verdict of the people in a form that cannot be misunderstood. MNlr. President, is it safe to go forward in this matter without such a submission, when we now have so favorable an opportunity, and can so easily ascertain the people's will? Our radical temperance men, our prohibitionists, need fear nothing. The world, they may rest assured, has not gone backward during the last seventeen years. The constituencies which the gentlemen from the rural districts represent here, and which give them such stiff backbones on this question, have not lost one iota-of their temperance principles during that time. There is no danger in submitting this question separately, but much to be gained by such a course. What is to be gained? First, that large class of our population who have come into our State with habits different from ours, and who are appealing to us for an opportunity to be heard on this question, will be satisfied. If they are thus fairly treated and willingly heard, I believe they will yield gracefully to the expressed will of the majority, and will not be driven away, alienated, and thrown into hostility against us. What is the next thing that will be gained? We need and must have for the successtifl wielding of the prohibitory law in cities and wherever else it is not now enforced, a thorough agitation of this question all over the State. Sir, it will be one of the finest things that has happened in this country since the inauguration of the Washingtonian movement in 1840. I should think that temperance men, prohibitionists, men of all shades of temperance opinion, would be glad to enter the field and discuss the question from the stump and in the newspaper press. This appears particularly desirable in view of the changes which must be made in the methods of enforcing the law. Gentlemen tell me that those who are interested in tb~ .manufacture and sale of liquors wi the law, if it be retained on the statute-book. We are determined that it shall be obeyed in every part of the State alike, in the cities as well as in the rural districts. The question, then, involved in a submission at this time to the electors of a continuance of prohibition, is a question of changing the machinery and the methods of enforcing the laws of the State. This, Mr. President, is the question to-day. Seventeen years ago the question was merely a change in the wording of the written law. Now, sir, although this great, this momentous question is not, as I have remarked, disclosed in "the paper book,"-although it is not presented, apparently, by the simple question of tying up the hands of the Legislature, and forbidding the granting of licenses -yet it is nevertheless involved in that issue. It is as much in there as though it were written there, and it will be presented as directly before the people for their contemplation, if we go to'the ballot-box with the question as we ought. Now, sir, as one of the majority here; as one prepared to take any step that is necessary to enforce any law of the State; as one willing to compel obedience to all our laws alike in the country, in the cities and villages, everywhere within our borders, I earnestly desire that this question, simple as it is in form, but momentous in fact, involving the suppression of the liquor traffic by the use of all the physical power of the State, if necessary, shall be submitted to the people-our masters-for their approval. It is too great a question to be placed by us in such a position that the people cannot pass upon it, when we submit our work to them. If the Convention should follow the lead of my friend from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) and put this provision in the Constitution without providing for a separate submission, the people cannot give us their verdict upon it. They cannot give us that expression of their choice which will represent the power of the State. This is what we need. I think it is what we must have; and it can be had in no other way than by separate submission. If you put this provision into the Constitution, and only submit it with all the other parts of that instrument as one entire thing, what will be the result? It can be plainly seen that a vote for the new Constitution will then be a vote for prohibition, and a vote against the new Constitution a vote also for prohibition, because prohibition will be in both Constitutions, and a rejection of the new one will continue the old one in force. How, then, will you get a verdict of the people sanc 675 66 COTIUTIOAL COVENTIO. Wedncday, use money and liquor and everything else against us. Well, sir, they do that now. In every political contest they use money and liquor against us; for I tell you that the body of the temperance sentiment of Michigan is with the majority on this floor, and of course our opponents will use their most available weapons against us. Sir, we have encountered these appliances many times before, and we can overcome them again. Htave not the honest, sober, thorough-going temperance men of Michigan, money to be used in sending forth documents and speakers, and making all other laudable efforts for enlightening the electors, for stiffening weak knees and flexible back-bones? Surely we have the moral and intellectual power on our side, and know how to wield it. All the objections that will be raised to the compulsory suppression of the sale of intoxicating liquors can be met and blown away like chaff; and temperance men are able to do it. Mr. President, from the -remarks which I have made, gentlemen will see that in advocating the separate submission of this question, I am influenced by very different considerations from those assigned by my friend from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) and some other gentlemenin this Convention. I would no more license the traffic in intoxicating drinks than I would license the traf fic in female virtue. I would as soon raise money by tax on larceny, as upon this crime of seducing and debauch ing the morals of the young men of our State. No, sir, suppression is our settled policy; and because we must now call into action a mighty power to enforce the law in communities that at present will not or dare not enforce it among themselves, I ask that we shall again go before the people, and have their verdict in our favor. Is there in this any yielding of principle, any backing down from high moral ground? If there is, I am unable to see it. Mr. SHEARER obtained the floor. Mr. FARMER. If the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. SHEAREE) will yield one moment, I desire to make a sugges tion, which I think will probably meet his views. As a large number of gen tlemen desire to speak on this subject, and as but a limited time for that pur pose is allowed before the vote must be taken, I desire to move, if the gen tleman from Wayne will give way for that purpose, that the speeches for the remainder of this evening be limited to five minutes. The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from Wayne give way for that motion? Mr. SHEARER. In reply to the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. FARMER,) I will say, that I would be willing to consent to almost anything that would be agreeable and convenient to gentlemen of the Convention; but as I have been for some time necessarily absent, and have not heretofore had an opportunity to participate in this debate, I desire to occupy at least ten or fifteen minutes at some time; I do not care whether it is before or after midnight. I am not in a hurry. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Wayne, as the Chair understands, declines to yield for the motion suggested by the gentleman froih Berrien, (Mr. FARMER.) HOUR OF MEETING TO-MIORROW. Mr. PARSONS. If the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. SHEARER) will yield for a- moment, I desire to make a motion that when the Convention adjourns, it adjourn to meet at eight o'clock to-morrow morning. I desire to make this motion now, because at a later period of the evening there may not be a quorum here, and hence it may be impossible to adopt the motion. The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from Wayne give way to allow that motion to be made? Mr. SHEARER. I do so, with pleasure. Mr. PARSONS. I now make the motion that when the Convention adjourns, it be to meet to-morrow morning at eight o'clock. The motion was agreed to. - Mr. NORRIS. I move that we now adjourn, with the understanding that the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. SHEARER,) holds the floor until to.morrow morning. Mr. SHEARER. I will yield for that motion. The motion was not agreed to. TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING LIQUORS. Mr. SH IARER. Mr. President, although I can scarcely. hope to add anything of importance to what has already been said on this subject, I desire to present a few of the thoughts that occur to me. I have been highly pleased, speaking generally, with the arguments to which we have listened on this momentous question. I must say, however, that in my belief, if we look at the progress of this temperance question for the last thirty or forty years, as I have had opportunity to do, we shall find that the great reform which has taken place within that time in the habits of the community, has not resulted from the prohibition of the sale of ardent spirits, but is owing to our common schools, our Sunday schools, and our churches. The great advance which has taken place in reference to this subject in the sentiments and habits of the community, has note, resulted from the enactment or enforcement of any laws, but from the growth of the community in intelligence, morality and religion. When gentlemeni say that in the rural districts prohibi-, tion has been made effectual through the operation of our laws, I must take the liberty to disagree with that opinion. So far as I am acquainted with the rural districts, I believe that the reformation which has taken place has resulted from primary school education, from Sunday school instruction, and from the preaching of the Gospel. I believe that the great educational and moral reform going on throughout the State of Michigan has wroughti more for the cause of temperance than' has any law upon the statute-book. I believe that the work is still progressing; that the march is still onward.! There is not one person among a hun-1 dred in the rural districts who is influ-l enced in his habits or character by any' of your statutes or prohibitions. Thea people know tha-t- it is for their best interests to teach their children morality, temperance and religion. Parents and guardians throughout the rural districts are among the most enlightened classes to be found anywhere; and they bring up their children to habits o:f industry, morality and virtue. They not only attend to the education of the mind, but they take care of the formation of the moral character. It is by such means that a prosperous and virtuous nation is built up. Now, sir, have we in this country reached a point where we are not willing to submit a great domestic and social question like the one now before us, to the people? Do we distrust the intelligence of the citizens of Michigan? Were we to tell the people to their faces that we are not willing to trust them to decide a great domestic question like this, they would walk into this Convention, and like Oliver Cromwell, dissolve it. Mr. President, I have confidence in the intelligence of the people of Michigan-not only those residing in the rural districts, but those in the cities. There are in our cities difficulties in reference to this question which the people of the rural districts know nothing about. Take, for instance, the city of Detroit, in the county in which I reside. It has school-houses, and it has churches; it has intelligence, morality and religion; but there is residing there a class of people, who, crossing the river in the night, can, in violation of the law, import liquors, to flood the city with immorality and crime. In spite of all the laws, under the prohibitory system which has prevailed, this state of things Wednesday,., CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 676 I DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. necessarily exists. But, sir, under a constitutional provision contemplating regulation and restriction, we can es- tablish in our different local communi-] ties a system which shall be in a great measure effectual. Each ward or town- i ship can take the management of the law into its own hands. Under the ] supervision of the ward or township authorities, proper restrictions can be enforced; and the licenses can be ta- 1 ken away from those who do not live up to the letter of the law established by the Legislature. The proposition now before us is that we shall submit this question of prohibition to the people, and let them vote for or against it. I am willing to trust the people. I am willing to submit this question to them. As my friend from Kent (Mr. FERRIS) has very aptly re- marked, there are in this State half a million of people who have never been allowed an opportunity to declare their will with regard to this prohibitory clause of our Constitution. "But," say some gentlemen, "we are now creating a new Constitution for our State; and it will never do for us to go backward." Sir, I say that in submitting this proposition separately to the people, we are going forward. The other provisions embraced in the article on the legislative department concern the ordinary functions of the law-making power, and hence they may appropriately be submitted en masse, along with the rest of the Constitution. ,But this prohibitory clause is an en tirely different question. It is a ques tion affecting a domestic relation. It concerns vitally the interests of every locality; and we should, by a separate submission, afford the people an oppor tunity to express their will upon this question, separate and apart from all others. I believe that in ref erence to matters of this kind the voice of the people is the voice of God. When we distrust the intelligence of the people, and are not willing to submit to them a social ques tion of this sort, we degrade their in telligence, we inflict an insult upon their understanding, we pass an im plied condemnation upon the good judgment of all the various classes of citizens that go to make up the popu lation of this beautiful State. Sir, let no one suppose that I am not a temperance man. I have been traduced in the past for my temper ance principles. I stand here to-day almost seventy-two years old, and I am a temperance man still. I believe, however, speaking of temperance, that those who destroy themselves by over drinking, are out-numbered by those who find untimely graves by drugg ing themselves with medicine, and by over-eating. Sir, I believe in the principle of temperance in all things. I have tried to live on that principle; and [Fam to-day enjoying the benefits of that course of life. I never was intoxicated. I have scarcely ever had even a headache during my whole life. It is an old saying that very many men know more about the world in general than they do about the houses they live in. In the same way, I think that many men of great knowledge on general subjects, know very little in regard to the proper mode of taking care oJ their own bodies. Now, Mr. President, I think I have seen something during the course of my life of the way in which doctors are made. I know something of the machinery by which they are turned out. I do not wish to injure the practice of gentlemen of the medical profession; but I know pretty well how doctors are manufactured; I know just about how they attempt to force their pills and their potions down the throat of other people. [Laughter.] Sir you may look from Maine to Georgia and you will find bestrewing the whole land the untimely graves of those who drugged themselves to death. [Laugh ter.] Now, sir, to return to the question immediately before us, I am willing to submit this matter of prohibition to the intelligence of the people of Mich igan. I hope that we shall agree so to do. It is a question having no partic ular relation to the other provisions o the COnstitution. It is a social ques tion, concerning the people in thei every-day life, and they should be al lowed to vote upon it as they may se fit. Whenever they give their verdic upon this question, it will be respected The law which may be adopted unde their sanction will be effectually car rid out. No man will dare to oppos it. I have had some experience in regard to this temperance question during the last thirty years, and I believe that the submission of the question of prohibition to the people is the only wise policy. I shall take the responsibility to vote for such submission. I shall vote for submitting the question of prohibition or regulation to the people separately, instead of incorporating it in the Constitution. In saying this, sir, I desire to say that I oppose any measure which is calculated to open the floodgates and to let whisky run freely over the land. I have seen too much of the evils of intemperance to be any friend to the use of intoxicating liquors. I do not,use them myself, except occasionally for medicine; and that is not very often, for I am seldom sick. I have no appetite for intoxicat ,..,,7 ng drinks. I have -a good constitution and good spirits, and do not need any of the "ardent" to help me along. Yet, sir, I believe that if I should indulge in strong drink, I would in one year find an untimely grave. [Laughter.] I understand the laws of health, and have studied physiology a great many years-before many of these gentlemen around me were born. I know pretty nearly how to take care of this body of mine; and I hope the gentlemen of this Convention will study physiology a little, and will let alone those things which do not conduce to health. [Laughter.] Imerely say this as an old man, addressing those who are younger-being, however, still comparatively young myself in health and vigor. Mr. President, I hope that you and the Convention will excuse the desultory and scattering mode in which, I have discussed this question. I will simply say in conclusion that I hope gentlemen of this Convention will not again introduce, even impliedly, the argument that the people are not capable of -self-government. I hold that they are competent to govern themselves. If they sometimes make mistakes, the "sober second thought"' always corrects those errors. Now, sir, let this domestic, this social question be settled as a single distinct question, apart from all others. If - the people declare in favor of this prohibitory clause, let it be incorporated in the Constitution, and then it will be carried out to the letter. The Legislature will provide efficient means whereby it may be enforced, and the evils of intemperance will be, so far as may be possible, removed from the community. Mr. W. A. SMITH. Mr. President, we have been informed by my col league, (Mr. SHEARER,) and the gen tleman from Kent, (Hr. FERRIS,) that there has been a great temperance re form going on, and that it is still to continue. Now, I wish simply to call attention to one or two facts. One is, that the United States Government at this time derives from the sale of spir ituous and intoxicating liquors in this State, an annual revenue of three hun dred thousand dollars. Another fact is that there are twelve thousand places in this State where the traffic in intoxicating liquors is carried on. If this is the result of a grand "temperance reform," I want to know what was our situation before this "reform had be gun." In the city of Detroit seventeen years ago, there were eighty drinking saloons, while there are now seven hundred and eighty. If we impose upon this business a tax of one-hun dred dollars a year, we should receive a yearly revenue of twelve hundred e 677 August, 7, 11.867. CONSTITUTIONATl, CONVFNTION., thousand dollars. This vast amount of money is now allowed to remain in the pockets of the rum-sellers, that they may extend their business.- Is that the sort of "reform" that the gentleman from Kent and my colleague would like to have continued? Mr.- SHETARER. I spoke of the rural districts. Mr. W. A. SHIITH. Mr. President, for my part, I do not want such a "reform. I am willing to try some other method. It is evident to my mind that some other system than that which we have heretofore had is demanded. Can we pay to the United States Government a revenue of three hundred thousand dollars a year, and not suffer; in the course of time from this drain on our resources.? Can we afford to permit those who are engaged in the liquor traffic to go on without taxation, while every other branch of business is taxed to the greatest extent that it can possibly bear? Are the liquor sellers of the community to be a privileged class in this State-a class from whdm the State is to derive no. revenue? Is this work of " reformation" to continue to go on for the next seventeen years, as it has done during the last seventeen years,-a " reformation" which has increased the drinking saloons in a single city from eighty to seven hundred and eighty? This is the result under the prohibitory law. Yet that law is enforced to-day as much as it has ever been. I am in favor of adopting any method by which we may restrict this traffic; and if it must go on, as I believe it must, then let the State derive a revenue from it as much as from any other branch of business. I do not believe that the liquor-sellers ought to be a privileged class, as they are to-day. I have spokea of the city of Detroit; but, sir, matters are no worse there than-in other cities of this State. I was in the city of Jackson not many-days ago; and I there saw two men attempting t.o lift another into a wagon; and in doing so, they all fell back into a ditch, so that others had to go to their assistance. This was in the city of Jackson? under the prohibitory law. How: is it in this city? Does any man suppose that the traffic is suppressed here? I say that any man "good Qc the scent" can find as much liquor as he wants anywhere in this city. No man need go dry for the want of it. I believe that the case is pretty much the same all over the State. Now., is it not time to adopt. some other system than that we have had heretofore? I shall not attempt: to say what system we should adopt; but. I insist that the individuals e; gaged in the liquor traffic are not entitled to exclusive privileges;-, they should not be exempted from all' taxation. If their business must goon, let this State, as well as the United States, derive a revenue from it. One gentleman tells us that it is unlawful for us to put into the treasury money derived from such a source, be. cause it is,the price of blood." Well; sir, if the United States can collect three hundred thonsand dollars annually in this commonwealth, and still prosper, I think that we might prosper if we collected twelve hundred thousand. Such taxation certainly will not increase the traffic. It will havena tendency to decrease it, because, by this means we take from the rum-sellers so much money which they would otherwise use in extending their business. IMr. BARBER. I move that the Convention do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and the Convention (at ten o'clock, p. m.,) adjourned. SIXTY-.SECOND DAY. THURSDAY) August 8, 1867. The Convention met at eight o'clock a.m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mr. McINTIRE. The roll was called, and a quorum of members answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Ir. ELLIOTT. At the close of the afternoon session yesterday. my colleague, Mr. WRIGHUT, was called home by sickness. I ask indefinite leave of absence for him. -Leave was granted. IMr. HOWARD asked and obtained leave of absence for himself, after today, until next Monday. Mr. VAN RIPER. I ask indefinite leave of absence, for myself after to-. day, on account of business. Mr. CASE. I object. The question being taken on granting indefinite leave of absence to Mr. VAN RIPER, it was not agreed to. Mr. HARRIS. I will state that I voted against granting the request of the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN 'IRip,) because I object to granting. leave of absence for an.indefinite tine, which might embrace the whole,of the remainder of the session. If itis: necessary for any gentleman to be absent two or three days, I am willing to vote for granting him leave of absence fQr such a period. Mr. VAN RIPER. I will simply say, by way of explanation, that I havebusiness which demands my attention; and it will be necessary for me to leave at any rate. -T-he PRESIDENT. There is no question before the Convention. Mr. WALKER asked and obtained leave of absence after to-day, until next Monday. Mr. GERMAIN asked and obtained leave of absence until next Tuesday morning. Mr. PRATT. I ask leave of absence after to-day, until next Wednesday. It is very important that I should go home on account of business. I am one of those members who have en deavored to hasten the work of the Convention, and have not delayed it much by speaking. My business would in fact demand that I should be absent for the remainder of the session; but if I can be excused until next Wednesday, I propose to return here, and remain till:the work of the Convention is con cluded. Leave was granted. Mr. HENDERSON -.asked and obtained indefinite leaveo —f- absence for r. THOMPSON, on account of sickness. Mr. FARMER. Mr. President, I propose to offer a resolution on this subject. I do not wish to be discourteous to any member of the Coliovention; but there is an imperative necessity devolving upon-us to finish up the-business which we have yet to do. A. number of the members. have re:mained here day after day, while others have been absent a large part of the time., If we are to finish the 'work of the Convention, it is-neessary that we should have a quorum here. There are many important questions yet to -be discussed. I hape that'no more members-will ask leave of absence, unless on account of sickness or some' other imperative necessity. I take this occasion to say that hereafter I shall consider it my duty to object to any leave of absence, except on account of sickness. Haying made this explanation, I will not at the present time offer the resolution which I proposed to offer. PETITION. Mr. PARSONS presented the petition of A. H. Wescott, A. Garrison, and 140 others, legal voters of the township of Vernon, Shiawassee county, praying for the adoption of some provision for the proper taxation of dogs; which was referred to the committee on finance and taxation. TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING LIQUORS. The. PRESIDENT. The Convention has now under consideration, as the unfinished business, the article entitled,Legislative, Department;," the peding question being upon the amendment of the gentleman from 'Thurs,day,,,, 678 .~.___2'..............., —L.:~................186..........'7' L.-..:'....................v~........ DEBS..................................................... —-/..................-.................................... Van Buren, (Mr. BLAcOxMS,) to thesubstitute proposed by the gentlemanfrom Wayne, (lMr. LOTHROP,) for the amendment reported from the cormittee of the whole to section thirtyone. The amendment reported froin the. committee of the- whole as alrady amended, proposes to- add to section.thirty-one the words, "nor pass any act authorizing-the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoexicating liquors." For these words the gentle-, man from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) proposes to substitute the following: At the election when this Constitution shall be submitted to the electors ofrthis State for adoption or rejection, there shall] also be separately submitted to such electors the two following provisions: No. 1. The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant - ot license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating-liquors. No. 2. The Legislature shall provide for the regulation and restriction of the sale of intoxicating drinks, and shall impose a tax upon the traffic therein. The sale orf such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers and common drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited, and all necessary laws shall be passed to enforce such-prohibition. The annual tax in any case upon the traffic, shall not be less than one hundred dollars. A separate ballot upon the above provisions may be given by any elector, which shall be deposited ini a ballot-box provided for that purpose. On the ballots in lavor of the adoption of the above provision No. 1, shill be the words "Prohibition- Yes;" and upon the ballots in favor of the above provision No. 2, shall be the words, "Restriction-Yes;" and upon the head or outside of all said ballots, shall be the words, ", Prohibition or Restriction," placed in such manner that the same shall be visible when the ballot is folded. If upon the canvass of such ballots cast at said election, a majority thereof shall be found to contain the words "Prohibition-Yes,"then said provision No. 1 shall become and stand as section, of Article - of this Constitution, if.it shall be adopted; but if, a majority of such ballots shall contain the words "ARestriction-Yes," then theaboveprovision No. 2 shall become and stand as section, of Article, of this Constitution, if the same be adopted. The gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLacMAN,) moves to amend:this substitute by adding to provision No. 2 the following: "The Legislature may also provide for the seizure and confiscation or destruction of intoxicating liquors in possession of: persons selling the same in violation of law." The pending question is upon- theamendment of the gentleman from Van Buren. The Chair desires to state, to -avoid any misapprehension, that the; ten. minute rule was yesterday suspended with regard to this questi9n, but only for the day. It will again operate this morning, unless the Convention should otherwise order. Mr. WITHEY. I move that the ten minute rule be suspended until half-past nine o'clock this morning. Mr. CHAPIN. I hope that this :motion will n.ot be ado ted. A num.ber of gentlemen wish an opportunity. -this- moring to state bieflythe reasons which will influence their votes:on this- question. There is but short tti-me-intervening before the final vote, ai,n it will certainly not be more than ufflicient to give this opportunity to all the gentlemen who desire it. :The motion of Mr. WITHEY Was not agreed to. — : r. iALEXANDER. Mr. President, in the few remarks I shall: attempt to make on the question now before the Convention for our consideration, and the important subject therewith :connected, I will endeavor to confine myself to the question. I shall not attempt to speak of the innumerable evils of intemperance. We have all witnessed them more or less from the :eatliest period of our recollection. I will n6t consume the important time- of this Convention and intrude upon your patience,'in attempting to prove the existence of a fact admitted by all, that intemperance is the greatest evil in the land. MAl lknow that it is the cause of untold misery and degradation, the agent of crimes without number, the cause of poverty, distress, wretchedness and woe. Mr. President, very many able and eloquent speeches have already been made- on the subject now under consideration; and I will only offer a few of the reasons which influence my vote on this question, the subject of license or prohibition of license, and the man'-ier of submitting the question. The .Convention alone does not differ on this question. There is much division of sentiment among the people all over the State. Even among-temperance men there is- a difference of opinion, though -I think we all agree that the sale of intoxicating liquorss as a beverage should in some way be- restricted by- constitutional or legislative enactment. Mr. President, there is no other subject connected with the duties of this Convention to which the people attach so much importance as this one. On it there has been more written than on -any- or at 0ther questions submitted to the Convention for our action. On it more citizens have sent up petitions "than on all other questions. Twentyfour thousand one hundred and fortyone -of the people have united in memorials praying this Convention to retain in the new Constitution the present prohibitory clause; while twenty-one thousand six hundred 'and twenty-our, nearly any equal number, ask us to engraft in the new C oCnstitution a restrictive license clause. 'Now, Mr. President, what is our duty in relation to this great and important consideration? I believe I shall best represent the cause-of humanity and my constituency -by votig for prohibition of license and for a sepa-rate submission of it to the people. I ~am in favor of prohibition of lieense, believing as I do that it would be morally wrong to legalize in any way the sale of a beverage that is the cause of so much misery, woq, degradation, crie and taxation. Notwithstanding I prefer prohibition, and.however anxious I may be to have it engrafted' -into the organic law of the State, I am willing to leave it to be'settled by the people themselves at the balrot box, independentliy of all other issues that may be made on the question of the ratification of the Constitution when submitted to them. This can be do-ne without doing any 'injury to the cause of temperance, and without endangering the whole fabric of the Constitution. I desire-to-so subm:it it, tht it shall be disconnected with Any question or questions that will in the least-embarrass or endanger the adoption of the new Constitution, for which we have labored so long, and to frame which will cost the State such a vast amount of money. -Now, Mr. President, is it not best to let the people have an opportunity to vote separately on this moral question? I have confidence in -the moral sentiment of the people of Michigan and their abilityto decide for themselves; and on theme will rest the responsibility. I notice in thecolumns of the Peninsular Herald, a temperance paper, an article published on the 31st of July, saying that, "The temperance people of New York are petitioning their Constitutional Convention, now in session, praying them to submit separately for adoption or rejection by the people, a clause in the new Constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any act authorizing the granting of license for the sale of intoxicating liquors to-be used as a beverage."' Here, Mr. President, we have an example from the temperance party of the-great State of New York. Nearly all of our State papers advocate separate submission. I apprehend that the question officense or prohibition of lieense, whether separated from the other provisions of the Constitution or not, will be more thoroughly canvassed by the people, than all the other questions connected with the Constitution. I submit, Mr. President, whether it will not be better to have the verdict of the people on it. If their verdict shall be for prohibition, it will not only settle the disputed question that7 is often raised throughoutth:he-:State that the present prohibitory: law ought not .,.B - I I'''- ilN-'G-S D,R'-,A,-T-,E-S -AND P]ltO-C-E, E-D Is .67.9 . Auguist 8, 18670 680 ()O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TITUTIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AL CO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VE~~~~~~~~~~~~~TIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thursday,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ to be enforced and cannot be successfully carried out, because the majority of the people are not in favor of prohibition. It will not only settle this important question, but will aid in the more successful prosecution of the law, in closing the flood-gates of the rapidly increasing ravages of intemperance throughout the State. Should prohibition not be' sustained by the verdict of the people, then the whole matter is left with the Legislature. They can retain the present law prohibiting its sale, or regulate the traffic by such other laws as the people may choose from time to time. It is claimed by many that there has been a change in the public sentiment since prohibition was engrafted into our Constitution, and that for this reason the prohibitory law is a nullity and a failure. Has not the license law always been a failure, too, and will it not always be as much a failure as prohibition? Does any one expect to dry up the fountains of intemperance by regulating or restricting the traffic? Does not the prohibitory law hold it in check? Mr. President, I admit that the law is not enforced as it should be. I know of no other law on our statute book of like importance to the moral interest and public welfare, and of like individual importance to thousands of inhabitants, that the people permit to be violated to the extent that they have allowed this law to be. I doubt if the public sentiment of the people would for any length of time, permit by law or in violation of law, persons to engage in and carry on a traffic or business in any other way that would cause one-tenth part the misery, crime and taxation, that are caused by the present traffic in spirituous liquors, and that too in violation of law. I cannot say I am without any fears of the safety of the adoption of the new Constitution by the people, if prohibition of license is not separate ly submitted. If a majority of the people are in favor of prohibition, let them have an opportunity to show their strength, and thereby secure a better enforcement of the law. Mr. President, I submit to the friends who with me are in favor of prohibition of license, whether in view of the many impor tant changes and and provisions in the new Constitution and the danger of the rejection of the same, it is not the best policy to let this important ques tion be made a separate issue and be settled by the people upon its own merits, not embarrassing the Constitu tion with a provision that will compel thousands of the dominant political party, on whom we are to rely to sus tain the work of our hands, to oppose it and vote against it. The argument used by some gentlemen in this Convention who are opposed to a separate submission, is that by separate submission prohibition will have to encounter all the moneyed influence of the rum interest of the State, which may be used to defeat it. If there is ground for such apprehensions, I submit whether it is not probable the same means might be used to defeat the whole Constitution, with a hope of rendering the prohibitory law inoperative and making it a failure. Mr. President, I am opposed to the alternative proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) and also to the substitute of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WrIT.'EY,) and cannot vote for them. They authorize license. I cannot conscientiously vote to aid in authorizing, for money to replenish the treasury, any person to do wrong or to commit a crime. My knowledge of the evils growing out of the traffic in intoxicating drinks, and my regard for suffering humanity, forbid it. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Mr. President, after the lengthy and able discussion to which we have already listened upon this subject, I do not believe that anything which I may say can throw any light upon the question. Neither do I believe that any further discussion on this subject will have any influence on the final vote in this Convention. I rise merely to state the views which will control me in giving my vote. The question before us is chiefly as to the mode of submitting this question for the ratification of the people. It has been stated, and correctly stated, by the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) that the question must be submitted to the people in any event, and that the only question is as to the manner of submitting it. This I take to be the main question before us; and it is a subject of gratification to those who are in favor of submiitting. this question in the body of the Constitution, that those who oppose it do not agree in principle. They agree in action, but not in principle; while the friends of a united submission are agreed both in principle and in action. The gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) has declared that, if prohibition is correct in principle, then the whole weight of the argument is on the side of those who are in favor of a united submission; while the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. lEERIS,) and the gentleman from Ingham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) and the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDING(S,) and various other gentlemen who have taken similar ground, have declared that they agree with us in principle-that they are in favor of prohibition, but are also in favor of a separate submission. Now, with all due respect for the opinions of those gentlemen-and I have the most profound respect for them-I think that the statement of this question as made by the gentleman from Wayne is the proper position in which to place it. I think that if prohibition is the correct and the true policy of this State, the only course which we in this Convention can consistently adopt, is to leave this clause where it now is, a part of the Constitution. If gentlemen believe, as they have stated, that prohibition is the true policy, the true principle-if they are in favor of that policy-then I think they have consistently no other course than to vote for leaving this prohibitory clause where the people of this State placed it seventeen years ago. One of the reasons why I favor the embodiment of this clause in our new Constitution is because it is already in our present Constitution. It was placed there by the Convention which assembled in 1850. It was then adopted as the policy of this State in regard to the liquor traffic. The question was submitted to the people in that Constitution, and it was ratified by them. A law was passed in pursuance of that prohibitory provision, which law was subsequently declared unconstitutionaL Afterwards-in 1853, I believe-there was passed another prohibitory law, which was also submitted to the people and ratified by them. Now, then, it seems to me that if any question is settled, it is settled that the people of this State are in favor of the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors. And it is to be borne in mind that this law has existed upon the statute-book ever since it was originally enacted. It is on the statute-book at the present time. Ever since its passage it has been open to repeal, if the people of this State had demanded its repeal. Yet, Mr. President, since the passage of that law there has not been any Legislature that could have been induced to repeal our present prohibitory law. There has not been a Legislature which, if so inclined, would have dared to repeal it. There has not been a time when the people have come up and demanded with any degree of force that this law should be repealed. And if this Constitutional Convention had not assembled here, there would not have been any serious attempt to repeal this law. Now, I ask gentlemen of the Conyention why should we, because we happen to be assembled here in a Constitutional Convention, propose to change this policy of the State? Why should we propose even to place this CONSTITUTIONAT4 CONVFWTION. 680 Thursday, .u 8 186 -D - principle in jeopardy? Why should we seek to re-submit to the people this provision for ratification or rejection? What reason is there to suppose that the people of this State demand any such thing? Gentlemen may say, "Look at the petitions which have been presented here for the repeal of this prohibitory clause; shall we disregard the wishes of twenty thousand petitioners?" Now, sir, I do not suppose that there has been any period since this law was first passed, when there could not have been obtained twenty thousand petitioners for the repeal of our prohibitory law. But, sir, twenty thousand are but a fiftieth part of the population of this State-a very small fraction. I have no doubt that there is that number of persons, and will hereafter be a much larger number, in favor of repealing our prohibitory enactment; but this constitutes no reason why we should repeal it. Another reason which has been offered is the statement that this is a moral question, not a political one. On this point I beg to differ with gentlemen who have takeni that position. This is not exclusively a moral question. It is as much a political question as the question of colored suffrage or of slavery. The question of slavery was originally considered a moral question; and when that question was carried into politics, it was contended by many in the strongest terms that it was a moral question and was not a proper subject to be carried into the political arena. But it was carried there, and has ever since been considered a political question. So with the question of prohibition of license. It has been made a political question; it affects the interests of so ciety-the peace and good order of the community; and it properly comes within the domain of politics. The people of our State, adopting this view, have legislated uponthis question in their Constitution; and I think con sistency demands that the provision upon this subject should be left by us where it has been placed by the people. It has been declared that the pro hibitory law is impracticable; that it cannot be enforced. Now, sir, if it cannot be enforced, then of course, those who are opposed to such a law are not injured by it, and it might as well, so far as they are concerned, re main where it is. But, sir, I conceive that the very fear that this law will be enforced is the main reason why so strong an effort has been made to strike from the Constitution the clause under which the law has been enacted, or at least to submit that question to the people separately for Wheir action. I~. — o.^ 86. But I claim that this law, if it has not been thoroughly enforced, has been enforced to some extent; and although in particular instances, it may not have been enforced,:yet it has still had its influence. It has been an educator of the people. It has placed upon the traffic in intoxicating liquors the condemnation of the law. It has made that traffic illegal. It has deprived it of much of the character of respectability which might otherwise attach to it; and in this way it has kept out of that traffic many who would otherwise have engaged in it. Now, sir, a Constitutional Convention has an influence in the formation and the molding of public opinion; and in my view one of the greatest injuries which would result from taking this clause out of the Constitution, is the implied condemnation which we thereby place upon it. If, with this provision now in the Constitution, we should talre it and make it the subject of a separate submission, our action will be construed by the people of the State as& implying-and it can mean nothing else -our want of confidence in such a provision. It will be, on the part of this Convention, a condemnation of that provision. No person can give it any other construction. In this view, it will have its influence upon the people, because they look to this Convention for the declaration of principles; and any declaration of this sort made by this body will have its effect upon the minds of the people. The PREISIDENT. The ten min utes of the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. SMTH) have expired. Mr. M. C. WATTKINS. Mr. Presi dent, before the vote is taken on this question, I desire to say a few words, more particularly with regard to the prohibitory law. It has been said and reiterated on this floor that this law has not been enforced, and that it cannot be enforced. Now, Mr. Presi dent, I have never liked that word "cannot." I recollect being told when a schoolboy that it was a bad word. I believe that anything which is necessa ry and right to be done, can be done. I believe, sir, that this law can be en forced. I kfiow that it has been en forced, and is enforced at the present time, in a considerable portion of our State. I believe it can be enforced in our cities. I think it can be enforced in the town of Kalamazoo, in the city of Grand: Rapids, and even in the city of Detroit, whenever a respectable portion of the people in those places see fit to do it. Whenever they get tired of paying one hundred per cent. more than is necessary for the support of their civil government, in consequence of the disorder and crime resulting from the sale of intoxicating spirits, they may go to work and enforce the law, and dry up this fountain of taxation, pauperism, misery and crime. And, sir, I think -that those petitioners who have signed petitions in favor of license, declaring that the law is not enforced, do not believe what they say, because those petitions are numerously signed by those who are engaged in selling intoxicating liquors, and those who are in the habit of drinking them. It is said that many of the signers are respectable men; and I suppose it is so; but the fact remains that the majority of those who have signed these petitions are either men who sell liquor or men who drink it. Now, sir, why is it that these petitions are signed on the one hand by the "bloats" that hang around the whisky saloons and the groggeries in our cities, while their families are suffering the evils of poverty; and on the other hand by the men who pander to the vicious appetites of these drunkards, selling to them the deleterious stuff? And again, sir, why do those men who keep " respectable" hotels, but nevertheless have somewhere on their premises a place where the vile stuff is sold-why do they sign these petitions? All these men are selling now, without let or hindrance from any one; and if the law can not be enforced, they may con tinue to sell as long as they please. Why should these men ask that they be taxed one hundred dollars or more, for the privilege of doing what they are now doing for nothing? Are they so public-spirited that they wish to pay their money needlessly into the public treasury for the privilege of doing that which they are now doing for nothing? I cannot believe it. The fact, as I un derstand, is this: they know that they are violating the law, and that the law is hanging over their heads. It has been enforced in some cases, and may be enforced in others; and rather than run the risk of being prosecuted for their breach of the law, they are wil ling to pay a small sum into the treas ury. This is the reason, as I under stand, why they prefer a license system to prohibition. If they really thought that this law could not be enforced, and never will be enforced, would they be so anxious for license? I think not. Tlis matter seems to me perfectly clear. I might pursue this question further; but I know that there are many others anxious to speak this morning, and with these remarks I will conclude. Mr. PARSONS Mr. President, I had not intended to say anything on this question; and indeed myV health is such as to Vrevent me from enterins .DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. August.8,1867. 681 682 CO-TITUTIONAL CO-E~TI. T: v. yI into any extended discussion. Had my health permitted, I should have been glad to speak at length upon this question; but, sir, I cannot consent to permit this question to come to a vote, without stating a few of the reasons which will influence me in voting as I shall upon this important subject, in which the people of this State feel a deeper interest than in any other question coming before this Convention for its action. I shall not attempt, ir. President, to make a temperance speech; for the time would not suffice. Nor is it within the power of any member of this Convention to describe adequately the evils of intemperance. Every one knows that these evils are far beyond description. Hence, to occupy time in speaking upon that branch of the question, would be utterly-futile. But, sir, the evils of intoxication being admitted to be great, the question for this Convention to decide is, what is the best course to be pursued to diminish or suppress these great and crying evils? As delegates of this Convention, as citizens of a free State, as the people of a great and growing commonwealth, what is the wisest course for us to take upon this question? Shall we simply pronounce intemperance an evil, and say that, being an evil, it should not exist, but that we will have nothing further to do with the question? Or shall we, like rational aned intelligent men, attempt to meet the question and to meet our own responsibilities by discharging the duty incumbent upon us in connection with this question? Is there a delegate upon this floor who will risk his reputation as an intelligent man by saying that he expects by prohibition to do away with the great and monstrous evil of intemperance? Mr. President, I believe that no such gentleman can be found upon this floor. If, then, it is not expected to do away with the evil-if it is expected that, notwithstanding our declaration in favor of prohibition, the evil will still exist among us and still go on, is there not some other course which we may take which may have a tendency to diminish this great evil? Sir, I am in favor of a separate submission of this question to the people, for two reasons. In the first place, recognizing it to be our duty to do what is in our power for the great cause of temperance and to repress -or remove as far as in us lies the monstrous evil of intemperance, I am not satisfied to declare simply that the Legislature shall pass no law authorizing the granting of license. I would restrict, I would arna thigstilt. Ad it is got simnply because I would regulate the sale of intoxicating drinks that I am in favor of a separate submission of this ques- tion; I am in favor of it upon the ground taken by the gentleman from 1 Kent, (Mr. FERRIis,) last evening. To my mind, his position is the only true one that the temperance men can take either in this Convention or out of it, so far as regards the separate submission of the question. As I have already said, no man hopes that we are going to do away with the evil:of intemperance by simply prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law authorizing the granting of license. Such being the case, can we not accomplish good by the submission of this question to the people? It is well known'to every man that one of the great and powerful arguments used against prohibition at the present time, and against the enforcement of the law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors, is that the majority of the people are opposed to prohibition; that it is not in accordance with the wish and will of the majority of the people; and that being repugnant to their will, such a law cannot; be enforced, and cannot be sustained. As a temperance man, I say, submit this question to the people, and get their vote upon it. Should they vote in favor of prohibition, although I may not say, vox populi vex dei, yet I shall be willing to submit to the expression of the voice of the people as thus obtained; and so will those who are in fe' vor of license. If they can have this question submitted so that it can be voted upon independently of any other question, they will acquiesce in the will of the people. If prohibition be carried in this way, it will have a force, a power, a momentum which cannot be given. to it in any other possible manner. But, sir, engraft this prohibitory clause upon the Constitution; let it remain there and be voted upon with the other parts of the Constitution, and it will, even if adopted, have no moral force whatever. -; The PRESIDENT. The ten minutes of the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. P,usoNs,) have expired. Mr. SHELDON. Mgr. President, I have listened with interest to the gentleman who has just spoken. He says: "Submit this question to the people, and if they vote in favor of prohibition, we shall feel bound to submit to the voice of the people as the voice of God" -the inference being that he will submit because he cannot help himself; he will be" convinced against his wll.": Now, Mgr. President, hs tells- us thatthis prohibitory law cannot be enforced : thi ~ame',Wy dams. the w a great political convention assembled at Chicago, and proclaimed to the world that the war for the Union was a "failure." But, sir, the answer came back from the fortifications of Atlanta and the banks of the Savannah that it was a success. And within a very few months after that declaration had been vauntingly placed before the country, there came to us one fine April morning, flashing over the wires, the news from our boys in Virginia, that the war was not only a success but a triumph. So: our Good Templars, going forth in regalia as spotless and pure as the dew of heaven. shall answer, back that prohibition can be enforced, and that successfully. Mr. President, I do not wish to charge any man with wrong. I do not wish to impugnany man's motives. I accord to every man the same rights that I claim for myself. But I do not think it is either politic or right to submit this question to- be separately voted upon by the" people. If the people choose to reject this provision, let them reject thef whole instrument. If one provision falls, let all fall. The Republican party are responsible for this Constitution, and they must either carry it through as a party principle, or it must fail. Now, gentlemen, will you attempt to separate this single proposition? Will you divide us, and conquer us by detachments, till the great party that now is in an overwhelming majority shall be scattered to the winds? I have no fears upon this question. I have no apprehension of being charged with being afraid to make a separate submission of this question. I want to put this provision in the Constitution, because I desire that all the provisions of that instrument shall triumph or fall together. Mr. BURTCH. Mr. President, I desire to make, this morning, a few remarks satisfactory to this Convention, and I trust I shall be able to do it. I apprehend that this subject is now so diluted that it will not be very intoxicating to the brain [laughter,] though it may considerably distend the abdominal parts of humanity. [Laughter.] ~ With these few remarks, I will, before proceeding further, send to the Chair a proposition which I have prepared as- a substitute for the proposition now pending.: ; The Secretary read as follows: ,"It shall be unlawful to sell intoxicating drinks in this State as a beverage. The Legislature may provide by law such penalties as they may deem proper, to regulate the sale thereof for medicinal or mechanical purposes.: ~ The PRESIDENT. The proposition of the gentleman from Eaton is not i: order at the present t'me,' b i e ft t 0 8 e e 682 ICONSTI'.VUIi'IONA'Tj -CO-N"V'ENTION,-t Thur'sday, August g, 1867. D]BAT'ES AND rROCEEDINGS. 68 Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Mr. President, I have been deprived by'ill health from hearing or participating in the discussion of this important subect for the last three days; and nothing but the deep interest I feel in it would induce me to be here to-day. I was in my seat last evening, sir, and listened with astonishment, to the argument of the eminent gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) I now rise to ask you, sir, to ask the members of this Convention, one and all who listened to that argument, whether they can for a moment hesitate in regard to their duty on this subject. When men of the genius and talent and standing of the gentleman from Wayne, men who, upon othler subjects demand the confidence of their fellow men, are driven to such sophistries as characterized the gentleman's speech last evening, we may well gaze and wonder, that an effort so labored should be so transparent and so vulnerable. I do not propose to follow the gentleman, and point out the innumerable fallacies of his argument in the short space of time allotted me; but I desire briefly to point out some of the glaring inconsistencies of his speech, to propound a few questions to the gentleman, and then to leave the subject with the Convention. The gentleman tells us the prohibitory law has been on our statute-book these many years, that it is a dead letter, that it has not been and cannot be enforced. Is this the fault of the law, sir, or the fault of the executors of the law? And if the law is so inefficient, so impotent to restrain the traffic, why this array of petitions for license? Why the repeated delegations upon this floor, urging the passage of a provision authorizing a license law? Men are not apt to clamor for taxes when they can as well be avoided. I ask the gentleman from Wayne, have the laws against larceny, burglary and arson been enforced in his city? And have they not been on the statute-books much longer than the prohibitory law? Does he propose to abolish them? Nay, verily. But the gentleman says the law cannot be enforced in his city; that the effort has been made under his own observation. And is this so? Is it true that a law plain and positive in its terms, backed up by the intelligence and approval of the citizens of Detroit, with the officers of the law at their disposal-is it true that a law so sustained cannot be enforced in the City of the Straits.? Tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Detroit, lest the r'ummies rejoice, lest the agents of the Evil One triumph. -: You will bea me record, DM-. Presi dent, that no man on this floor has described the evils of intemperance in more eloquent, more graphic terms, than the gentleman from Wayne; for no man upon this floor possesses the ability to do so. He deplores the ravages of intemperance; he admits its devastating influence. He says that in his city he can take you from street to street, and from house to house, and point you out the desolating work of the destroyer. And yet the law is not enforced. This gentleman-and others stand there and look on while the work of desolation progresses, and acknowledge that in their proud city, whisky is king; and no one dare protest or resist, lest its votaries proscribe him and deny him place and power. I could not but utter a mental prayer that God would spare his city from the doom of Sodom. The gentleman told us that in the city of Detroit, paying eighty thousand dollars annually for the support of the police, backed by all the aid they could obtain, the law.is disregarded-nay, to use the gentleman's own language, is trampled in the dust." "0, shame! where is thy blush?" The gentleman from Wayne-stands up here, the champion of temperance temperate in his own habits, surrounded by that prestige which eminent industry and superior ability have given him-he stands strong in his own integrity, and would — induce others to follow his example by moral -suasion, apparently unconscious that the words of wisdom fall powerless on the dull ear of the inebriate. But the gentleman proposes another remedy for this crying evil: he would pass a license law-no, he ignores that term; he would "restrict," that is the term more congenial to ears polite; he would pass a law restricting the sale of intoxicating liquors, and impose a tax of on e hundred dollars on all venders. Will the gentleman point out to me the difference between a license law, and a law permitting the sale and imposing a tax? And does he not know that prior to 1850, we had on our statute-book a license law, powerless as a rope of sand to restrain intem perance. The gentleman from Wayne proposes to throw around the traffic certain safe guards and powerful restrictions, and impose a high tariff, so as to close up the low groggeries, and have the business conducted in palatial establishments, withall their paraphernalia, so that his son, and yours, and mine, Mr. President, may be decoyed into genteel establishments, to create a taste and pamper an appetite for that which prepares men for wretchedness here, aud for woes unutterable hereafter,:\ The gentleman did not fail to remind us that the "same power that ordained the wine at Cana, ordained us;" but he forgot to tell us that the wine furnished at the marriage feast in Cana was the same kind of wine expressed from the clusters of the vine by the butler into the cup of Pharaoh, and as harmless as the mountain rill or the bubbling spring. Had the gentleman from Wayne been as well versed in Bible as in legal lore, he would have known that the wine of Cana was not the intoxicating wine, against which the same Being who made the wine of Cana warned us saying, "Look not upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright; for at the last it biteth like a serpent and stingeth like an adder." But, sir, my time is limited, and I can only call upon you, gentlemen of the Convention, one and all, to come to the rescue. I ask the gentleman from Wayne and the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIs,) who recommends alcohol for food, to pause and reflect before voting on this subject. Regard your own manhood; remember your obligations to your own families, to society, to the State, to your God. I beseech you all, vote intelligently; vote for the right, for justice, for humanity. Come.boldly to the work, without faltering, without hesitancy, and secure the approval of your own conciences, and the approbation of all lovers of the right in our State. Mr. LOVELL. Mr. President, on the question now pending, in whatever phase it may be presented, I shall vote as I can to obtain a separate submission. I deem it of the utmost importance that the sense of the people of this State be taken on this question by direct vote, that there may be no room for cavil or doubt as to what is the sentiment they cherish in reference to the temperance reform. I prefer that but one proposition be submitted, but will vote for submitting alternate propositions, rather than have no separate submission of the question. Mr. GERMAIN. Mr. President, I rise to state very briefly the considerations which will govern me in the vote which I shall cast upon this question. As has been well said, the question upon which we are now to act is of the most important character. There clusters around it more of public interest than is aroused by any other subject that has engaged the attention of this Convention. This is indicated by the crowded state of the hall yesterday, last evening and this morning. This is no new question. It has long been before the people. It has been investigated. It has been time amd again August 8, 1867. DEBATIS AND PROCEEDINGS. 683 :8;o~~ToA - luray decided. So far as Iam concerned, my decision upon this question was arrived at years ago, as a matter of mature conviction, after thorough deliberation and investigation. I am for putting this prohibitory provision into the body of the Constitution. I am for openly recognizing the fact that there is traffic in ardent spirits, for the purpose of prohibiting it, just as I would recognize slavery in prohibiting it. We have declared in the Constitution which-we are framing that,neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall be tolerated in this State." - I would in the same manner declare that the traffic in ardent spirits as a beverage shall never be tolerated in this State. We recollect very well the time when it was regarded as an act of temerity for a political convention, representing a great political party in this country, to take ground against the "twin relics of barbarism, slavery and polygamy." We recollect well the position then occupied by one of those evils. The result is well known to the world. Now, it is claimed that in taking repressive action on this subject, we infringe upon the rights of individuals. I would ask, what right has an individual to prosecute a business or a traffic which is injurious to society, which violates the first principles of political economy? I say that by the prohibition of this traffic no individual right is violated; that on the contrary, the government which fails to exert its power against this traffic, is false to itself and false to the duties which it owes to its citizens. Gentlemen who advocate the opposite position speak of "a safe, stringent and well regulated license law." "Safe!" Safe to whom? Safe to the vender, who under a prohibitory system is liable to prosecution and a fine or imprisonment; but not safe to the man who drinks. When a man indulges in stimulants of this character, he violates a law of his nature and brings himself to a position where there is no safety. It is the case, perhaps not with all men, but with many men of excitable temperaments, that indulgence in intoxicating liquors creates a habit and an appetite which constantly demands more and more of the stimulating draught. And every member of this Convention who has attained mature age can, in looking back upon the past, recollect many young men, full of promise when they started in the race of life, who have fallen on the way in consequence of the appetite for stong drink acquired in these "safe, stringent and well regulated" establishments, where the vender could point to a certificate from the government, setting forth that he was a man of,good moral character." Sir, I shall vote for the incorporation of the principle of prohibition in the body of the Constitution. Mr. TURNER. Mr. President, as the question is about to be taken on this subject, I shall occupy but a few moments in explaining the vote I am about to give. I prefer to do so now rather than to interrupt the proceedings during the roll call. Sir, I have since I have been here, had some misgivings as to my duty in relation to this matter. I am in favor of the restriction or prohibition of the traffic in ardent spirits; and it strikes me that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) and now embodied in the pending substitute of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) comes nearer to effective prohibition than any proposition that has been offered. For this reason I feel bound to sustain it. No one, I presume, would question the right of the Legislature, without any provision in the Constitution against the granting of license, to pass a law entirely prohibiting the traffic in intoxicating liquoris: But the proposition of the gentleman from Kent will, if adopted, compel the Legislature to do something which will restrict this traffic; and if that body should see fit, the traffic may be entirely prohibited. As I understand the provision, it makes it the duty of the Legislature to pass a law which will impose upon the traffic a tax of not less -than one hundred dollars annually in every case; and this tax may be increased to an unlimited amount, so as to be entirely prohibitory. For this reason, sir, I am in favor of the proposition. I must confess that I was very much surprised yesterday when the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILs,) a gentleman for whom I have the highest respect as a man and as a lawyer, declared before this Convention, that we have no right to make a separate submission of this question; and the only authority which he cited was right in the teeth of his proposition. But the gentleman was last evening fully answered on that point by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LoTHROP;) and no other lawyer has attempted to support the propositiQn. As I have already intimated, Mr. President,~ my vote will be given for the provision proposed by the gentleman from Kent, beause I think it comes nearer practically to prohibition than any other proposition that has been offered. Mr. CHAPI. Mr. President, I have not heretofore said anything on this subject; and I now rise merely to explain the reasons for th. vote which I shall give upon the proposition now before this Convention. I have been in the same category with my friend from Granl Traverse, (Mr. LmaCH.) I have watched the progress of this discussion with a great' deal of interest, to decide how I ought to vote; and the conclusion at which I have arrived is that I shall vote for prohibition. I cannot vote for the proposition contained in provision No. 2. It looks to me like submitting to the people the question of license. I believe the people oQf this State are opposed to the liceise system; and I cannot vote for it. Mr. HENDERSON Mfr. President, in a few remarks which I made at the time the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) offered his proposition, I stated that I neither purposed nor desired to discuss this subject upon its merits; and I now see no reason for changing my mind. This was not because I do not consider it a question of great moment, and one in which the people feel a deep interest; but, sir, it was because I did not like so to reflect upon any member of this body as to believe that he had not fixed and settled convictions by which he would be governed in all thevotes he might be called upon to cast on propositions connected with the subject. The relative merits or demerits of license or prohibition have not changed any since we as a body convened in this Hall. There is no reason why any man who was a prohibitionist when he took his seat here, should not be one to-day. Nor is there any reason why any man who then was in favor of placing prohibition in the body of the instrument we are here to frame, should not be in favor of so doing now. I have not been disturbed or influenced very much in my action upon this floor by any prospective notoriety or celebrity which I might gain in consequence of such action; and if there is reasonable ground for the apprehension which I hear expressed, both outside this hall and on this floor in debate, that the people never will endorse the work of our hands, then for one I desire to reserve to myself the temporary consolation of having satisfied my own conscience upon this and all other propositions where a principle is involved. There is just enough of significance in this clamor on the part of men engaged in the traffic in intoxicating drinks, to lead me to pause before I aid by my vote to lift the rod which the law now holds im terrorera over them; to relieve them of the conscious odium which rests upon them, and, by implication at least, countenance and approve all the crime, misery and deg CONSTITtJTIOXA14'COXV'P.XTIOX. 684 Th-Lirsday, August~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 8, 1867 DE TE - ~ _R()EI.S.68 radation which follow as the legitimate fruits of the nefarious business in which they are engaged. I am from principle in favor of prohibition. I shall vote for it. I shall vote to incorporate it into the body of the Constitution which we are here to frame; and in doing so I do not feel that I am presuming to exercise any authority not delegated to me as a representative of the people on this floor. Much has been said here about trusting the people. Sir, I have confidence in and do trust the people; and that confidence has in some measure been reciprocated, or I should not, at this time, occupy a seat upon this floor. But, sir, they have not singled out this question and reserved to themselves the ~ight to settle it. It is true, we have been petitioned both for license and for prohibition; but in all cases these petitioners have asked that whatever they have petitioned for should be made a part of the organic law of the land. These remarks, Mr. President, I have made, not by way of argument, but as explanatory of the vote I ex pect soon to give upon the different propositions connected with this sub ject; and what I have said in reference to the question of separate'submission of this proposition, will, in my mind, apply with equal force to the submis sion of all the different propositions which are ultimately to become, if adopted, a part of the fundamentallaw of our State. It seems to me that this great anxiety on the part of some mem bers for separate submission, ean only be induced by a desire to shirk respon sibility and leave the people finally to do the work for which we have been sent here. Mr. President, I believe that any person, party or people, who for princi ple substitute policy or expediency, will as a consequence, sooner or later fail. I do not put entirely out of the ques tion the possibility that I may be mis taken, and that the future may develop the fact that the premises from which I have reasoned are unsound, and hence my conclusions erroneous; but I deem it unsafe for me to abandon present convictions of duty, and regulate my action by contingencies which are only possible. I shall vote as indicated by what I have said. Mr. LUCE. Inasmuch, Mr. Presi dent, as the time has nearly arrived for taking a vote uipon this question, and inasmuch as the county which I have the'honor in part to represent has not been heard from on this subject, I pro pose to occupy a few moments in defin ing. my own position, which I believe accords with that occupied by my col league, (Mr. By.) -- We have from the first been open to conviction-not on the question of prohibition, for we have - been prohibitionists from the first and all the time; but in regard to the question of submission. We have been watching with anxious care the progress of this discussion. We have been endeavoring to see if something better than prohibition should be proposed to this Convention for adoption. We have carefully considered the proposition now pendinig, the substitute offered by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) The insuperable objection to it, in my humble judgment, is that under it the Legislature would have no power to pass a prohibitory law. Like most gentlemen who have addressed this Convention, we are prohibitionists and we desire that there shall not be placed in the Constitution, under any pretense, a provision which would prohibit the Legislature from passing a prohibitory law. Gentlemen oppose the placing of the prohibitory clause in the Constitution, because it is charged that prohibition is a failure. Well, sir, it was charged in the Convention of 1850 by distin guished delegates on this floor, that the license system was an utter and total failure; and I will offset the one charge against the other. If prohibition is a failure, so was license. But I assert that prohibition has not been a failure. It was acknowledged by the distinguished gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) who addressed the Convention at length last evening, that in the rural districts prohibition has not been a failure. Now, I sub mit, Mr. President, that tbree-fourths of the people of this State reside in the rural districts, and not more than one fourth in cities and. villages. If pro hibition is a decided success for three fourths of the people of the State, I insist that it is a good provision to be retained in the Constitution. One word in regard to separate sub mission. I have been looking over the proceedings of Constitutional Conven tions of this-State and of other States, in reference to propositions separately submitted; and I have not yet been able to discover any single case in which the proposition submit ted to the people for separate ratification or rejection, was one that recommended itself to the judgment and conscience of the delegates. Provis ions are, according ato thes uniform practice, separately submitted, where a majority of the Convention are op posed to the adoption of those provis ions. In 1850, the Constitutional Con vention of this State submitted the question of Cffage for the eolored race; but it is a notorious fact that a large majority of that Covention were opposed to the adoption of that proposition, and it could not have been passed through the Convention. In 1846, the Constitutional Convention of the State of New York took the same course with regard to the same question, because a majority of the delegates were opposed to equal suffrage. Now, I apprehend that a majority of this Convention are in favor of prohibition. Almost every gentleman that has spoken has proclaimed himself a prohibitionist; and this is not confined altogether to the Republican party. The honorable gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) a distinguished representative of the Democratic party, has declared himself in favor of prohibition; and the venerable and distinguished leader of the Democratic par ty from Wayne county, (Mr. SHEARER,) declared himself last evening, as I un derstood, in favor of prohibition. I take it for granted, therefore, that this senti ment is not entirely confined to the Re publican party, of which I am an humble member. Both of the distinguished gentlemen from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY, and Mr. FERRIs,) who propose to vote for separate submission, are in favor of prohibition. Both the gentlemen from Shiawassee, (Mr. TURNER and Mr. PARsONs,) who are in favor of separate submission, are in favor of prohibition. I submit, Mr. President, that it is an anomaly in the history of constitutional conventions that the Convention should submit to the people for their ratifica tion or rejection, a proposition which recommends itself to the judgment and conscience of a large number of the delegates. Therefore, having given this matter full consideration, having endeavored with the little ability I possess to reach a correct conclusion, I shall vote for retaining the prohibi tory clause in the Constitution; and if the people see fit to reject this Consti tution on that ground, they can have the satisfaction of falling back upon the good old Democratic Constitution of 1850, which already contains this provision. The PRESIDENT. The hour of half-past nine o'clock having arrived, the Convention, in pursuance of the resolution heretofore adopted with reference to this question, will "pro ceed to vote on the pending amend ments, on amendments that may be offered, and on the main question, without debate." The first question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Van Buren (Mr. BLACKMAN) to amend the substitute of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LoTHRoP,) by adding to provision No. 2 the following: - ~ Aug'ust 8, 1867. DEBATES A ND PROC'P.'PT)INGS. 685 686 Co STTI UTIONAL COi VENTION. Thursday, "The Legislature may also provide for the seizure and confiscation or destruction of intoxicating liquors in possession of persons selling the same in violation of law." Mr. BLACKMAN. After consultation with some of my friends in whose judgment I have great- confidence, I Ihave decided to withdraw that amendment. There being no objection,the amendment was withdrawn. The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) desire to ofler now the amendment he suggested yesterday, to add to provision No. 1 a similar clause to that proposed by the gentleman' from Van Buren? Mr. CONGER. Mr. President, I endeavored yesterday to offer that amendment, being convinced by the arguments of the gentleman from Van Buren, that it was exceedingly desirable to have such a provision somewhere in the Constitution. If he has changed his mind, I beg leave to change my mind, and I shall therefore not press that amendment. [Laughter.] Mr. BLACKMAN. By way of explanation, I will say that my own opinion was, and still is, in favor of this provision; but finding myself differing in opinion with others, and believing there is no time to discuss the question properly, I deemed it best to withdraw the amendment. The PRESIDENT. The question now recurs on agreeing to the substitute for the amendment reported from the committee of the whole. Mr. ALEXANDER. I move to amend the substitute by addding to provision No. 1, these words: "And this proposition shall be submitted as a separate question." : Mr. CONGER. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. MUSSEY. Is that amendment in order? Does not the substitute already provide that the question shall be submitted to the people? The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that it is for the Convention to decide whether the amendment is pertinent or necessary. If it is not considered necessary, it can be voted down. The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. ALEXANDER; and it was not agreed to, there being yeas 29, nays 53, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Danielis, Desnoyers, Duncombe, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings Bolt, Lothrop, LovelU, McKernan, Miles, Morton, Ninde, Parsons, Purcell, Rafter, Sawyer, Shearer, W. E. Warner, Winans, Winsor, Withey, and the President.29. - NAYs-Messrs. Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Burtch, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Divine, Duncan, Elliott, Estee, Germaln,, W. F. Goodwln,::Harris, Hlenclerson, Hixson, Holmes, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Lawrence, Leach, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Norris, Pratt. Richmond, Root, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, W. A. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Turner, Tyler, Van Riper, Van Yalkenburgh. Walker, P. D. Warner, M.: C. Watkins, White, Willard, Williams, Woodhlouse and Yeomans-53. The question reculrred on Mr. LOTHROP'S proposed substitute, as amended, for the amendment reported from the committee of the whole; the substitute being as follows: At the election when this Constitution shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection, there shall also be separately submitted to such electors the two following provisions: No. 1. The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors. No. 2. The Legislature shall provide for the regu,lation and restriction of the sale of intoxicating drinks, and shall impose a tax upon the traffic therein. The sale of such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers and cdmmon drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited, and all necessary laws shall be passed to enforce such prohibition. The annual tax in any case upon the traffic, shall not be less than one hundred dollars. A separate ballot upon the above provisions may be given by any elector, whick shall be deposited in a ballot-box provided for that purpose. On the ballots in favor of the adoption of the above provision No. 1, shall be the words, "Prohibition-Yes;" and upon the ballots in favor of the above provision No. 2, shall be the words, "Restriction-Yes;" and upon the head or outside of all said ballots, shall be the words, "Prohibition or Restriction," placed in such manner that the same shall be visible when the ballot is folded. If, upon the canvass of such ballots cast at said election, a majority thereof shAll be found to contain the words, "Prohibition -Yes," then said provision No. 1, shall become Alnd stand as section-, of Article , of this Constitution, if it shall be adopted; but if a majority of such ballots shall contain the words, "Restriction-Yes," then the above provision No. 2 shall become and stand as section, of Article, of this Constitution, if the same be adopted. Mr. HUSTON. On this question I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. ALEXANDER. I call for a division of the question upon this amendment, so as to have a vote on the two propositions separately. Mr. McCLELLAND. I submit that the propositions are so intermingled as to be incapable of division. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that the proposition is not susceptible of division. The question was taken on the substitute as amended; and it was not agreed to, there being yeas 36, nays 47, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Chapman, Coolidge Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Estee, Ferris, Giddings, Hixson, Holt, Lawrence, Longyear, Lothrop, Lovell, McClelland, McKernan, Miles, Morton, Ninde, Norris, Parsons, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Sawyer, Shearer, W. A. Smith, Turner, W. E. Warner, Winans, Winsor, Withey and the rreslden-O. NAYs-Messrs. Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Burtch, Case, Chapin, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Farmner, Germain, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Henderson, Helmes, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Luce, McConnell, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Pratt, Root, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Tyler, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Williams, Woodhouse and Yeomans -47. The PRESIDENT. The question is now on concurring in the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, to add to section thirty-one these words: "nor pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors." Mr. WITHEY. For the purpose of harmonizing the different views that have been expressed on this floor, I send to the Chair a substitute for this amendment. The Secretary read the substitute as follows: The Legislature shall provide for the regulation and restriction, and may prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks, and shall impose a tax upon the traffic therein. The sale of such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, paqpers and common drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited, and all necessary laws shall be passed to enlorce such prohibition. The annual tax in any case, upon the traffic shall not be less than $200. No license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors shall be authorized. At the election when this Constitution shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection, the foregoing provision shall be separately submitted to such electors. Mr. WITHEY. Mr. President, I do not propose to say anything on this question, for I know that it would not be in order; but I wish to ask that the proposition be read again, and would respectfully request every member of the Convention to give particular attention to it. It will be observed that it provides, in addition to the former proposition, that the Legislature may Mr. BILLS. I submit that we are not in a position to entertain further argument on this question. Mr. WITHEY. If the gentleman objects, I will say nothing more. The PRESIDENT. The question is not debatable. The amendment of Mr. WITHEY was again read. Mr. WITHEY. Wopld it. not be in order for me to explain, without any argument,this amendment which I have "offered? The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that, under the resolution of the Convention, no debate is in order at the present time. The only business in order is to vote upon the pending question and the amendments that may be proposed. Mr. CONGER. I move that the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WIT,E,) have leave to explain his proposition. Augst 8, 187 DEAE A- r-cE~S Mr. M. C. WATKINS. I hope that this motion will not prevail. If my colleague (Mr. WITHEY) is allowed to explain, of course somebody else will want to reply to him, and it will open the whole range of debate. Mr. CONGER. I understand that this resolution precluding debate at this time, applies to questions and propositions under consideration, and not to a motion of leave. My motion is that the gentleman from Kent have leave to explain, and as it is not a motion connected with this question, I believe that I am not precluded by the resolution from saying a word upon this motion. Mr. PRATT. I rise to a point of order. The resolution provided that we should proceed to a vote, without debate, at half-past nine o'clock this morning. I submit that no other business is now in order. The PRESIDENT. The impression of the Chair is, that this Convention by its leave, may permit any gentleman to explain his vote on a proposition which may be presented. Bat, that is a matter for the Convention to decide; and in the opinion of the Chair, a motion to grant such leave is not debatable, being simply a question with relation to the order of business. Mr. VAN VAT,LKFNBURGH. Mr. President, I merely wish to remark, that I have a proposition to-present; and if the gentleman from Kent is allowed to explain his proposition, I trust the Convention will give me a similar privilege. The PRESIDENT. The question is not debatable. Mr. TURNER. I ask for the yeas and nays on this question. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken on the motion of Mr. CONGEl that Mr. WITHEY have leave to explain his substitute, and there were yeas 46, nays 30, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Barber, Brown, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers. Divine, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, W. F. Goodwin, Henderson, Hixson, Holt, Howard, Lawrence, Lothrop, Luce, McClelland, McKernan, Miles, Morton, Musgrave, Ninde, Norris, Parsons, Pratt, Rafter, Richmond, Shearer, T. G. Smith, W. A. Smith, Stoughton, Turner, Tyler, Walker, Winans, Winsor and the President-46. ,NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Andrfs, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Burtch, Case, Duncan, Elliott, Harris, Holmes, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Lovell, McConnell, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Root, Sheldon, Stockwell, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Woodhouse and Yeomans-30. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH, (when his name was called,) said: Mr. President, may I be permitted to explain my vot? The PRESIDENT. It is the opinion of the Chair that the question is not debatable. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I do not wish to debate it. I vote "no." The President was about to announce the result of the vote, when Mir. LEACH said: I rise to a point of order. My point of order is that this motion involves a suspension of the rules, and requires a two-thirds vote. The PRESIDENT. The Chair does not understand this to be a suspension of the order. The motion is simply to permit the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) to explain his reasons for offering an amendment. It does not propose to authorize the gentleman to go into any general debate upon this question. The Chair will therefore hold that the Convention may, by a majority vote, give the gentleman permission to make his explanation. The gentleman from Kent, by the vote just taken, has leave to-proceed. Mr. WITHEY. The amendment which I have just offered. for the consideration of the Convention proposes two modifications of the substitute heretofore offered by the gentleman from Wayne, as amended on motion of myself. The first change which it proposes is to insert in the second line of the substitute as already voted upon, the words,,, and may prohibit." As the substitute stood when voted upon before, it read, "The Legislature shall provide for the regulation and restriction of the sale." I have inserted in this clause, after the word restriction," the words, "and may prohibit." The object of this is to meet an objection made to the other proposition, -that under it there could be no prohibition by the Legislature. The other change which I have made is to incorporate a provision that "sno license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors shall be authorized." This is designed to meet the objection that thesecond branch of the alternative proposition, as it before stood, did not provide for the prohibition of license. All those who are opposed to license and are yet willing that the Legislature shall be authorized to regulate, restrict or prohibit, can support this proposition. At the same time those who are in favor of taxing the traffic to the amount of two hundred dollars in every case can also support it. The last clause of the amendment provides for submitting this proposition as a whole to the people, to be voted upon, yes or no. If this be adopted, it will go into the Constitution, and if not it will fail. It appear~ to Ah ~r. le ideat, that the changes which have been made in these several respectsby authorizing the Legislature to prohibit the sale, by forbidding the Legislature to authorize license, and by providing that this proposition shall be submitted separately-will meet the views of many members of this Convention. - Mr. GIDDINGS. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken on the substitute of Mr. WITHEY for the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, and it was not agreed to; there being yeas 39, nays 43, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Brown, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Duncombe, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings, Hixson, Holt, Lawrence, Lothrop, Lovell, McClelland, MeKernan, Miles, Morton, Ninde, Norris, Parson, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Sawyer, Shearer, W. A. Smith, Turner, W. E. Warner, Winans, Winsor, Withey, Williams, and: the President39. - NAYs-Messrs. Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Burtech, Case, Chapin, Divine, Duncan, Elliott, Germain, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Henderson, Holmes, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Luce, McConnell, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Pratt, Root, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Tyler, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Woodhouse and Yeomans-43. Mr. LOTHROP, (when his name was called,) said: Though not approving entirely this proposition, I prefer it to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, and I vote "aye." The result of the vote was announced as above stated. The question then recurred on concurring in the aniendment reported from the committee of the whole. Mr. BURTCH. I now move the following as a substitute for the amendment made by the committee of the whole: It shall be unlawful to. vend or sell intoxicating drinks in this State as a beverage; and the Legislature may provide by law such penalties as they may deem proper, and regulate the sale thereof ior medicinal and mechanical purposes. The amendment of Mr. BURTCH WaS not agreed to. The question then recurred on concurring in the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, which as amended proposed to add to section thirty-one the words: "nor pass any law authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating drinks" Mr. McCLELLAND. I call for the yeas and nays on concurring in this .amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and the , ~mendment reporte frQom tho eonmmi; I t August 8 1867.' DEBATES AND 1,PROCFP-DINGSO, 687, zt 68~~ OO~STITUTIO~AL COlVE TO\ Thurs / ay, tee of the whole was concurred in, there being yeas 45, nays 36, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Henderson, Holmes, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Luce, McConnell, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Pratt, Root, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Tyler, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Williams, Woodhouse and Yeomans-45. NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Brown, Burtch, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Estee, Farmer, Hixson, Lawrence, Longyear, Lothrop, Lovell, McClelland, McKernan, Morton, Ninde, Norris, Parsons, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Sawyer, Shearer, W. A. Smith, Turner, W. E. Warner, Winans, Winsor, Withey and the President-36. Mr. BURTCH not voting when his name was called, Mr. HOWARD moved that Mr. BURTcie be excused from voting. The motion was not agreed to. M-. BURTCH. I will say with regard to my vote on this matter that I am opposed to putting any rotten wood into the vessel upon which I propose to sail. The pending amendment leaves this matter in such a shape that the flood-gates of hell can be opened at any time when a different party comes into power. [Laughter.] I vote " no." Mr. MORTON. I think that the gentleman from Eaton ought to be permitted to change his vote. I presume he has voted under a misapprehension. The result of the vote was announced as above stated. The PRESIDENT. The hour fixed by special order for the third reading of articles having arrived, the article entitled "Legislative Department," will be passed to the order of unfinished business, and the special order will be taken up. Mr. CONGER. There are some other matters in connection with this article upon which gentlemen undoubtedly wish to vote; and as the subject is now before us, it occurs to me it would be as well to continue with its consideration. There are only two or three more propositions in this article which need the consideration of the Convention. I trust that we may so far dispose of this article as to decide at this time upon concurrence or non-concutrence in the amendments reported from the committee of the whole, so that the article may be referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology. The article is a long one, and will need considerable examination at the hands of that committee. In order to carry out this view, I move that the considetation of the special order be postponed until this article be disposd of, Mr. BILLS. I think this motion should meet the approbation of the Convention. It occurs to me as very desirable that the course suggested should be taken, inasmuch as a larger number of members are now present than we shall probably have two or three days hence. The article we now have before us embraces many very important provisions, and hence it is desirable that it should be acted upon when the Convention is full. I hope, therefore, the Convention will decide to mature this article at the present time, so that it may pass to its third reading and come up along with the other articles which are now prepared for third reading. The motion of Mr. CONGER was agreed to. MUNICIPAL AID TO RAILROADS. The PRESIDENT. The next amendment reported from the committee of the whole to the article entitled "Legislative Department," is to add the following as a new section: SECTION —. The Legislature may empower any city or township to raise by tax, in aid of any railroad company or companies, an amount of money not exceeding ten per centum of the assessed valuation of such city or township, but every such tax shall be first approved by a vote of the electors of such city or township; provided that the amount levied by any such tax. shall not, when added to the principal of the credits of such city or township already pledged for like aid and then outstanding, exceed ten per centum of the assessed valuation aforesaid. Mr. CONGER. I offer the following as a substitute for the amendment reported from the committee of the whole: SECTION —. The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to raise by tax, in aid of any railroad company or companies, in any one year,an amount of money exceding ten per centum of the assessed valuation of such city or township; and in case such municipality shall have pledged its credit in aid of any such company or companies, in pursuance of the provisions of the preceding section, the amount of tax so authorized, except for the purpose of paying such credit pledged, shall not exceed ten per centum of such valuation, including the amount of such credit, exclusive of interest. No such tax shall be levied without being first approved by a majority vote of the electors of such city or township voting thereon, except for the purpose of paying the indebtedness thereof for credit pledged. Mr. President, the substitute which I have just offered is the amendment of the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) in a somewhat modified form. The principal difference-perhaps the only difference- from the section adopted in committee, is found in the opening clause of the provision. The section adopted in - committee of the whole, on motion'of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) proposes to give the Legislature authority to empower any city or township to raise a tax not exceeding a certain amounLt. [ the substitute which I offer, the Legislature is restricted from authorizing a tax exceeding a certain amount. The difference between the two propcsitions corresponds with the different views which we entertain of the power of the Legislature. The first section of the article provides that the "legislative power" of this State shall be " vested in a Senate and House of Representatives." It has been the policy of the standing committee on the "Legislative Department," and thus far the policy of the Convention, to recognize the fact that all power not prohibited to the Legislature belongs to that body; in other words, that unless we insert some prohibition on the subject, the Legislature will possess authority to regulate and control by law the power of cities and villages to tax themselves and their property for any purpose. The chief reason, however, why I desire the adoption of this substitute, aside from that of recognizing this well - established pr-iciple, is that the section may correspond in its language with the section which, following the order of the article, would be the preceding section. I mean section twenty-seven. The language of that section is, "The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit," etc. Thus we avoid having two separate principles of action enunciated in two sections of the same article. I believe it is admitted that the Legislature will possess this power unless some restriction be inserted. The only other proposition embraced in this substitute-and it is, I un derstand, one to which there is no ob jection from any quarter-is that when the amount of aid is partly credit and partly raised by a direct tax, it shall not exceed in the aggregate, ten per cent., exclusive of interest; that is, the interest on any bonds, or the amount of money required to pay the interest of any bonds. With these ex ceptions, the two propositions, that of the gentleman from Wayne, and that which I propose, are similar in all their provisions. As I remarked on a former occasion, my desire is that this section, while it shall fully answer the purposes for which it is designed-restricting the amount of taxation which towns, cities and vill~ges may impose upon them selves-may not weak'en the provisions of section twenty-seven, nor throw any discredit upon the bonds' which may be issued, or upon the power to raise money for paying those bonds without the submission of the question to the people. Mr. MUSIY. ~[ would ]ike to ask f t t n ..Thursday,. CONSTITUTIONAT,. CONVENTION. 688 .1 August- 8' 87 EAE P)PO)]D-S 8 the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER) whether his substitute does not embrace another change-I mean in the provision in regard to a vote. I understand that the original proposition provides for a decision by a majority of the electors, while this provision, as I understand, provides for a decision by a majority of the electors voting at such election. I think the difference is quite important, according to the theory which has been laid down here. Mr. CONGER. The original proposition provides that the question of aid shall be submitted to "a vote of the electors" in the city or township to be affected thereby. The substitute, which I have offered provides that the levying of the tax shall be " approved by a majority vote of the electors in such city or township voting thereon." Mr. MUSSEY.. That is quite an important difference. Mr. LOTHROP. I have on former occasions so fully expressed my views on this subject that I do not propose in any manner to repeat them. I do. not approve the amendment of.the gentleman from St. Clair. If the Convention has changed its mind in regard to the proposition which it desires to adopt on this subject, I have not the slightest objection. Mr. STOCKWELL. I move to amend the substitute by striking out the words "one year," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "five years," so that the phrase will read "in any five years." Mr. President, I hope that this amendment will prevail. There is. a very strong feeling in the part of the State where I reside, in regard to thus taxing townships and cities, or authorizing any such tax in the Constitution.: This provision is very objectionable from the fact that as it now stands, if a vote could be obtained every year, a tax:of ten per cent. on the assessed valuation of the property could be imposed every year for the purpose here contemplated.'Now, it is, I think, very easy to see that in many townships such a vote might be obtained every year. A company constructing a lrailroad has facilities fOr putting a large number of hands in a townshipenough to carry a measure of- this kind year after year, for two or three years perhaps, if the company desired it.. - - If those voting on: this question were required to be actual property-holders of the township, the case would be:different. But the provision contemplates a vote by the "electors;" and- a. man by a mere residence of ten days'min the: township -may become an elector. -it can readily be seen that in this wa Vol. 2-No. 87. the vote of the township might be carried, against the express wishes of a majority of the actual residents of the township. As I have before remarked, a provision of this kind is very unpopular in the portion of the State which I have the honor to represent; and I hope that the amendment which I offer may be adopted, so as to provide that the people shall not be taxed.-for this purpose oftener than once in five years, to an amount not exceedingten percent. I think that such a restriction would, in my part of the State, add great strength to the instrument which we are to present to the people for ratification. Mr. CONGER. We have already gone over the whole argument on this subject; and I have only to say that if, as the gentleman'from Lenawee (i(Mr. -STOCKWELL) has repeatedly said, this measure is unpopular in his county, then there is no danger that the county will ever vote anything in this.way. Hence, there can.be no risk to the interests of his constituents. It has been admitted in all the. arguments on this question, so.far as I have heard, that there is no danger that any township, year after year, will vote -a tax. upon itself to. be paid each year, unless it actually desires to contribute to this extent. Now, sir, if this section is good for anythi'g, it is designed to restrict the township to ten per cent., whether by taxation or by pledging its credit. The object is to hold both within this limit of ten per cent. The proposition which I have offered effects this object, while the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee would open the question, so that the. township might exceed this amount at the. end of five years. I Cannot think it desira ble that the amendment should be adopted. The question was taken on the amendment of Mr..STOOKWELL; and it was declared not agreed to. .Mr. STOCKWELL. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken and the amendment of Mr. STOcKWE;LL was not agreed to; there being yeas 26, nays 48, as follows: 'YEAS —Messrs. Bills, Blackman, Ferris, Germain, Hixson, Howard, Lothrop, McClelland, McConnell, Miller, Morton, Murray, Norris, Pra.tt, Purcell, Rafter, Shearer, W. A. Smith, Stockwell, Van Riper, Walker, P, D. Warner, W. E. Warner, White, Yeomans and the Presiden,26. NAYs-Messrs...Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Cooli1dge, Cooger, Crocker, Dan-. iells, Desnoyers, Divine, Duncan, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Giddings, W.F. Goodwin, larriN, Henderson,'Hol'mes, Hustonb Kenny, Lawrence, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, MOKernan, MuBey, MusgravTe, Ninde, ar sons, Root, Sheldon, Stoughton, Turner, Vy. ler, Van Valkenburgh, M. C. Watkins, Willard, Winans, Winsor, Withey and Woodhouse -48.. Mr. WITHEY (when his name was called) said: I wish to ask th6gee'tleman from St. Clair,: (Mr. CONGER,) whether his understand'ing of the substitute is that it authorizes the pledging of credit or the:levying of taxes for railroad purposes to the amount of ten. per cent. annually. Mr. CONGER. My understanding is that where a city or t'wship has pledged its credit to the'. extent of ten per cent., it can raise no tax while that is outstanding; but where it has-raised part of the amount-where,: for instance, it-has raised five per cent. out of the ten-it may raise. an additional five per cent. by tax. But there cannot: be more than one ten per cent. outstanding at the; same time, whether it be credit or tax. Mr. WITHEY. Whether both or one. Mr. CONGER. Eitherr...Mr. WITHEY. I vote,,no." The result of the vote was announced as above'stated. The question then reCurred on the adoption of the substitute proposed by Mr. CoNGEm for the amendment rev ported from the committee of the,whole. Mr. PRATT. if IfI uderstahid this Proposition, it allows a tax to be raised annually to the amount of ten per cent., in addition tona- ertain'amount to pay the credit which has been pledged. I ask the chairman of the committee whether this is the correct interpreta tion? Mr. CONGER. No sir; it is directly the contrary. The ientetion of this provision is to restrict a township,from raising any more than ten per cent. for both purposes-credit and, tax,both. Gentlemen will remember.that when section twenty-seven was un.der consideration, many gentlemen desired' in that section to insert a restriction against the raising of an..additional amount. I desired that tha~t section in regard to the pledging of credit should be a distinct proposition, so that those who might take the bonds could look, to the section and see just how the matter stood, there being no other provision which might affect the sale of the bonds. Hence, it seemed to me desirable that a proposibion of this kind should be:intro'duced, restricing the taxation, together with the credit, to ten per cent.. I understand that, according to this' provision, if five per'cent. has been raised by a pledge of credit, only five per cent. can i be raised Xby taxation,'and so with regard to-any other amount..:The object of the proposition is to restrict the ..D,F,13ATIS'AD PROCEEIDINGS. .Au ust S,,1867. 690 COV-O.~iray whole amount of indebtedness, whether by credit or by tax, to ten per cent. Mr. PRATT. Mr. President, the provision is somewhat lengthy and complex. I wish it might be laid on the table and printed, so that we might have further time to examine it. It is a very important question, and should be very carefully and maturely considered. I therefore move-and I hope the motion will meet the approbation of the Convention-that the article be laid on the table, so that the amendment may be printed in the journal. Mr. CONGER. This provision does not differ at all, except in the point i have stated, from the one which has already been printed. It was drawn up by the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WLIAMS,) who made the objection before; and I understand is satisfactory to those who desired an amendment to obviate that objection. I may say that this legislative article has now been under consideration for weekscontinuously for two weeks, and for a great part of the time since. As there is now a fuller Convention thanthere may be hereafter, I desire that this question shall be disposed of at the present time. The motion of Mr. PrATT was not agreed to. Mr. H'NDERSON. Mr. President, it might naturally be expected that the delegates' from the couunty which I in part represent would agree upon a proposition of this kind, inasmuch as our constituents all want, or think they want, the same thing; that is liberty to pledge their credit or raise money for enterprises such as are contempla ted by the pending provision. One of my colleagues has taken his stand in favor of the original proposition of the committee, which limits the amount of credit to be pledged to -ten per cent., and leaves the tax question entirely unrestricted. I regret to say that I am obliged to differ with him on this point. I voted for the proposition of the gentleman fromWayne, (Mr. LoTHRoP,) in committee of the whole, thinking it would not admit of that construction which has since been put upon it, namely: that when a municipality has raised ten per cent., whether in one year or in ten years, it is forever there after precluded from raising any more. If the proposition will admit of that construction, I cannot endorse it; and I believe it is because such a construc tion has been put upon it that this substitute is now offered for our con sideration. It is now declared by the chairman of the committee on the legislative de partment, (Mr. CoME,) that the ef fect of this sub~fitute will be that at no time shall a.ny township raise a tax which, when added to the then outstanding indebtedness, will make the aggregate exceed ten per cent. If this is the correct construction of the substitute-if this declaration embodies all that is sought to be gained by itthen it is just what I want; it goes to the extent to which I am willing to go; and I shall vote for it. Mr. WITHEY. Mr. President, before the vote is taken on this question, I wish to say that I have examined the proposition of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) with some little care; and from that examination I am not able to arrive at the same conclusion which he has stated as his view, though I understand that it is a propositioni that I once had occasion to glance over in Convention, when it seemed to me, without much reflection or any critical examination to be satisfactory. In my former vote in favor of the prop ositibn of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) I intended to go so far as to make this declaration: that a municipality might be permitted to raise an amount not exceeding ten per cent. in aid of railroads, either by taxation or by pledging the credit of the mu nicipality, or both, but not exceeding, either in one or in both ways, ten per cent. I think that this construction, and this alone, can be placed upon the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne. But, from the examination which I have given to the substitute of the gentleman from St. Clair, I believe that when the proper construction is given to that substitute, it will authorize, in a contingency, not only ten per cent. to be raised at one time, but ten per cent. to be annually raised by taxation upon the property of the township. Of course the examination which I have given to the proposition here in the midst of the debate, to which of course I have endeavored to give attention, has been but cursory; but laboring under this conviction, and believing that this is the proper con struction to be placed upon i.that it will authorize in a contingency the raising of ten per cent. annually-I cannot vote for it. When I was at home but a few days ago, I found that every single individ ual whom I met from the country, who conversed with me in reference to this Constitutional Convention and our proceedings, brought up th/s subject of taxation for railroad purposes; and every person without exception was opposed to allowing even ten per cent. to be raised by a municipality. Not only from the country, but from the city in which I reside, did I hear this expression of opinion. When I ex plained to such persons that under our present Constitution the Legislature can undoubtedly go to any extent in authorizing aid for railroad purposes-is not limited to ten per cent. but can go to the extent of twenty-five, fifty and one hundred per cent. —this of course somewhat relieved the matter in their opinion; but I am satisfied that if we are to insert in the Constitution a positive provision of this kind, directing the attention of the people particularly to this subject-matter, we must be guarded in our action in reference to the amount that we authorize municipalities to raise in either one or both forms; otherwise we shall have a very strong vote against the instrument which we are to submit to the people for their ratification. Inasmuch as the section offered by the gentleman fromWayne clearlyand definitely, to my mind, limits all the forms of aid which can be extended by the municipality to ten per cent., I much prefer that proposition to the substitute now — offered by the gentleman from St. Clair. I ask the Convention to consider this matter with care, and not insert any clause which by any possibility of construction may authorize'an annual taxation of ten per cent. I do think that the gentle man from St. Clair is mistaken in his construction of the substitute which he has offered. I labor under this conviction; and with this belief I shall be obliged to vote against the substi tute. iMr. CODGER. Mr. President, when this subject was before under consider ation, I understood that the only ob jection made by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) was that there might be a tax raised as well as credit pledged. I think I cannot be mis taken with regard to the grounds of his opposition to the measure at that time-that he objected to it solely be cause there might be credit pledged to the extent of ten per cent., and also a tax to the amount of ten per cent., or perhaps to an unlimited amount. Mr. WITHEY. hy opposition was based upon the fact, that in my view the aid might be duplicated-that there might be a pledge of credit to the; ex tent of ten per cent., and also taxation to the extent of ten per cent., making twenty per cent. This was my objec tion. I am entirely satisfied to vote for any proposition which will confine the entire amount of aid granted, both by tax and by pledge of credit, to ten per cent. at any one time, including both existing indebtedness and exist [ng tax. Mr. CONGER. Then this substi tute meets the gentleman's view as ex actly as language can meet it. I found, CONSTIT'UTIOXAL CON'VENTION. Thursday, 690 I Auut8 8'.DBTSADPOEDNS 9 in running over the proposition offered by the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WmLLiAMS,) that he had twice inserted the words, "except for the purpose of paying such credit." Those words occurredl once about the middle of the proposition, and again at the end. The substitute which I had preparedbut it has- been mislaid or lost-was drawn up without this interlineation. Mr. WITH E"Y. Is the substitute now before the Convention the one that was submitted to me for examination? Mr. CONGER. It is, except that the interlineations were not in that. This substitute, however, is substantially the same proposition whiqh the gentleman from Allegan drew up and submitted to the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) and which was said to have his approval at the time; it was at least intended to meet his views. Now, sir, that there may be no misunderstanding, I wish to read this substitute again in connection with section twenty-seven. That section as amended reads as follows: The Legislature shall not uathorize any city or township to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad to an extent whereby-the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on ac count of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to pledge its credit for any such purpose, except in the Upper Peninsula.The question of such aid shall be submitted to a vote of the city or township to be affeoted thereby." The provision which I have offered was designed to follow in its form the section I have just read. I will now read this proposition again, that gentle men may see whether it is not an abso lute restriction against permitting any outstanding indebtedness, whether by taxation or by pledge of credit, to ex ceed ten per cent.; this being, I under stand, the object desired by the gentle man from Kent. SEcCTION-. The Legislature shall not au thorize any city or township to raise by tax, in aid of any railroad company or companies, in any one year, an amount of money exceed ing ten per centum of the assessed valuation of such city or township; and in case such municipality shall have pledged its credit in aid of any such company or companies, in pursuauce of the provisions of the preceding section, the amount of tax so authorized shall not exceed ten per centum of such val uation, including the amount of such credit, exclusive of interest. No such tax shall be levied without being first approved by a ma jority vote of the electors of such city or township voting thereon, except for the pur pose of paying the indebtedness thereof for credit pledged. Since offering this substitute, I have modified it by striking out near the end of the first clause the words "es cept for the purpose of paying such credit pledged," because they occir in the latter part of the Brovi'sion, apd ware bere repetition, Now, sir, the principal difference between this substitnte and the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne is, that this provision places a restriction upon the Legislature; whereas the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne undertook to empower the Legislature to do what many gentle — men of this Convention think the Legislature has power to do without special authority. What I object to in that provision, is the principle which it implies with reference to the powers of the Legislature. As to the other idea embraced in the provision, I call the attention of the gentleman from Kent to this language: " And in case such municipality shall have pledged its credit in aid of such company or companies, in pursuance of the provisions of the preceding section,"(thatis intended to refer to section twenty-seven,) "the amount of tax so authorized shall not exceed ten per centum of such valuation, including the amount of such credit, exclusive of interest." In other words, the amount of interest may be raised in addition to the ten per cent.; for of course we do'not want a provision which will prevent the raising of money to pay the interest on the bonds. So that if the principal of the credit loaned is eight per cent., the town may raise two per cent. and also the interest on the eight per cent. My objection to placing the prohibition in section twenty-seven, was because I desired that that section should relate solely to pledge of credit or issues of bonds, embracing those subjects in a distinct proposition. Yet I have no objection to limiting the amount of taxation to ten per cent. I may say in regard to the insertion of the words "in any one year," (al though this Convention has just voted on an amendment proposing to change these words,} that- it has been assumed throughout this whole debate that there is no probability that a township will raise by direct taxation any more money than the peeple will want to raise; that they will not vote ten per cent. to be raised by taxation, year after year, unless they desire to do so. Hr. ~WITHEY. Mr. President, I think by inserting in the middle of the provision, the words to which the gen fleman from St. Clair has referred, the sense of the proposition is very differ ent from.what it would be without them. I ask the President to read the first two or three lines:of the substi tute, where it speaks of annual taxation. The PRESIDENT. The substitute of the gentleman from St. Clair reads as follows.' ,c The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to rtise by tax? i~ aid or any railroad company or companies, in -any one year an amount of money exceeding ten per centum of-the assessed valuation of such city or township; and in case such municipality shall have pledged its credit in aid of any such company or companies in- pursuance of the provisions of the preceding section, the amount of tax so authorized " The gentleman from St. Clair has stricken out certain words here so that it now reads —"' the amount' of tax so authorized shall not exceed ten per centum of such valuation, including the amount of such credit exclusive of -interest," etc. Mr. WITH-FY. I think that the proposition as modified seems to be free from the objection which I made. I am quite confident that it does not express the same sense now that it did before the change was made. Mr. LOTHROP. Mr. President, it is quite true that the proposition of the gentleman from St. Clair does not permit a levy-of over ten per cent. in any one year, including the bonds that have been issued; but it is-likewise perfectly clear that if no bonds are raised, it empowers the LegislatLre to authorize a town to levy a tax of ten per cent. every year, year after year. There can be no doubt on this point. I have listened very attentively to the half dozen different readings of this proposition, and'I am very confident that under it, if a town shall choose not to issue bonds at all, (for the issue of bonds or other securities is the only thing expressed by the word "credit-;"'credit" does not embrace a tax at all,) the town will be authorized to levy year after year a tax to the amount of ten per cent. Now, whether it is true or not that a town would not levy taxes in this way, I do not care. I am opposed to em powering the Legislature or anybody else to authorize any township to make any such levies. It is very well known that the prop osition adopted in committee of the whole was not agreeable to my views, though I voted for it as a restriction as some safeguard against allowing municipalities to run wild in this mat ter. That proposition, which was adopted after grave consideration, pro vided distinctly that the levy of tax, added to the amount of interest, should at no time exceed ten per cent. As to the change of the phraseology ill the first part of the section, that is merely a matter of individual prefer, ence. I admit that the legal construc tion will be substantially the same whether- we declare that the Legisla ture-'' may empower any city or town ship to contract indebtedness not ex ceeding ten per cent.," or whether we say that the Legislature "shall not authorize any citfy, or township to opus August 8,1867. DEBATES AND PROCER-T)INGS. 691 i 692 CONSTITUTIONAT, CONVENTION. Thursday tract indebtedness exceeding ten per cent.'>' I have no doubt::that -the phraseology in the one case is just as good as in the other, and I have no disposition to quarrel about the language. But there is another part of the proposition where, it strikes me, the terms are entirely inappropriate in a legal point of view. If we desire to be at all accurate and correct in our use of language, the words "exclusive of interest," should not be included. The interest upon bonds which have been issued is no part of the "credit." The interest does not go to the railroad. The credit is loaned to the railroad, and the amount of credit thus loaned is the principal amount of the bonds. The taxation levied thereafter for the payment of those bonds is not taxation in aid of the railroad. The taxation may be levied entirely irrespective of the original indebtedness. I repeat, that the credit loaned to the railroad is the principal of the bonds; and it was very properly provided in the section adopted in committee of the whole-and nothing more need be provided on this subject that the "amount levied by any such tax, shall not, when added to the principal of the -:credits of such city or township already pledged for like aid, and then outstanding,' exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation afore said." The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. COxGER,) has used in his substitute the words, "exclusive of interest," as if the interest accruing upon bonds which have been pledged, were a part of the credit loaned. It is no such thing; the interest is not a part of the credit loaned. The words, "exclusive of interest," are, it is true, mere surplusage; but they ought not to be inserted, because they assume as a fact that is not a fact. It seems to me, therefore, that the phraseology now proposed to be sub stituted, does not possess proper legal accuracy, and is not suitable to be inserted in the Constitution. If it were desirable to change the phraseology in the first part ~9f the section, it might be altered -though nothing would be gained in that respect-so as to read: "The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to raise by tax, in aid of any railroad company or companies, an amount of money exceeding ten per centum of the assessed valuation of such city or township." Mr. CONGER. The verbal criti cism:of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. L6THROP,) seems to me rather nice than wise. If it be unnecessary to ".to the questjon- of interest at all, why does the gentleman in his proposition use the words "when added to the principal of the credits"? Mr. LOTHROP. I will say to the gentleman that the word " principal in that connection, is wholly useless; and I inserted it at the request of some other gentleman. It was not in my original draft. Mr. CONGER. But there is no intimation in the section that the gentleman does not father the whole; and there seems to me no force in his objection to inserting the words exclusive of interest," when he has already inserted the words " added to the principal of the credits." I think myself that the words " exclusive of interest," are so clear and distinct that they had better be retained in the proposition. Mr. LOTHROP. I call for the yeas and nays on the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair. The' yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken on the substitute proposed by Mr. CONGER, for the amendment of the committee of the whole, and it was not agreed to: there being yeas 37, nays -42, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Andrus, Bradley, Burtch, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Divine, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings, Harris, Henderson, Huston, Lawrence, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McKernan, Mussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Parsons, Richmond, Shearer, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Turner, Van Riper, Willard, Winans and Woodhouse-37. NAYS-Messrs.'Alexander, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Brown, Corbin, Crocker, Duncan, Cuncombe, Elliott, Germain, A. F. Goodwin, Hixson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Kenney, Lothrop, McClelland, McConnell, Miller, Morton, Murray, Norris, Pratt, Purcell, Rafter, Root, Sheldon, W. A. Smith, Stockwell, Tyler, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, W. E. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Winsor, Withey, Yeomans and the President-42. Mr. WITHEY, (when his name was called,) said: I vote ",no,"- for the reason that I think this substitute is not as safe a proposition as the original section. The result of thlevote was announced as above stated. The question then recurred upon concurring in the amendment reported from the committee of the whole. EThe amendment was concur red iO. DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE. The PRESIDENT. The amendments reported from the committee of the whole being now disposed of, the next question properly in order, as the Chair understands, is upon the amendment reported by the standing committee on crimes and punishments, which is to add to the article the following as a new section: "The Legislature shall provide by law for the punishment of murer of th first degres by dethl:: -:..... Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, as chairman of the committee on crimes and punishments, I reported this propo-' sition in accordance with the vote of the majority of the committee. I do' not now rise to advocate it, because, in may judgment, the question is one entirely within the domain of legislation. Having, in obedience to the instructions of the majority of the committee, made the report, I think my whole duty will be discharged by simply asking,the yeas and nays on the proposition. -If other gentlemen desire to discuss it, I, for one, have no objection. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SECRETARY having begun the call of the roll, Mr. LOTHROP moved to amend the amendment by inserting after the words "C murder of the first degree," the words" treason, arson and rape." Mr. LEACH. I rise to a point of order. The Clerk had commenced calling the roll, when -the- gentleman offered this proposition, and there had been a response. Mr. LOTHROP. Very well; I will not press the amendment. -The call of the roll was resumed, and the amendment proposed by the committee on crimes and punishments was not agree:l to; there being yeas 36, nays 43, as follows: YESS-Messrs., Andrus, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapman, Coolidge, Corbin, Daniells, Desnoyers, Elliott, Estee, Harris, Holmes, Husto4, Kenney, Lawrence, McClelland, McConnell, McKernan, Miller, Morton, Musgrave, Pratt. Rafter, Richmond, Root, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, W. A. Smith, Stoughton, Tyler, Van Valkenburgh, P. D. Warner, White, Winsor and Yeomans-36. NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Barber, Bills,:Blackman, Burtch, Chapin, Conger, Crocker, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, W. F. Goodwin, Henderson, Hixson, Holt, Howard, Leach, Longyear, Lothrop, Lovell, Luce Murray, Ninde, Norris, Parsons, Purcell, Shearer, Stockwell, Turner, Van Riper Walker, W. E. Warner, M. C. Watkins, Willard, Winans, Withey, Woodhouse and the President43. Mr. IfOWARD, (when his name was called) said: Mr. President, I was a member of the committee on this subject. As the chairmain has intimated, he was instructed to report this proposition, that the matter might be brought before the Convention. I desire to say, that, if Iwere acting as a member of the Legislature, I should certainly Vote to restore capital punishment for the crime of murder. I should go farther, and vote heartily for the proposition suggested by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) Whatever may' have been his intention in offering that proposition, I believe that it would. have a tendency to prevent the August 8, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 693 commission of those crimes. I do not thinik, however, that a provision on this subject should be embraced in the Constitution. It seems to me that the question ought to be left with the Legislature. I therefore vote " no." The result of the vote was announced as above stated. The PRESIDENT. Amendments to the body of the article are now in order. NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES. Mr. LEACH. I move to amend section three by inserting in the first clause, the words "not more than," before the words "one hundred," and and also by inserting after the words one hundred," the words " and ten; so that the clause will read: "The House of Representatives shall consist of not more than one hundred and ten members." I desire to state very briefly the reasons that have impelled me to offer this amendment. I have presented it after consultation with a large number of the members of the Convention; and I trust that when the reasons which have induced me to offer it shall have been explained, every one will see their force, and admit the justice of the proposition. I will state frankly, -r. President, that this amendment is offered with a direct view to increasing the representation of some of the newer counties of the State. As the section now stands, it provides that the House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred members. If the section be adopted in that form, it will be many years before any additional representation can be given to the newer counties, and those which are very rapidly increasing in population. In illustration of this point, I wish to refer to the district which I represent in-this Convention. - That district is composed of the organized counties of Mason, Lake, Manistee, Grand Traverse, Leelanaw, Manitou and Antrim, and the unorganized counties of -Otsego, Crawford, Kalkas ka, Missaukee, Wexford and Benzie. Some of these counties have quite a large population. By the census of 1864, this district embraced a popula tion of 8920; this population it will be observed, being spread over seven or ganized, and six unorganized counties. Every gentleman here is well aware that since the close of the war, the immigration to the northern counties of the State has been very large; and I am confident that this district has to day a population of not less than fifteen or sixteen thousand. Consequently under the ratio of representation, we would be entitled to at least:two repre ~entatives But, Mr. President, if we adopt section three of this article in the form in which it now stands, it will be a long time before these new counties can have any additional representation. The first meeting of the Legislature after the adoption of the new Constitution will be in 1869; the next meeting will be in 1871. There will be no data for a new apportionment till the session of 1871. Consequently, these counties can have no additional representation in the Legislature until after that time; in other words, they cannot have the advantage of any increased representation until the meeting of the Legislature in 1873-six years hence. If the present rate of immigration to the northern counties should continue, the district which I represent will at that time have a population of from thirty to forty thousand. Now, gentlemen will see at a glance that it would not be fair to continue our representation as it now is for.the next six years. It would not be fair to restrict a population of thirty, forty or fifty thousand to one member of the House of Representatives. Yet unless we amend this section, I do not see any way in which provision can be made for additional representation, because the number of representatives is limited to one hundred. It is true that if the Legislature had the neces sary data, it might go on and re-appor tion the State, reducing the represen tation of the older counties and thereby increasing the representation of the newer counties. But gentlemen will remember that no census has been taken since that of 1864, upon which the present ratio of representation is based, and consequently the Legisla ture would not for some time to come have the proper data to enable it to act directly and wisely.upon this ques tion. I trust, MIr. President, that gentle. men representing here the older coun ties, will see the justice of the proposi tion I now present. I ask no more than was granted by the Convention of 1835 and the Convention of 1850. Both of those Conventions granted special privileges of representation to the newer counties of the State; and gentlemen -would be surprised were I to read the statistics showing how small a population was required to se cure a representative from some of the newer counties. I beg leave to call at tention for a momnent to some facts in regard to that matter. By the Constitu tion of 1850, a representative was given to the county of Tuscola, which, by the census of 1845, had a population of only 104, and and by the census of 1850, a population of only 291. Again, a representative was given tO the county of Sanilac, which, by the census of:1845, had a population of 868, and by the census of, 1850, a populationof 2,112. But gentlemen will at once perceive that this representation was granted to these counties upon the census of 1845, because the census of 1850 had not been taken when that Convention was in session. Again, a representative was allowed to the counties of Midland and Arenac, although their population, even in 1850, was reported at only 65. A representative was also given to the county of Montcalm, which by the census of 1845 had a population of 161, and by the census of 1850, a population of 891. A representative was also given to the counties of Newaygo and Oceana, which had no population reported in 1845, and in 1850, had a population of only 810. Thus it appears that by the Convention of 1850, five representatives were' granted to a population which, according to the census of 1845, numbered only 1133, and by the census of 1850 only 4169-making by- thelatter enumeration, one representative for 834 persons. Thus it will be seen that we now ask much less than was granted by the Convention of 1850 I might go back and show that the Con vention of 1835 was equally generous, equally magnanimous, toward the new and the rapidly settling counties. Gentlemen will also bear in mind the fact that these new counties, although their population may not be very large, have interests which require looking after in the Legislature-interests as important to them as are the interests of the larger counties to their people. In the organization of the board of supervisors, every organized township, however small its population, has a representative on- the board. Why should we not be equally generous to the counties? I think it would not be unreasonable if we should ask here a representative for every organized county in the State. But we do n6t ask that. The district which I repre sent' embraces thirteen counties; and certainly those counties have interests not only important but diversified. The interests of one county differ from those of another. Every county has its local interests that need looking after, and need caring for by a specialI representative in the Legislature. - It seems to me, in view of the facts which I have stated, that this Coven tion will be granting simple justice to these new counties, by adopting the proposition which IL have presented, and increasing the number of mem bers in the House of Representatives to one hundred and ten, so thatwe may secure an additional representa tiok for the newer oQWuties kefoe'-; t 694 OO~STITU~iO~AL.. ~ .,, ~ other census is taken, and another apportionment made. There are other gentlemen on this floor who represent districts similarly situated to mine, and who, I have no doubt, are prepared to show the peculiarities of their situation, and to state what the interests of their constituents demand. Mr. HUSTON. Mr. President, I propose to occupy only a few minutes of the time of the Convention. So far as regards the representation of my county, we are at present " out of the woods." We have sufficient population to entitle us to a representative whenever a new apportionment may be made. But having resided in a new county for the last twelve years, and having seen the benefit thus far derived from the provision made in the Constitution of 1850, I must say that I feel considerable interest in the proposition of the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEaCH.) I think it is one of man ifest justice. Our county, having at that time a population of 291, was granted a representative by the Con stitution of 1850; and as has been re marked by the gentleman from Grand Traverse, the Constitution of 1835 gave to each organized county a representa tive. Now, I do not think that the members of this Convention are dispo sed to be any less generous-in fact I think they are disposed to be more generous-toward the northern and the newer counties of the State, than were the Conventions of 1835 and 1850. I know from my experience in the new counties that they have peculiar interests demanding the attention of special representatives; and I believe that the true doctrine is that every or ganized county should be entitled to a representative. But the gentlemen representing the northern counties do not, as I understand, propose to ask anything of that kind. They simply ask that the number of representatives in the Legislature be increased, so that some of the newer countiesthose; for instance, having three thousand inhab itants-may be allowed a repre sentative before another census is taken. It is a fact of which all who have re sided in the newer counties are well aware, that in a district composed of several counties1 the interests of those counties are somewhat conflicting; and when there is but one representative, complaint frequently arises from the fact that the representative is not equally interested in all the counties of the district. I believe that, if a repre sentative were allowed to each organ ized county, each representative would find that he had as much local legisla to~ to attend to for the interests of his special constituency as any of the representatives from districts embracing several counties. I know that, so far as regards our county, it was a great benefit to us to have a representative for that county alone. Ever since our organization as a county, we have had a representative in the Legislature to attend to all our local matters; and we have thereby been enabled to procure legislation which has been instrumental in developing the resources of the county. Mr. President, it has been regarded as a fundamental principle that taxation and representation should go together. Applying this principle, it will be readily seen, by referring to the statistics, that the northern counties of the State have not at present the representation that they ought to have. Take, for instance, the Midland district. A|-ccording to the equalized assessment for 1866, the valuation of the taxable property in that district was $5,843,027. The assessed valuation of Lenawee county was $17,559,243. The Midland district has one representative; the Lenawee district has five representatives. The equalized valuation of Macomb county is $8,610,183. That county has three representatives in the Legislature, while the Midland district, with $5,843,027 of taxable property,has but one member. Thus the inequality of the present representation, so far as taxation is concerned, is obvious. Again, take the district represented on this floor by the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEAcH;) and we find that its assessed valuation is a little over three millions. The county of Barry has an assessed valuation of a trifle over two millions. The latter county has two representatives, while the Grand Traverse district has but one. Hence, I say that, taking into view the question of taxation, there is a manifest injustice in the present apportionment of representation to these northern cgunties. In addition to this, the amount invested in mining in the Upper Peninsula exceeds one hundred and~fifty million dollars one-half the aggregate of the assessed valuation of all the property in the State. Yet the Upper Peninsula has but four members in the Legislature. I mention these facts to show that upon the principle that taxation and representation should go together, if the representation of the northern counties be increased to the extent of ten members, those cQunties will still have less than their proportionate' number of representatives, in view of the amount of tax which they pay. Thjs is a fact of which. any gentleman can satisfy himself by referring to the records of the State. Again, Mr. President, I find in looking over the constitutions of various States, that the principle for which we contend has been recognized. In many of the newer States, it is provided in the constitution: that every organized county shall have one representative. As I have before remarkcd, I believe this is the true doctrine. I believe that, if every organized county were allowed a representative, it would befound that each representative would have sufficient to occupy him in looking after the interests of his particular - county. But, sir, I do not look upon this as a local question. The southern portion of the State is interested in the development.of the northern part of the State as much as are the people residing in those northern-counties. We are all interested in the welfare and growth of the commonwealth... -The PRESIDENT.:..Th,e ten minutes of the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HUSTON,) have expired. Mr. CHAPIN. Mr. President, I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEAcH,) will be adopted. It strikes me that simple justice to the new counties demands that their representation should be increased. This amendment proposes to increase their representation by adding ten members to the aggregate number of representatives in the. lower branch of the Legislature. Thus this additional representation will not detract from the representation of the older counties. I believe that it is for the interest of the whole State that the newer portions of our commonwealth should be settled and developed as rapidly as possible.' I think this proposition will command universal assent. I think it equally true that no other means is perhaps so well calculated to promote the settlement and developement of the newer regions of our State as to give them additional representation in the Legislature; for I think they require more local legislation than do the older counties of the State. Their interests are as yet undeveloped, and more legislation is required for the development of those interests and the promotion of their local prosperity than is demanded by the older portions of the State. At the session of 1855-6, when there were twenty-eight organized new counties, and eight unorganized counties, those counties had fourteen members of the Legislature. At that session of the Legislature, there were passed 375 bills, of which 133 were introduced by the mem,bers from the new couuties~ 694 CONSTITUTIONAT, CONVENTION. Thursday, DEBATES ED IROCDINGS. making an average of ten bills for each member from the new counties, and three bills for each member from the older counties. I think that the same average, or very nearly the same, will be found to have existed at every session of tthe Legislature for several years past. This fact I think shows very conclusively that more legislation is required for the newer sections of the State than for the old. Certainly these portions of the commonwealth requiring, from the necessities of their position, more legislation, should be fairly and justly represented upon the floor of the Legislature. They cannot obtain such legislation as is necessary for their wants, without an adequate representation in the Legislature. Sir, there is an additional consideration bearing upon this question. Very many of the newer counties of the State have interests with which representatives from the older counties are but partiallyiand very imperfectly acquainted. The geographical position of some of those counties is almost a matter of inquiry among representatives from the older counties. Hence, for the, framing of proper legislation to meet the wants of those localities, there should be in the Legislature, representatives coming directly from those new counties, acquainted with their position and wants, and able to give that information which is necessaryfor the purposes of proper and wise legislation. I think that every consideration of expediency and of justice demands that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Grand Traverse should be adopted. It will not affeet' unjustly the older counties of the State. It will not detract from theirrepresentation. It simply proposes to add ten members to the aggregate number in the House of Representatives, so that additional representation may be apportioned to the newer counties as their exigencies require. I hope that the amendment will be adopted. Mr. MUSSEY. Mr. President, I think that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Grand Traverse ought to prevail. I should be willing to go even farther than it proposed I think the Legislature ought not to organize a county, unless it is willing that the county shall have a representative in the Legislature. I believe that each organized county should have a representative of its own. In 1855, to which period the gentleman from Gratiot (hr. CHuPIn) referred, there were twenty-seven counties represented in the House of Representatives by a single member; yet it is not to be supposed that one member.oaid' be fa miliar with the wants of so large -a district, extending seventy-five or one hundred miles in length. I would have been in favor of a provision similar to that contained in the Constitution of 1850, that "each county having a ratio of representation and a fraction over equal to a moiety of such ratio, shall be entitled to two representatives, and so on above that number, giving one additional member for each additional ratio." But the time to apply that rule was when the apportionment was made. The app6rtionment has now been made, and will not be changed for some years. Now, sir, if the next Legislature should organize a new county, whatever may be the number of its inhabitants, it must be deprived of a representative until another apportionment is made. I think this is wrong. I believe that we should place this matter in such a position that, at any time during the interval between the apportionments, when a new county is organized, the Legislature may allow to that county a representative. I hope that the amendment will prevail. Mr. BLACKMAN. I desire to inquire of the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MusseY,) whether he would advocate the doctrine that twenty-seven counties, having only sufficient population to entitle them to one representative, should have twenty-seven representatives in the Legislature? Mr. MUSSEY. I answer that, if the Legislature sees fit to organize any portion of the State into a separate and distinct county, having a judicial and municipal government, then that county should be allowed a representative. But I think the Legislature should not organize a county until it has such a populttion as would entitle it to a representative. Mr. ESTEE. As the hour is now rather late, I move that the Convention take its recess. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. ESTEE. As I reside in one of those unfortunate districts embracing a large extent of territory, it may be expected that I should have something to say upon this question. The district which I represent here embraces four organized counties and seven unorganized counties. That district embraces a section of country extending in a northwesterly direction over an extent of about one hundred and fifty miles. Any gentleman can see tat a glance that no one man can properly represent in the Legislature or elsewhere a section of such extent and so situated. Mr. President, I have looked over the Constitutions of at least a portion of the States of this Umnion; and I ind that the State of Kansas gives to each organized county at least one representative; Alabama, Florida and Georgia at-least one representative to each organized county; Arkansas, one; Maine, one representative to every 1500 inhabitants; Minnesota, one representative to every one thousand inhabitants; Mississippi, at least one representative to every county; New Jersey, one senator to each county; Pennsylvania, at least one representative to each organized county; Rhode Island, at least one to every 1530 inhabitants. Now Mr. President, I think it no more than just that this amendment should prevail, so that the new counties whose new population is increasing very rapidly, may have additional representation in the Legislature. The amendment of Mr. LEACH was agreed to. POPULATION NECESSARY FOR A REPRESEN TATIYE DISTRICT. Mr. LEACH. I-move to amend-section three by inserting: — after the word ,territory," at the end of the third clause these words: "But every organized county containing a population of not less than three thousand, and every two or more contiguous organized, counties, containing a like population, shall constitute a representative district, and be entitled to one representative." Mr. President, I do not propose to spend any time in arguing this question. The arguments which were advanced in favor of the proposition just voted upon bear with equal force in favor of this. This amendment proposes to require a population of three thousand to entitle an organized county to a representative. It seems to me not an unreasonable proposition. Many men on this floor-and some of them from the older counties-have said that there ought to be -a representative from every organized county. But we do not ask that. We do not wish to be unreasonable. We simply ask that every county containing a population of three thousand shall be entitled to a representative in the lower house of the Legislature. It seems to me thisproposition is so fair that it will not meet with any serious objection.' Mr. BURTCH. As we have had a long and protracted session, I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. DANIELLS. I move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion was agreed to; there being ayes 27, noes 30. So the Convention, (at ten minutes after twelve o'clock, p. m.,) took a recess until half-past two o'clock p. m. I& 6 i) A-ag-iist 81 1861. -9 COSIUTOA COV-I~ hrdy AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention reassembled at halfpast two o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. The Convention resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Legislative Department." NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES, ETC. The PRESIDENT. At the time the Convention took a recess to-day, it had under consideration section three of this article, which had been amended to read as follows: The House of Representatives shall consist of not more than one hundred and ten members. Representatives shall be chosen for two years, and by single districts. Each representative district shall contain, as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants, and shall consist of convenient and( contiguous territory. In every county entitled to more than one Representative, the board of supervisors shall assemble at such time and place as may be provided by law, and divide the same into representative districts, equal to the number of Representatives to which such county is entitled by law, and shall cause to be filed in the office ot the Secretary of State and clerk of such county, a description of such representative districts, specifying the number of each district, and the population thereof, according to the last enumeration." The pending question-is upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH,) to insert, after the words "convenient and contiguous territory," the following words: ",But every organized county containing a population of not less than three thousand, and every two or more contiguous organized counties, containing a like population shall constitute a representative district, and be entitled to one Representative." Mr. MORTON. I do not know that I understand fully'what would be the effect of that amendment, should it be adopted. It appears tp me that it would have a tendency to take from the older counties their proportion of representation. I have no objection to the new counties being fully represented. I can see the necessity of a district like that represented by the member from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEcH,) having more than one member here; because a single representative coming from such an extensive district, might represent merely the local interests of a portion of that district, those local interests rivaling the interests of other portions of the district. I think it -s almost impossible for one man to act properly as the representative of so extensive a district. But it seems to me that when we increased the number of members of the House of Representatives from one hundred to one hundred and ten, more to accommodate the new counties than anything else, that was liberal enough. Upon looking over the records of the Legislature of this State, we find that the new counties have invariably received from the Legislature, all the action they have ever asked for. In fact the southern part -of the State has always been very liberal, and has voted for everything that the northern counties have asked. I think, therefore, that with a very few exceptions that part of the State has been fully represented, so far as representatives appear on this floor, and their wishes have been fully gratified. For one, I would rather reduce the number of the members of the House of Representatives to sixtysix than to increase it to over one hundred. But the Convention has already added ten to the number reported by the committee. Now I want to know what will be the effect of this amendment; whether, after these ten additional members have been divided among the new counties, they are still to come here and exact an additional representative for every three thousand of population, at the expense of the older counties? If so, I think that would be unjust, and that the representatives from the northern part of the State should not ask for it. I want to understand what will be the effect of this amendment, before I vote for it. Mr. BURTCH. It strikes me that this proposition is a very just one; and' not only very just, but of very great interest to the State of Michigan in a financial point of view. The prosperity of the State depends largely upon the representation it has in the Legislature. If it were not so, I presume the southern part of the State would be willing to give up to the northern part entirely, and let them have all the representation. But they are too well informed to believe that there is no financial benefits resulting from representation in the Legislature. Now of all portions of the State of Michigan, the northern and unsettled portions really need financial ability. Without speaking disparagingly of their situation, I would say that in comparison with the older portions of the State they are poor. They have been driven by the mighty hand of oppression to the wilderness. They are there to hew out their own fortunes, to carve out their own liberty from the bondage that has been over them. Give them a fair chance. As we have now got rid of slavery in this country, and as a greater burden is thrown upon the free laborer to-day from' that fact than at any other period in'the history of the world, they are now bouid to work out and pay the expense of that freedom, and they are to furnish not only the'physical but the mental power by which it is to be done. Then I say we will act in conformity with the divine inunction, if we strengthen the hands of the weak. But we shall be doing contrariwise if, growing strong, we join hands with those who ~do evil. Let us give to the poor, and so let justice be established. But man cannot so divest himself of that selfishness that creeps into the bosom of man, that he can take a sagacious'view of all the land. He is contracted according to his sphere. And, therefore, the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEAcH,) though a very capacious minded man, would not perhaps be able under all the circumstances, and from the frailty of humanity, to represent the entire northern part of this State. He, seeing in his wisdom that that is true, brings forward this amendment. I -think it is a measure that commends itself to the intelligence, virtue, and patriotism of every gentleman on this floor; patriotism has connection with it; because in that new county, they raised up armies which illustrated the name of - Michigan, until to-day she stands higher than any other State of this Union, so far as regards the defense of our country. We stand where Kentucky once stood, the glory and honor of our country. And how did it come about? Those men were driven here by oppression, driven into this wilderness. They have had to hew out their own fortunes, and that gave them ability and capacity. They were not those Jonah's gourd men who spring up in the night to be withered in the day. They were decided, uncompromising men. Out of that same generous spirit that has given commendation to the soldiers who have been in the war, was given to these men of the north, who are to come up like a mighty host yet, to save the State of Michigan, and to save the southern part of the State from heavy taxation. They will open up that great region to settlement, civilization and Christianity. Then a better day will exist than now exists. Where only the prowling animals of the forests roam, the cleared field will take their places, the cattle will roam on all the hills and make the State rich, and~ feed the nation, and in case of a little more'' difficulty down South, supply a plenty of beef. 1M. BLACKMAN. It strikes nme that this amendment is asking rather more for these northern counties than they are entitled to; I do not mean to say 4' northern" counties exactly, but new cpuntie. It is proposed by this .COXSTE.UUTIO NAL CON V'FNTION. 696 tursday, August 8, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDIX6S. 697 amendment to guarantee to each organized county a separate representative, whenever it has attained a population of three thousand. Now let us look at the effect that amendment will be likely to have in the course of the next fifteen or twenty years. We are here making a Constitution for the whole State, and if adopted by-the people it will probably last for twenty years to come. Now the present ratio of representation, for a House of Representatives of one hundred members, is a fraction over eight thousand population. The population of this Statein 1864, was 805,379, as appears by the table in the Manual. For one hundred members that would make the ratio a little over eight thousand. Mr. WINSOR. The ratio is nearly ten thousand. Mr. BLACKIAN. Undoubtedly, at the present time it would be nearly that. The population between 1850 and 1864 a little more thanl doubled. By the census of 1850, the population of this State was 395,697. Suppose that it doubles again the next fourteen or fifteen years. Then the ratio of representation for one hundred members would be over sixteen thousand. If we have one hundred and ten members. the ratio will be a little less than that. Suppose it to be fifteen thousand; then what would be the result of this amendment? A county having a population of twenty-one or twenty-two thousand, would have but one representative; yet one of those new counties, with but three thousand population, would be entitled to a representative. It seems to me that lis altogether too great a disparity. Making all-the allowance that ought to be made for their condition, and all that ought to be made on account of their separate organization, and everything of that kind, I think that is allowing them altogether too much. We have established the principle in this Constitution, ~tnd it is a principle which has been established throughout the States, that representation should be in proportion to population as a general rule. I know that itbis claimed by some that it ought to be according to organization of territory; that every county should have an equal representation, no matter whether it has a large or a small population. But I apprehend that doctrine does not obtain very extensively. One gentleman urged here that these counties were taxed; that they had a large amount of property subject to taxation; -and inasmuch as our motto was that representation and taxation should go together, they ought to be represented according to the amount of their taxation. I do not under Vol. 2-No. 88. stand that the principle of representation and taxation has any reference at all to the amount of taxation. In other words, it is not the amount of property that is represented, but it is whether an individual is subject to taxation at all, which constitutes the basis of representation, according to that doctrine. - If it were otherwise, if counties were to be represented according to the amount of their taxable property, then I apprehend that some of the older counties, and some of the large cities, should have a great increase of representation over what they now have, in proportion to other parts of the State. I apprehend that no one will seriously advocate that doctrine. Our present Constitution provides that-" Each county hereafter organized, with such territory as may be attached thereto, shall be entitled to a separate representative when it has attained a population equal to a moiety of the ratio of representation." That might be considered a much more fair and reasonable rule than the one proposed by the amendment under consideration. Then the population which would entitle-a new county'to a representative would increase with the ratio of representation, and the relative proportion would continue uniform. In accordance-with this view, I offer the following as a substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEAcH:) "Each county hereafter organized, with such territory as may be attached thereto, shall be entitled to a separate Representative when it shall have attained a population equal to a moiety ot the ratio of representation." Mr. WINSOR. It will.-be remembered that when this article Was under consideration in committee of the whole, I offered the amendment which is now offered by the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLc:KAsN.) It was voted down by the committee. Since thattime the other proposition has been prepared and offered, and I think it should be adopted. The proposition presented by the gentleman from Van Buren fixes nothing definite; there is no certainty as to the amount of population upon which these new counties are to have representation. Now, I hold that if a county has a sufficient population, and sufficient business interest to require a separate organization, it certainly has sufficient population and interests to require a separate representation in the halls of legislation. I think that the proposition offered by the:gentleman from Grand Traverse (Mr. LEACH,) is not an unfair one. I think that three thousand inhabitants in an organized county, constitute such a population as have some interests in the State, and should have some representation in the halls of legislation. The section as reported by the commitee on the legislative department would have the effect of depriving the newer counties of the State of those representatives they have had under the provision in the present Constitution. I do not believe there is a gentlemen on this floor who has any desire to deprive those counties of the representation they have had in the past. But it will be seen in an instant that if representation is apportioned to population as near as may be, instead of representatives being apportioned to the new cotunties, as has been done in the past, upon i moiety of the ratio of representation, representatives will be apportioned upon equal numbers as near as may be, depriving those counties which have less than the ratio of representation of that representation which they have enjoyed in the past. It will deprive those counties of representatives which have had representatives upon a moiety of the ratio of representation, or have had barely a moiety. And those representatives which these new counties haveheretofore enjoyed, but of which this section would deprive them, would be given, one to Calhoun county, two to Wayne county, one to Allegan county, one to Saginaw county, and one to the county of St. Clair. Now, I cannot for a moment think that there is a representative from any of those counties who has any desire to take from these new counties what little representation they have heretofore had in the halls ofrlegislation, and appropriate it to their own counties. I do not believe that there is a gentle — man upon this floor from those counties who has any desire to do anything of that kind, when he comes to understand the effect of the section as reported by the committee. Neither do I believe that the committee desired that the section reported by them should have any such effect. Nevertheless, it must be evident to every individual upon this floor, who will investigate the matter, that it will have that effect. I may say here that it is insinuated by certain gentlemen on this floor that the northern counties have had privileges in the past, in the way of representation in the Legislature; that they have had extended to them by the southern counties everything they have ever asked for. I wish simply to say that the newer counties of this State have not had one more representative in the House of Representatives, than have had the older counties, upon the moiety of the ratio of representation. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 16.97 A, ugust 8, 1867. CONSTlTUTIONAT, CONVENTION. It will be found by an examination of the figures, that the counties of Barry, Branch, Clinton, Genesee, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Monroe, Ottawa, St. Joseph and Shiawassee, have each had a representative in the House of Representatives, upon a moiety of the ratio of representation. Eleven counties of the older counties, having more than one representative, have each had a representative upon a moiety of the ratio of representation. There are only eleven new counties that have had each a representative'upon a moiety of the ratio of representation. Consequently the new counties have had no advantages in the past under the moiety clause, that the old counties have not equally enjoyed. Now if there is any ground to extend to the newer portions of the State a fostering hand, it is to that portion of the State which is struggling for existence, which is struggling for development, to induce emigration to its borders. I am satisfied there are liberal minded men enough in this Convention who will not quible, who will not fear that the northern counties will gain such an ascendency in the House of Representatives, that they will be able to come here and control the legislation of the State. I do believe that there are men enough in this Convention who are willing to extend some little advantage to these newer counties in their weakness; who are willing to extend to the newer counties a representation upon a respectable population, such as three thousand, in order that they may come in the hall of legislation and represent their interests there, and represent what laws are required to develop those new sections. And I hope that no little insinuations in regard to ex tending such great representation to the northern part of this State, and their asking so much more than they are entitled to, will in any way interfere with conceding to those new counties some extension of representation by the adoption of this Constitution. I think there is not a reflecting man on this floor who will not concede that three thousand enterprising people, leaving civilization, leaving the older settled parts of the State, and going into the northern wilderness, and struggling there to build up and develop new counties, deserve some encouragement from this Convention. We ought to offer some such encouragement to induce the tide of emigration to go te the north and settle these new-counties. Give them to understand by the fundamental law of the State that when those counties are organized and have a respectable population, their interests may be heard in the Legislature, and be advocated there. I have noticed in the'past that whenever in the Legislature any question was brought up for the interest of the northern parts of this State, there were always two or three men, afraid of their own shadow, who were ready to jump up and cry-" The north! the north I these new counties are getting too much l" Sir, they are not asking much; we ask an increase in the House of Representatives of ten members, we do not ask that-the new counties shall have now those ten members. But following that, we introduce a proposition, that as soon as the newly organized counties shall have a population of three thousand each, they shall be entitled to avail themselves of this increased number in the House of Representatives. The gentleman from Monroe (Mr. MORTON) says, that the southern counties have granted -to the northern counties everything that they have asked; that they have always voted for all the laws the northern counties have asked for. Now, I wish to ask the gentleman if he would like to have the county of Monroe placed in that position? Would he like to have her deprived of her representatives, and then have said to her " Come up here without representation, and the Legislature will grant everything you want"? I tell the gentleman it will not satisfy the settlers in the northern part of the State, to tell them that they do not need any representation, that they can ask the representatives of other counties for what they want, and their interests will be attended to. What we wish is, not that other men shall attend to our interests, not that we shall have to come here as beggars asking for favors at the hands of representatives of other constituencies; but that we may be represented upon the floor-of each House of the Legislature by our own representatives, by men having sympathy with us, by men who understand the difficulties with which we have to contend, by men who have interests identified with the interests of our localities, for only such men are capable of representing properly the interests of a locality. Believing that there is sufficient liberality in this Convention to grant this small request to the newer counties, as fast as they shall attain a population of three thousand, I will not longer occupy the time of the Convention. The question was upon the amendment of Mr. BLACKMAN to make the amendment of Mr. LEAcHi read as follows: "Each county hereafter organized, with such territory as may be httached thereto, shall be entitled to a separate Represeita ive when it shall have attained a population equal to a moiety of the ratio ot representation." Mr. BLACKM]IAN. I call for the yeas and nays on that question. The yeas and nays were not ordered. The amendment of Mr. BLACKMAN was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. LEACH, to insert after the words "convenient and contiguous territory," the following: "-but every organized county containing a population ot not less than three thousand, and every two or more contiguous organized counties, containing a like population, shall constitute a representative district, and be entitled to one representative." Mr. BLACKMAN. Upon that question I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. McCLELLAND. Will the gentleman from Grand Traverse (Mr. LEACH,) tell me what was the rule of representation established by the Convention of 1850 in-regard to these new counties? Did not -— that Convention require a moiety of the ratio of representation? Mr. LEACH. I believe they did at that time. But the Convention of 1850 allowed representation to several small counties so far as their population was concerned. Mr. IMcCLELLiND. The population was taken into consideration as estimated by persons nearest those new counties. It does seem to me that it is proposed to go too far in this matter. Suppose that after the next census the ratio of representation for each representative from the older counties should be ten thousand; it seems to me that five thousand would be small enough for the representation from the newer counties which are organized after that time. We are asked here to adopt a principle which contravenes the principle established by the Constitutions of 1835 and 1850. I am wi ing to go as far in favor of these new counties as any one ought to go. But my impression is that the gentleman asks a little too much of us. Sir. WINSOR. Did not the gentleman from Wayne (MIr. MCCLELLAND,) contend in 1850 for the very proposition now'offered by the gentleman. from Grand Traverse, (Mir. LEACH?) Mr. MoCLELLAND. I think not My impression is that I contended then for the moiety principle, and for granting representation to those new counties in the State w.hich came nearest to that moiety, according to the representations made by gentlemen who were familiar, or supposed to be familiar, with those portions of the State; that is my impression now; and I think it was generally conceded in the Thurs ay, 698 Auus 8, 187 DEAE A- RCEDNS Convention of 1850 that the moiety principle was the correct principle. If I am mistaken, the-gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH,)-who has paid more attention to this subject than I have, for my attention has never been directed to it since the Convention of 1850 was held-can correct me, or the gentleman from Huron (Mr. WrIsoR,) can. I want information on this subject before I vote. Myimpression is that we are asked to go too far. I was going to say that one reason why the Convention of 1850 adopted the principle it did was' that the census was then being taken, and we expected the ratio to be fixed immediately after and established for the next ten years, or at least for the next five years, until the State census was taken. -As I understand this proposition, it is to take effect immediately after this Constitution shall be adopted; so that it will be in force for all Legislatures before the next ratio will be established. Mr. LEACH. I have but a word or two to say in reply to the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND.) When I was up before I referred to the population of sundry counties to which representatives were given by the Convention of 1850. One of those counties was Tuscola, which by the census of that year had only 291 inhabitants; being very far below the ratio of representation. Sanilac county, by that census, had but 2,112 inhabitants. Midland, which with Arenac, was giveni a representative, had but 65 inhabitants. Montcalm, to which a representative was given, had but 891. Newaygo and Oceana together, to which was given a representative, had but 810 inhabitants. So that five representatives were given to counties named in the schedule of the Constitution of 1850, whose population in the aggregate, by the census of that year, was only 4,169. , Mr. MeCLELLAND. Was not that according to the census of'1845? Mr. LEACH. No; it was according to the census of 1850. Mr. MoCLELLAND. How did the Convention of 1850, which sat in the summer, know the population of those counties' by the census which was taken that year, and which was not then completed? -Mr. LEACH. The gentleman does not understand me. I am giving the population according to the census of 1850. :Mr. MoCLELLAND. We did not act upon the census returns; we acted upon the iepresentations of gentlemen from that section of the country. Mr. LEAECH. They must have been very wild representations. Mr. MoOLELLAND. I looked at the records during the recess to-day, and found, as the gentleman will find upon examination, that very different representations were made then in regard to the population of those counties, from what the gentleman has stated to have been the census returns of that year. And more than that; the Legislature had power to attach to those counties whatever territory they pleased, which was contiguous to those counties. .Mr. LEACHI. The Legislature always has that power. All unorganized counties, that have any inhabitants whatever, are attached to some other counties for different purposes. I base my advocacy of this amendment upon the simple justice of the proposition: It does seem to me that three thousand population, living up here in the northern woods, isolated as they are, in a great measure, from the rest of the State, have a right to come here and ask for a representative in the lower house of - the Legislature. We do not ask for any additional representation in the Senate. We simply aslk that a county with a population of three thousand, shall have its voice in the House of Representatives. I cannot see any injustice in that; I cannot see how any evil is to grow out of it. The ten extra representatives that have been provided for by the action of the Convention to-day will more than cover'all these cases. We do not expect that those ten additional representatives will be immediately apportioned to these new counties. We expect to ask the committee on the' schedule to report in favor of allowing representatives to certain counties, where it is evident that they have a population that entitle them to representatives; but we do not expect to askl that committee to apportion all these ten representatives to the newer counties at this time. We expect only a portion of them to be apportioned to us now. And then, from time to time, as other counties are organized and acquire the re quisite population, a representative can be given to them. And long before another census will be taken, upon which a new apportionment will be based, many of these new counties will be entitled to representativas according to the ratio of representation; so that they will pass out of this list, and make room for other new counties. There fore, as I said before, those ten extra representatives'that have been pro vided for will more than meet all emergencies that will arise hereafter. Gentlemen have said to me that I should not have presented this propo sition; that I should have advocated the moiety principle. If the Conven tlon think so, they willso vote I asb what I think is right, and just, and proper, for these new counties; and I think there is magnanimity and justice enough in this Convention t6o grant it. Mr. WINSOR. At the time these representatives were granted by the Convention of 1850 to the new counties, representations were made that the most of those counties had a population of nearly fifteen hundred each; that was the representation made by the members from those new counties. It was contended for a long time in that Convention that these new counties should be given representatives when they should have a population equal to fifteen hundred. And if I am not mistaken, the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. MCCLELLAND) offered-an amendment to fix the population at two thousand, which was struggled for for a long time. At last the moiety proposition was adopted by that Convention. But the fact to which I wish to call the attention of this Convention is this: some gentlemen say-" Under this principle you in the north will soon have twenty-five or thirty members in the House of Representatives; your counties will gain so fast that you will soon have a number of counties with a population of three thousand each, and you will fill up the House with representatives from the north." Now, the fact is that from 1856 to the next enumeration, the newer counties gained but one member; and from 1860 to 1865, the whole of the newer counties in the northern part of the State gained but one representative. That one member was lost by the county of Cal houn and given to the district com posed of the counties of Midland, Isa bella, Iosco and Alpena; a strip of territory one hundred and fifty miles long. All that the newer counties gained was one representative, with all their growing interests. Is that any evidence that these newer counties are growing so tremendously fast; that they will come in under this principle of representation, and monopolize all of the seats in the House of Repre sentatives? I do not think there is any danger of it. I do not think the experience of the past affords any evi dence that such will be the fact. And the very district to which I re ferred as having gained that additional member, is a district with very different interests. Isabella and Midland are in terior counties, one hundred and fifty miles from Alpena county on the lake, which has large growing interests. There is no communication between-the two portions of the district, not, even a trail through the woods. How can a man coming from, Isabella county, rep resent in the House of Representatives DE:PATES AND -PROCE'P.'DINGS. ,&ugust 8, 1.867. 699 . CONSTlITUTIONAL CONVENTION. the interests of Alpena county? What made by the amendment now befor does he know about their interests, the Convention one that isfair. and what they want? -And vice versa, If this Constitution shall be adopted what would a man from Alpena county the lower house of the Legislature will know about the wants of the people of consist of one hundred and ten mem Isabella county, one hundred and, fifty bers With the present rate of increase miles from Alpena county, and with no of population in our State, the time is means of communication? not far distant, it seems to me, when we I think if gentlemen in this Conven- will have two millions of people. ] tion will carefully consider the matter, expect that time will arrive during the they will not hesitate an instant to existence of the Constitution we.- are grant to the newer counties, with a re- now framing, if it shall be adopted spectable population of three thousand, by thepeople. The ratio of represen a representative in the House of Rep- tation will then be from eighteen to resentatives. twenty thousand of population. I Mr. McCLELLAND. I remember deem it unfair that a new county-with distinctly that this subject was dis- a population of but three thousand cussed in the Convention of 1850, and should have a representative in the the result was generally satisfactory to lower house of the Legislature, while the members of that Convention. Let in the older portions of the State a me read from the Constitution of 1850 population of nine or ten thousand the two provisions relating to this would be required for a representative. subject: I think that upon the whole the "Every county, except Mackinac and Chip- moiety system is about as fair a sys pewa, entitled to a representative in the Leg- tem as can be adopted. I do not know islature, at the time of the adoption of this w Constitution, shall continue to be so entitled y these northern counties, these new under this Constitution; and the county of counties, should claim a right to have Saginaw, with the territory that may be at- a representation on three thousand of tached, shall be- entitled to one representa- population, when there will berequed tive; the county of Tuscola, and the territory p required that may be attached, one representative; in the older counties,a moiety of a ra the county of Sanilac, and the territory that tio, which may be eight or ten thou may be attached, one representative; the sand. For these reasons I am opposed counties of Midland and Arenae, with the territory that may be attached, one repre- to this amendment. sentative; the county of Montcalm, with the Mir. HUSTON. I desire to say a few territory that may be attached thereto, on words upon this proposition. In ref representative; and the counties, of Newaygo and Oceana, with the territory that may be erence to the remarks of the gentle attached, one representative. Each county man from Monroe, (Mr. RAFTER,) having a ratio ot representation and a frac- and also the gentleman from Van tion over, equal to a moiety of said ratio shall be entitled to two representatives, and Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) I i- say so on above that number, gaining one addi- this: they argue that very soon we tional member for each additional ratio." will have a population in this State The gentleman from Grand Trav- which will require a ratio of represenerse, (Mr. LEAcH,) the gentleman from tation to be from sixteen to eighOakland, (Mr. VAN VAT,-KENBURGH,) and teen thousand, which will make the other gentlemen who were in the Con- moiety from eight to nine thousand. vention of 1850, I think will agree with Now, I will adopt that proposition; and me that the representations of those I think we can derive from it an arguwho professed to be familiar with that ment in favor of theproposition of the section of the country were acted gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. upon; and that the census of 1850 LEAcH.) If the statements of gentleshowed that we had been deceived in men are true, would it be fair in the regard to the population of those new case of an organized county with eight counties..Again: or nine thousand population to deprive "Each county hereafter organized, with it of-a representative in the Legislasuch territory as may be attached thereto, ture, and require it to go with all its shall be entitled to a separate representative inte when it has attained a population equal to a erests to another county to -epremoiety of the ratio of representation." sent them? Now I am willing to give this to the As I remarked when I was up this new counties, to adopt the principle forenoon, the rule has been adoptthat I agreed to in the Convention of ed in many States to give every 1850, but I am not willing to go be- organized county a representative. yond that. It strikes me that when a county Mr. RAFTER.'I am willing tohave has three thousand lnhabitants, they my vote recorded in favor of the have interests important to them demands made by the gentlemen from sufficient to require the care and atthe northern counties, when I deem tention of a member in the Legislature. those demands just and reasonable. If the gentleman from Van Buren (Mr. But I an not willing to favor any de- BLACKMAN) will go back ten years, he mand when, in my. opinion, it is not a will find that the county which he'now fair one. I do not deem the demand represents on this floor did not have e what he says will be a moiety of the ratio of representation a few years , hence. And under that arrangement 1 it would -have been deprived of a mem- ber in the Legislature. Many gentle men on this floor, by going back ten years, would find that their counties did not then have-over seven or eight thousand inhabitants. And if they will reflect upon the situation they were in at that time, the varied interests of their counties, they will see that being represented in the Legislature was a benefit to them, and that it would have been manifest injustice to have de prived them of that representation. The older counties have enough rep resentatives. We ask only that a new county having three thousand inhabitants may have one vote in the Legis lature, while the older counties have two, three, four, six or ten votes there. ) We only ask-that a new county may have one vote when it has a population of three thousand. It does not strike me that itis at all proper to make.. the apportionment exactly equal. I look at the matter in this light: here are the older counties of: the State with: several representatives; -perhaps-if they did not have so many, b-the varied interests of th6se counties would be attended to just as well. Take the county of Wayne, for instance; if that county had only eight rep resentatives, instead of nine, nobody will: doubt but that its interests would be seen to just as well as they now. are. If the county of Lenawee had but four members in stead of five, the interests of that county would be attended to just as well. But in the case of a county back in the woods, which needs encourage ment and development, I think it is requiring too much of ift,that it should have a moiety of the ratio of repre sentation before it shall be entitled to a representative. I think it would be allowing none too much to give it a representative when it has a population .of three thousand. I have seen the benefits of such representation, so far as my own county is concerned, and I think it is no more than fair and just. I hope this amendment will be adopted. It is not the intention to take any representation from the south ern counties. The first amendment, increasing the number of members in the House of Representatives to one hundred and ten, it was supposed would leave a margin to meet all the cases under this second amendment. A margin of ten was made for the purpose of meeting these cases, as I understand it, and I think it will do so. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. I would call. the attention of members of this Con — vention to the fact, that if we adopt I 700 Thursd-ay, Augu8t , 1867. AD PROCJ]I)IGS. 701 the proposition now before us, giving a representative to every county containing three thousand inhabitants, that will be fixing a principleto last as long -as this Constitution shall last. No matter what may be the. ratio for the other counties, the ratio for the new counties will be fixed; every new county containing a population of three thousand will be entitled to a representative. It strikes'me that the result will be that in five, ten or. fifteen years, we will find- that the older counties will have to give up a portion of their representation in order to accommodate the new counties. It looks to me that we are asked to go too far; that while we will be providing liberally for the new counties we will.be robbing the older counties. We are asked to give a representative to three thousand population in one portion of the State, while in the other portions of the State it may require sixteen or twenty thousand to be entitled to a representative. It seems to me that would hardly be just. Mr. LOVELL. Before voting on this amendment I would like to under, stand if I can whether it is proposed that those uncivilized Indians that we voted the other day to make citizens and electors, are going to get extra representation by this distribution. I confess that I submit with great re luctance to their coming in at all as electors while uncivilized. When you make up constituencies of them, and give three times the power to these uncivilized Indians that my civilized constituents have, I am afraid my con stituents will not like it. Standing here as a representative man, I do not like to vote for any such proposition. I would much prefer voting for some proposition in the schedule which would give a representative to each of these northern counties having a civil ized population of three thousand, as near as we can ascertain that fact. But I do not want to so vote as to-give to a constituency composed largely of uncivilized people a voice in the Legis lature three times as powerful as that given to the constituents of civilized communities. I would like to have this matter explained, so that I can vote understandingly upon this proposition. Mflr. CONGER. - There is not so much difference between the proposi tion now before us and the provision in the present Constitution as might appear at first sight. In the Constitu tion of 1850, there is a provision that not less than sixty-four nor more than one hundred members shall constitute the House of Representatives. Ithin in 1850, when that provision was adopted, there was sixty-four~ members The excess was intended to be divided .among the new counties and to be gradually given to the old counties as they increased in population. The present Constitution also provided by n:ame that certain counties, with-.the territory attached, should each be entitled to a representa:tive. If I remember aright there were some of those counties thus given representatives which, with all the territory attached, hadc scarcely one thousand inhabitants each. But it was supposed that they were growing counties,. and -it was expected that they would inrease. According to that provision of the Constitution it was so fixed that each of those counties, with the territory attached, should have a -representative. I suppose the addition made by the Convention to-day, to the number of representatives originally provided for in this section-or else I would not have voted for it —was in order that we might give these new counties, that were growing and increasing in popu lation so rapidly, representives for a less number of population than would be. required by the ratio of represen tation, or the moiety principle. And then when they grew so as to come within the moiety rule, other new counties would take their places; thus representation would be given to suc cessive new counties, as they came along, until they had sufficient popu lation to rank in with the other por tions of the State. I think there should be given to .-these new counties more representa tion than they would be entitled to upon the principle, of population as applied to other parts of the State. I should favor this, not alone for the in terests of the people of those new coun ties, but for the interests of the State itself. Almost the entire property -which the State has in the several land 3 grants for educational purposes is lo. cated in these new, and comparatively unsettled counties. And representaf tion given to-those counties would be immediate representation of the lands t of the State, the school lands, the Nor mal School lands, the University lands, 3 the Agricultural College lands, that are in that region of the State. It is, . therefore desirable,- as well, for the in) terests of those counties as for the - interests of the State at large, that 1 there should be representatives from t those counties in the Legislature, so that the:interests of the State in regard t to its own property there might have 1 a voice in the halls of legislation. 9 I should have been unwilling to have voted for any increase of the House of s Representatives over one hundred 3. members, for any purpose except that l the excess might be distributed among the new counties as they successively approached a certain grade of population. It seems to me that the limit of three thousand, as here proposed, is a fair one. When any counties have passed that limit, and have reached the moiety of the ratio of representation, or the full ratio, there will be other new counties coming on. This is a temporary arrangement, which will soon pass away. In less than twenty-five or thirty years, the probability is that it would have no applicability to any of our new counties, which will have the benefit of it during the first ten years; at least it is to be hoped so. With this view of the matter, I cannot see any objectiop to having it un derstood that the ten additional mem bers of the House who have been pro vided for, are for the express purpose of allowing those new counties, with a population not equal to a moiety of the ratio of representation, to have a rep resentation in the lower house of the Legislature. It does not extend to the Senate; it applies only to one branch of the Legislature. In the Senate the equality of representation and popula tion is preserved. I myself prefer this -amendment to the moiety principle. As has been well said, suppose the ratio of representa tion, as the population of this State in creases, shall rise to fifteen, eighteen or twenty thousand. It will be a very long time perhaps before some of these new counties, whose interests, and whose welfare require representa tion in at least one branch of the Legis lature, would obtain a moiety of that ratio. And it seems to me that it would be unjust, it would be unfair, to de prive them of representation, especially when they are so situated, that they cannot be properly represented by any one except from their own immediate locality. Gentlemen will remember that from Cheboygan, down past Thunder Bay ~ to Saginaw Bay, and away-off into the interior of this State to Isabella anff Midland counties, there is but , one representative. And it has been i well said that unless a man has , been all over that territory, he can not be at all familiar with the in-c terests of one or the other portion of that district. I venture to say that the representative of that district, liv in Isabella, is not as familiar with the business interests of Alpena county, unless-he has had business connections with that county, as are other gentle )men on this floor who have had busif ness connection with it. Of course a l representative in the Legislature will inform himself as well as he can, so as to represent his district as thoroughly f p 0 i I r ,e r s c r 1 . I DE,A-' $AND PROC-,EFJ —)-IN-,(-,Iys. August 8, 1867. 701 .O OOSIUTOA COYfI~ hrdy as possible. Yet it will be almost utterly impossible for the representative of such a district as that to understand all the wants of the people. These exigencies which we are now considering are passing -away with the growth of the State. And I think it will be for the interest of the State to apportion these ten additional members to the new counties having a population of three thousand each. Mr. LONGYEAR. I wish to present one additional reason which occurs to my mind, and which I believe has not yet been mentioned, in favor of granting these newer counties some advantage over the older counties in the way of representation. It has been objected against this proposition that it will be taking representation away from the older counties, if we grant to the newer counties representation for less than the moiety of the ratio. Now population alone, although in our system it is madbe the nominal basis of representation, is not, after all, taken by itself, the true basis; that is, it should not be the only thing taken into account. It will very readily be seen that the more dense a population is the easier it is for a single person to represent a greater number; and the more sparse the population is, the more difficult that is. Hence, a dense population may be represented in much larger numbers, and more properly represented than a sparse population. This principle is acted upon in this State, in all the other States, so far as I have been able to examine, and in the general government. Following out this principle, there should be some advantage given to those portions of the: State where the population is very sparse, where it is spread over a large territory of country. Whether the particular advantage which is asked by this amendment is the proper one or not, I really have not given the subject sufficient consideration to be enabled to judge. In my opinion the number is put quite as low as it ought to be; yet it is not so low but that if no other number is proposed I shall vote for it. So far as I have been able to give this subject any examination at all, I find that in most of the New England States, I think in all of them, each municipal organization is given a representative in:the Legislature. In most of the New England States the representative districts are the towns. It is so in Vermont, it is so in Maine,and I think it is so in Massachusetts. In this State, or in any State of this size, rapidly increasing in population, where counties are continually being organized, and frequently withea very sparse population, it would hardly be practicable, perhaps, to adopt the New England system. Yet, it seems to me there is great justice in approaching that system as near as may be, and have a system that will be practicable. Mr. LOTHROP. Whatever may be the rule of apportionment elsewhere, in this State the general rule of apportionment has been in accordance with the population. An innovation is proposed here, which, according to the present ratio of apportionment, will make one man in certain counties in the northern portion of the State equivalent to about three men in the other portions of the State. Not only that, but it proposes to lay down a rule under which this disparity will be increased, as the population of the principal portions of the State shall increase. For instance, if this rule of three thousand population for a new county should be established as here proposed, and the ratio of representation should hereafter become twelve thousand, then one man in the newer counties would become equivalent to four men in the older counties; if the ratio should become fifteen thousand, then one man in a new county would be equivalent to five men in Jackson county, or any other of the older counties. Now, it seems to me that there is no earthly propriety in that; that it is utterly indefensible. It seems to me that if we should allow to these new county organizations one representative for a moiety of the ratio of representation, that certainly would be liberal. It might be well to allow them a greater proportion of representatives, if those representatives voted only on questions affecting the local interests of those counties. But when they are on this floor, their votes count precisely as much upon questions affecting other portions of the State, as upon questions affecting their own. I have no desire to be illiberal; I do not think any one has on this subject. But certainly when we concede that one man in a new county shall be equivalent to two men in our own counties for purposes of representation, that is going far enough, as far as any man should ask. Nor should we be governed by the fact that one of those districts is now very large; that should not affect a general principle; that should not authorize the adoption of a principle which would work so improperly as this would. -It seems to me ~that more is asked here than there is any propriety in conceding; at any rate I am not willing to concede so much. Mr. HENDERSON. Having been a representative on this floor for the county I now in part represent, in 1861, at the time the lower house of the Legislature was increased to its maximum number, I then had a chance to make up my mind in regard to this question, and to look it up very carefully. I then came to the conclusion which has been substantially expressed by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTWROP.) I think we have done one wrong thing here, and had I been in my seat I should have voted against it; that is, providing for ten additional members in the House of Representatives. By a strange combination of circumstances it so happened that the county I represented, the vote I gave, turned the scale as to whether the House of Representatives should be increased or decreased. By increasing it, the county I represented in part would get another member; by retaining the number we then had, we would retain our present number. I voted against the increase of the number. I felt then that we had men —-enough here, -and I had seen no occasion for changing my mind. But after the question had been postponed for some time, I was induced on the part of Barry county, I do not know but Montcalm countyseveral connties combined, and urged that they had been for years without representation, that they had almost a moiety, and this would allow them a representative-and I was induced to go for it. Now if the advocates of this measure would make it four thousand, or five thousand, which would then be below a moiety, I do not know but what, unjust as it would be, I might be induced to vote for it; or if they would restore the original number, one hundred, and then let the older counties be robbed as they would be robbed of their just representation, I might go for it. Had this Convention been made up of the same number of representatives that there are in the Senate, this Constitution would have been completed long ago, and we would have been at home about our business. I do not think it is good policy to increase the number. Mr. ESTEE. I do not know that I wonder much that the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. LOTsROP,) should oppose this amendment. -Wayne county already has nine representatives and three Senators, full enough to satisfy them. Perhaps they feel that the House of Representatives is quite as large as it ought to be; that the newer portions of the State should not be represented at all, at least that they would oppose any increase of representation in their behalf. Will any man say that the county of Wayne requires nine members in the House of 702 CONSTITUTION A J4 CON V'P-NTION. Thursday, ~ugv - 187. EAE:W I 7 Representatives to represent her inter- i ests or her population, any more than t the county of Isabella, or Midland, or Alpena, or any of these new counties requires one representative there? I a believe there is not a man on this floor, r who, if he lived in one of these new c counties and felt the inconvenience of c not having any representation, as we e have felt, would not go for this amendment without a word... Mr. HENDERSON. I neglected to make one remark in regard to the( recent apportionment. The gentle- man fIrom Hur6n, (Mr. WVINSOR,) stated that one representative was taken from 1 the county of Calhoun. I have been told, I do not know how true it is, that there was some error by which that was brought about. I know there was an error recently discovered at home by which Calhoun would have retained her numnber, an error of some five hundred inhabitants. One of the largest towns in the county is represented as being one of the smallest. Notwithstanding that, we have repre- ] sentatives enough. Mr. STOCKWELL. Is annamendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Grand Traverse (Mr. LEACH,) in order?. The PRESIDENT. An amendment to the amendment would be in order. Mr. STOCKWELL. I move to amend the amendment by striking out "three thousand," and inserting "five thousand.' Mr. LEACH. I call for a division of the question, upon striking out and inserting. Mr. WINSOR. I move the follow ing as a substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Grand Trav erse, (Mr. LEACH,) to add to the sec tion the following: "Each organized county with the territory thereto attached, having a population of four thousand, shall be entitled to a separate rep resentative."' The effect of my substitute will be, instead of making it three thousand, t make it four thousand, which is about the moiety of the present ratio of representation. The PRESIDENT. A substitute for the amendment is not in order. Mr. STOCKWELL. I will modify my amendment so as to insert "four thousand," instead of "five thousand," as I first proposed. Mr. LEACH. I will accept that amendment, and make my amendment read "four thousand," instead of "three thousand." The question was upon the amend ment of Mr. LEAcH, as modified. Mr. LOTHROP. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the words "four thousand," and inserting n lieu thereof the words "one-half of he ratio of representation for the time being;" so that it will read: "-but every organized county containing population of not less than one-half of the atio of representation for the time being, and every two or more contiguous organized counties, containing a like population, shall constitute a representative district, and be entitled to one representative." Mr. LEACH. I do not propose to argue this question any further than simply to express the hope that this Convention will not adopt that amendment; but that they will give to every organized county containing a population of four thousand the privilege of a representative in the lower house of the Legislature. Mr. McCLELLAND. I call for the yeas and nays on the amendment of my colleague, (Mr. LOTHROP.) The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. LOTHROP to the amendment of Mlx. LEACH, and it was not ageed to; yeas 39, nays 40, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Brown, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Duncombe, Elliott, W. F. Goodwin, Henderson, Hixson, Lawrence, Lothlirop, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Miller, Morton, Murray, Ninde, Norris, Pratt, Rafter, Richmond, Root, Shearer, W. A, Smith, Stough. ton, Tyler, Van Riper, P. D. Warner, W. E. Warner, M. C. Watkins, Willard, Winans and the President-39. NAYs-Messrs. Alexander, Andrus, Bradley, Burtch, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Divine, Dunean, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, Harris, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, McKernan, Mussey, Musgrave, Parsons, Purcell, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Turner, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, White, Winsor, Withey, Woodhouse and Yeomans-40. The question then recurred upon the amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. LIEAC4, to insert, after the words "convenient and contiguous territory," the following: "- but every organized county containing a population of not less than Iour thousand, and every two or more contiguous organized counties, containing a like population, shall constitutue a representative district, and be entitled to one representative." IUpon this amendment the yeas and nays had been ordered. The question was then taken, and ~ the amendment was agreed to; yeas 52, nays 27, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, An drus, Bradley, Burtob, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Divine, Duncan, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris,- Ger main, Giddings, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Hen derson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Huston, Ken ney, Lawrence, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Mc Connell, McKernan, Mussey, Musgrave, Par sons, Pratt, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell Turner, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, Wal ker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White Willard, Winsor, Withey, Woodhouse and Yeomans-52. NAYs-Messrs. Barber, Bills, Blackman Brown, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Dun combe, Hixson, Lothrop, Luce, McoClelland Miller, Morton, Murray, Ninde, Norris,- Paur. cell, Richmond, Root, Shearer, W. A. Smith, Stoughton, Tyler, W. E. Warner, Winans and the President-27. Mr. McCLELLAN: D. I now renew the amendment I offered'm committee of the whole, to insert after the amendment last adopted the following: "But no township or city shall be divided in the formation of a representative district. When any township or city:shall contain a population which entitles it to more than one representative, then such township or city shall elect by general ticket, the number of representatives to which it is entitled." And on this amendment I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. MCCLELLAND, and it was not agreed to; yeas 20, nays 52, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bills, Bradley, Crocker, Des noyers, Hixson, Lawrence, Lothrop, McClel land, McKernan, Morton, Ninde,- Norris, Pratt, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Shearer, W. A. Smith, W. E. Warner and Winans-20. NAYs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Blackman,- Brown, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Divine, Duncan, Dancombe, Elliott, Estee,-Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, W. F. Goodwin lar)is, Holmes, Howard, Huston, Kenney Leach, Lovell, McConnell,'Miller, Murray Musgrave, Parsons, Root, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Turner, Tyler, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Win sor, Withey, Woodhouse and Yeomans-52. Mr. MILLER. I move to amend this section by striking out the words "including civilized persons of Indian descent, not members of any tribe." I do not like this "everlasting" Indian. But'the principal difficulty consists in the fact that according to this section these representative districts shall con tain as near as may be an equal number L of inhabitants, including civilized per sons of Indian descent. Nowit will be very difficult indeed to distribute these , Indians throughout every representa tive district in the State. I do not wish to impose that distribution upon ; the inhabitants of the district, or upon i the Legislature, or upon any one else. 1 As my friend from Grand Traverse (Mr. LEACH,) says, there are so few of them that there will be hardly a dozen for each district. I Mr. ESTEE. Perhaps it would be for the benefit of the older counties if s they could have a few of them distrib uted among them. - Mr. LOVELL. I call for the yeas and nays on-the amendment. ' The yeas and nays were not ordered. The question was then taken upon the amendment of -Mr. MILLER; and upon a division, ayes 31, noes 21, it was ,agreed to. i ~ Immediately after the result of the vote was announced, Mr. CONGER moved to reconsider , the vote by which the amendmentwas l; adopted. DEBA.T,ES'AWD PROCE'H'-I-)INGS. 703 August, 8, 1867. 70.:: _-:' -_:.'::. -.':. - T., Mr. MORTON. I would inquire on which side the gentleman voted. Mr. CONGER. The gentleman can probably ascertain by looking at the record. [Laughter.] The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that that question can be raised only when the vote has been taken by yeas and nays. The gentle man from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) in the judgment of the Chair, is entitled to make the motion to reconsider. The question was then taken on the motion to reconsider; and upon a divi sion, ayes 33, noes 32, it was agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. MILLER., to strike out the words "including civilized per sons of Indian descent, not members of any tribe." Mr. LEACH. I really cannot see why the gentleman from St. Clair (Ir. CONGLR,) moved to reconsider the vote by which this amendment was agreed to. I hope if there is any reason why those words should not be stricken out, he will give it. I can see no reason for retaining those words in this section. Mr. CONGER. I was looking at another section, when I made that motion. I understood that the amendment related to section four, although the same rule would apply in other cases. Upon examining this section, as it would read with these words stricken out, I do nobt know that I have any objection to the striking out of these words. The amendment of Mr. MILLER was then agreed to. Mr. NORRIS. I move to amend this section as amended, by striking out of the first sentence the words " and by single districts;" also by striking out all after the words "convenient and contiguous territory," as follows: - but every organized county containing a population of not less than lour thousand, and every two or more contiguous organized counties, containing a like population, shall constitute a representative district, and be entitled to one representative. In every county entitled to more than one representative, the board of supervisors shall assemble at such time and place as may be provided by law, and divide the same into representative districts, equal to the number ot representatives to which such county is entitled by law, and shall cause to be filed in the offices of the Secretary of State and clerk of such county, a description of such representative district, specifying the number of each district, and the population thereol; according to the last enumeration." The section if so amended will read as follows: "The House of Representatives shall consist of not more than one hundred and ten members. Representatives shall be chosen for two years. Each representative district shall contain, as nearly as may be, an equal number of inhabitants, and shall consist Of convenient and contiguous territory." I to not desire to debate this question at all; I simply desire to test the sense of the Convention upon the single district system, and the system of representatives from counties at large. For one, I desire to return to the system of representatives elected fromn the county at large, as this Con vention were elected. I will ask a vote upon the question, without any debate. Mr. FARIMER. I would ask if the amendment proposed by the gentle man from Washtenaw (Mr. NORRIS,) does not cover the same principle as the amendment that we voted down a few moments since, offered by the gen tleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLEL LAND?) lIr. NORRIS. No, sir; this is a dif ferent proposition. We are elected in this Convention to represent our re spective counties; we do not represent particular districts in our counties, but we represent our respective'counties. And under the amendment I have of fered, it would be competent for a county, if it should see fit, to elect all the representatives to which it is enti tled from one town. I think my amendment would tend to elevate the character of our Legislature. A mem ber representing a county would feel more responsibility than if he repre sented only a little separate district. But members coming up as they do now from a county, representing two or three, towns, those towns requiring no particular legislation, are as it were, "in the market;" they have: no particular interests to look after. I think iff we elected our representatives by counties rather than by towns, we iwould have men with broader views. :I call for the yeas and nays. Mr. CONGER. This question has been discussed a great dealhere; it is coming up in all its protean shapes. ,The. gentleman desiares the yeas and nays on this amendment. I hope the yeas and nays will be taken, to see if each county shall elect a general ticket, as the city of Detroit wanted to:do, whose case we have just settled. SMr. BURTCH. I am opposed to ;this amendment. SEVERAL MEMBERS. We Will vote it down. Mr. BURTCH. Well, you may vote it down when you get a$ chance; -but I propose to state the reasons why I am opposed to it. The idea is clear to the understanding of the most obruse mind, that this all tends to'the centralization of power. The town which has the wisdom and understanding of the whole county would control in this matter. By the political machinery and wire-pulling that is done, the whole thing would be worked out, and the man who perhaps has as much brains as the man who works those wires would never be heard of. Now the same principle was involved in the- getting up of this Conven tion.. There was a sort of wire-pulling here in the Legislature. I watched it with peculiar interest all the time it was going on. The strongest wanted to get the better hold and to push the weak away; they wanted to have additional representation, so that they could put over on the one hand or the other, as circumstances might dictate, and control and bring more completely into bondage the feeble and the weak. I protest against such a proposition, though I have a high respect for the gentleman who offered it. But the man has nothing to do with such matters; it is the idea, and such ideas are public property, and I handle and dispose of them as I see fit, according to the public welfare. Mr. DANIELLS. If this amend-ment should prevail, I think I shall have to agree with the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIS,) that we should in many cases get a more able set of men; I think we should do so in our county. But with that self-denial that has marked all my action here, I shall feel bound to vote against this amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered on the amendment of Mir. NORRIS. The question was then taken, and the amendment was not agreed to. YEAs-Messrs. Crockor, Desnoyer, lixson, Lawrence,McClelland, Morton, Ninde, Norris, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Shearer, W. A. Smith, W. E. Warner and Winans-15. NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Auadrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Burtch, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge Conger, Daniells, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Henderson, Holmes, Howard, Huston, Kenn:ey, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McConnell, McKernan, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Parsons, Pratt, Root, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Turner, Tyler, Van Riper, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White. Willard, Winsor, Withey, Woodhouse, Yeomans and the President-62. :QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE LEG ISLATURE. Mr. McCLELLAND. Section five of this article now reads as follows: Every Senator and Representative shall be a citizen of the United States, and a qualified elector of the district he represents. A removal from his district shall be deemed a vacation oT his office. t o Senator or ReDresentative shall, during the time for which ;he may have been elected, be eligible to any offlee which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been in-' creased by the Legislature during such term; nor shall he be interested, directly or indireetly, in any contract with the State, or any county thereof, authorized by any law passed during said term." I move to amend it by adding the following: "No person elected a member of the Legislature shall receive any civi appointment ;within this State or to the -Senate of the United States, from the Governor, the Gov 1704 CONS'I!I'.PTJ".UONAT,.CONV-E-N-TION. . Thursdfiy, - I i. DEBAT' 4 AND PROCEEDINGS. ernor and Senate, from the Legislature, or any other State authority, during the term for which he is elected. All such appointments, and all votes given for any person so elected for any such office or appointment, shall be void." That is the same provision that there is in the present Constitution. As we have adopted the same rule in regard to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, judges of the Supreme Court and judges of the circuit court, I thought it would be well to'have it applied to members of the Legislature. I call for the yeas and nays on my amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. BLACKMAN. I move to amend the amendment by inserting after the words "any civil appointment," the words "except notaries public." The amendment of Mr. BLACKMAN was agreed to. The question was then taken upon the amendment-of Mr. McOCLELLAND as amended, and it was not agreed to; yeas 35, nays 42, as follows: YEAS-Messers. Alexander, Blackman, Brown, Burtch, Chapman, Coolidge, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Ferris, Germain, W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Hixson, Huston, Kenney, Lothrop, Lovell, McClelland, McConnell, Miller, Ninde, Norris, Rafter, Richmond, Shearer, W. A. Stmith, Van Valkenburgh, P. D. Warner, W. E. Warner, Withey and Yeomans-35. NAYS-Messers. Aldrich, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Case, Chapin, Conger, Daniells, Divine, Estee, Farmer, Giddings, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Lawrence Leach, Longyear, Luce, McKernan, Morton, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Parsons, Pratt, Root, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Turner, Tyler, Van Riper, Walker, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winans, Winsor and Woodhouse-42. SESSIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE. Mr. HOLT. Section eight of this article is as follows: "The Legislature shall meet at the seat of government on the second Wednesday of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and on the Second Wednesday of January in every second year thereafter, and at no other time or place, unless as provided in-this Constitution. The time of meeting shall be at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and the time of final adjournment shall be at twelve o'clock, noon." I move the following as a substitute for that section: ,, The Legislature shall meet on the second Wednesday of January in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and on the second Wednesday of January of each year thereafter, but at no other time except as provided for in this Constitution. -The time of meeting shall be at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and the time of final adjourn. ment shall be at twelve o'clock, noon.": Mr. WALKER. I rise to a point of order. This amendment substantially was offered in committee of the whole, and adopted. In Convention, upon the question of concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole, it was voted down. I raise the point of order that this question has Vol. 2-No. 89. already been decided by the Conven tion. The PRESIDENT. The substitute offered is not in the words of the sec tion in other respects than that to which the gentleman from Clinton (Mr. WALKER) refers. The Chair is of the opinion that the substitute is in order. Mr. McCLELLAID. I ask for the yeas and nays on this question. Mr. GIDDINGS. I suppose this involves the question of annual or bi ennial sessions, and I would like the yeas and nays. Mr. HENDERSON. I can say with the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDIG,) that I would like the yeas and nays. I would like to know how many times we have to vote down this proposition. - Mr. GIDDINGS. Whom does the gentleman mean by "we"? Mr. CONGER. The object of making this motion at this time is not, as the gentleman from Calhoun (Mr. HENDERSON,) says, "to vote down the proposition;" it is to vote up the proposition, to sustain it, to pass it. I think it will be very well for us to consider this matter seriously, in reference to the indications we have had from the people of this State, or from the press of this State. I think I may say that I have Seen no newspaper, so far as that is an indication of the popular feeling, but what has asserted again and again during our sessions that the people of this State expect this Convention to provide for annual sessions of the Legislature. There may be newspapers that advocate biennial sessions; butsince our action upon this matter in favor of biennial sessions I have seen only condemniation of that action in every newspaper I have seen that had anything to say upon the subject at all. I am free to say that I believe the people of this State as a-mass expected us to provide for annual sessions. There is a very general dissatisfaction at what we have done so far in regard to the matter. They regard it as a very undesirable change which we made from the action of the committee-of the whole upon this subject. I wish to say that: if gentlemen will consider for one moment the question of expense, which seems to be the great bugaboo here, take the expense of the sessions of the Legislature for any period of ten years, I think they will find that the expense of annual sessions is less than the expense of biennial sessions, to say nothing of the continual changes im the laws which are required. I, too, desire the yeas and nays upon this proposition, for I wish my record to show that I have voted as I believe ~ eontituents desire t should vote, in favor of annual sessions. And as we have not had the yeas and nays taken before on this proposition, I am anxious they should be taken now. Mr. LUCE. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) is mistaken in one respect; we have had the yeas and nays at least once on this very question, and the vote stood 36 to 43, I believe. So far as I have heard from the people of this State in reference to- this subject, every individual I have seen has been perfectly satisfied with biqenniial sessions. I have not seen a man outside of this Convention who desired to have annual sessions of the Legislature. I have seen but one newspaper that condemned biennial sessions. I have seen several, and amongst them I think the leading paper of the county of St. Clair, that advocated.biennial sessions of the Legislature. I, too, desire that the yeas and nays may be taken; and I trust the vote will be as it was before in favor of biennial sessions, in favor of the interests of the people of the State, and of-the-tax-payers generally. Mr. HENDERSON. One word of explanation. The remark I made was not because I felt so decidedly opposed to the object of the gentleman from Muskegan, (Mr. HOLT.) But I had in my mind other instances, not one but a great many, where questions have been decided again and again, and then been brought up again in this way, and our session protracted much beyond what it otherwise would have been, in consequence of it, when there was not sufficient ground of hope of success to warrant any man in introducing the question again. That is what I think at this time; I may be mistaken. Mr. PRATT. I voted before for annual sessions, and I shall vote so again. Since the vote upon this question was taken before, I have received a paper published in my county, and in it I find a condemnation of biennial sessions. So far as my constituents are concerned, I think they almost unanimously desire annual sessions. I think it will be: found to be a great saving to the State to have annual sessions. A State which has so many interests to look after, many of them unfinished, which has so many corporations, which is new in so many of its parts, and progressing as this State seems to be progressing, it seems to me would be practicing a wise-and strict economy to have annual sessions. I think it will be found, if we-have a session of the Legislature but once in two years, that there will be many cases of waste, and perhaps malfeasance in office, which might be discovered and rectified if we have annual August 8,,.1867. 705 I 706 COITUTiOAL COVETIO Tliur day, sessions. In business affairs, every sound business man takes an account of stock, and balances his books every year. I think that is a safe rule to apply to the State, one which will be in accordance with strict economy. I do not apprehend that with annual sessions we will have more legislation than at the present time. If any portion of our legislation is wrong we ought to have it corrected in less than two years. I do not propose to detain this Convention by an enumeration of the vast' business interests of this State, of the many cases where we require attention to be paid to that business- from year to year. In many cases we require reports to be made annually by our State officers, but they are not now made to the Legislature. I think it will be found sound economy and wise statesmanship on our part to provide for annual sessions of the Legislature. Mr. BURTCH. When this matter was up before, I said, in just a word, that I then thought there was no ne cessity of saying but a word, for I thought it was a foregone conclusion that we were to provide for annual sessions of the Legislature. So far as my constituents are concerned, they are in'favor of annual sessions of the Legislature. And I represent not only. Republicans but I represent Dem ocrats; I represent all classes of men, and I represent women and children* too. All these matters are looked after assiduously and carefully. The Legislature, as it, is now pro posed by this Convention to make it, is to be the depository of very nearly all the powers of the State; and certainly it will look after the deposits with which it is entrusted. For that reason I am in favor of annual sessions of-the Legislature. And I apprehend if we neglect to provide for the annual ses sions of the Legislature, it will tend towards the rejection of the new Con stitution. The people will say that it is not worth anything, that it is no im provement'pon the one they now have, that it is: the same "old plow," and that they do not want to go to the trouble and expense of a change. Mr. BILLS. I move to amend the amendment by striking out- the word "second" before the word "Wednes day," wherever it occurs, and inserting in lieu thereof the word "first;" so as to provide for the meeting of the Leg islature on the first Wednesday in January, instead of on the second Wednesday. Hr. CONGER. I wish to say that since the annual spring elections have been changed,::and: made a month earlier than heretofore, it seems to me to be proper that the- amendment ~ug gested by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) should be made. Mr. HOLT. I have no objection to that..amendment, and if -it is'.not objected to by any member, I will accept it. The question then- was on the substitute as' modified. Mr. MUSSEY. ~I-move to amend the original section by striking out the word "second" before "Wednesday," wherever it occurs in the: section, and inserting in lieu thereof the word " first," so as to make it correspond' in that respect with the substitute as modified. The question was'then taken upon the amendment of Mr. MussEY to the original section, and it was agreed to. The question again recurred on the substitute as modified. Mr. BLACKM1AN. I wish to inquire whether there is any other section in this article, except this: section eight,,which specifies the place where Lthe Legislature shall meet? The- sub-' stitute, leaves out all reference to the place of meeting. If this'substitute is adopted, and there is no other sec tion of this article which provides for it, there will be no provision in regard to the place of meeting for the Legis lature. Mr. FARMER. I do not. propose to detain this Convention any length of time by my remarks upon this sub ject. I was not here when this sub ject- was -acted' upon in committee of the whole, but I was present when the vote was taken in Convention, upon concurring in: the amendment made by the committee of- the-whole. : I will merely state now -what I con ceivO to- be the almost unanimous:wish of the people of that portion of the State that I-in part represent. I have heard but one opinion expressed on the sub ject, and that has been in favorof an nual sessions of the LIegislature. They seem to have regarded it almost as a foregone conclusion that we would pro vide for annual sessions. And I must say that I was surprised when the vote was given here to concur in-the action of the committee of the whole. I hope that the substitute willbe adopted, and that we Will incorporate in the Constitution the principle of annual sessions of the Legislature. Mr.: TURNER. I hope that the substitute offered by~ the gentleman from Muskegon (Mr. HOLT,) will be adopted. So far as I know, if there E any one subject or any one thing in regard to-which the people expected a change would be made by this Conven tion, it was in regard:to the sessions of the Legislature, that they would be ~ changed from biennial to iannual.:And since the action taken by the Conven tion upon-the amendment- of the com:nittee of:the whole in that:respect, I have heard. great dssatisfaction ex pressed in relation to it. The people generally-or at least in that part of the State that I represent, and I know in many other parts of the State have expected that -a change would be made from biennial:to annual sessions of the Legislature. I do -aot believe. this Convention would ever have been called if we had had annual sessions of the Legisla ture. Under our present system, all the State officers are elected, instead of being appointed by the Governor, and hb exercises but very little: control over them. And it is my opinion, and I believe itis the general, opinion, that if there was some body with whom these officers could settle annually, it would be better for the State than it is now. I hope the substitute will be adopted. Mr. CHAPIN. I -believe there is great unanimity of opinion,- among the people whom I have -the honor to repre sent, in favor of.annual sessions of the Legislature.: If there is any one sub ject in regard to which they have uttered heir views, it is this subject. I really hope that this substitute will' prevail. I believe it would:be:one of.-the strong est recommendations -this Constitution co0uld possess among the people. ~Mr. STOCKWEF LL. I am taken somewhat by surprise that this ques tion should be again brought before this body at this time; perhaps because i iam not as well acquainted -as others are with the practices of public bodies like this. I must say that I find the views of the great mass of the people in the part of the State that I have the : honor to represent, very different from what have been expressed by members upon this floor. Since the:action of the C- onvention on this subject on- a former occasion, by which it was determined r that wewere to -have only biennial ses sions of the Legislature, I have been -- at home.: The matter was talked of quite considerably there, and with 3very few exceptions that action of the Convention met generally with the ap3 probation of the people in that section of the State. Even men who at this - time are members of the Legislature expressed themselves as being entirely satisfied,!and said they thought it was : wise- in this Convention to retain the principle of biennial sessions. I- know ~ that in the minds of the people gener: 3 ally, especially in the rural districts, [ there is:a very strong feeling in favor o of biennial sessions; they are not in . favor-of annual sessions of the Legis lature. In I hope the substitute offered by the I genleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT) . will-not prevail; and that: the Conven t i 8 i COX-STIII"TTTIO AT, ,CONVIMNTION. Thurr, da- - ) ,y 706 Auus 8, 187 DEAE oD sROEI tion will sustain the decision which was made, and I thought fairly made;' and. that the understanding arrived at by this Convention the other day will be adhered to. I certainly shall vote against annual sessions, and in favor of biennial sessions, as I did the other day. Mr. P. D. WARNER.. I. wil not' occupy the time of the Convention: long upon this subject.!I was satisfied.entirely with the action of the Convention, when it non- concurred iia the recommendation,.of the.eommittee of the whole,, and adhered to biennial siessions. I.have not, since that action, was taken by this Convention, seen anything in any public print..published in the State, of'Michigan, that spoke in condemnation of that: action of this Cofivention..Ihave:been away from Lans sing sce that time; I have not spent much time away,.. to be sure, but the question was not referred to in my presence. during my;'absence. No circumstance has transpired, sincee this question was acted upon by the Convention upon the previous occa-, sion, that has led me inm any manner to change my views in relation to: what was just and proper for this Convention finally to adopt as-its action re-, garding this question. There is one other consideration to0 which I desire to call the attention of the members of this Convention..The idea: seems to be prevalent here that-we are not to take into consideration in tour action any question that relates to the., finances of the State, so far as the expenditure of money is concerned.: I desire to call the attention of.. gentlemen to this simple fact, that an:ordi-' nary session of the Legislature costs $75,000. Mr. GIDDINGS. -Will the gentleman permit me to ask himn a question? Mr. P. D. WARNER. Certainly. Mr. GIDDINGS. Before the gen. fleman gets into his argument, I would like to ask him what newspapers he has read of late upon this subject, or upon any subject? Mr. P. D. WARNER. I'have look. sd over closely both the leading Republican papers published in Detroit; and I -have looked over considerably weekly papers published in other sectio'ns of, the State. Mr. GIDDINGS. I think both of those Detroit papers have taken position repeatedly in favor of annual sessions. I do not think the gentleman can find a RepUblican paper in the State in favor of biennial sessions. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I may be mistaken in this. But I wish to recur to this question of expense. Mr. LONGYEAR. There ws quite a pointed article in the Detrot Post id favor of annual sessions, soon after the action of the Convention on.that subject. Mr. FARMER. If the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) will allow me, I will say that there are three Republican papers published in the county of Bernen, and they are all in favor of annual sessions Mr. P. D. WARNER. I may have misapprehended what was the sentiment of the newspapers throughout the State. But I have not misapprehended what. it would cost the State of Michigan to adopt the system of annual sessions. It will be recollected by the members of this Convention that we propose to make the compensation of members of the Legislature four dollars a day, instead of three dollars; which, according to my estimate of eighty days for a session, would add fifteen thousand dollars to the expense of a session. We have by our action to-day increased the number of representatives from one hundred to one hundred- and ten, or we have authorized such an increase, which will add thirty-two hundred d,llars more to the expense of a session of the Legislature. The aggregate expense of the Legislature will be, with this increase, something like ninety thousand dollars a session. Mr. CONGER. I, would ask the gentleman whether his argument would not be an'argument against having any session of the Legislature at all? Mr. P. D.- WARNER. It would, unless sessions were necessary for the promotion of the prosperity and the protection of the interests of the State. Conceding'that they are necessary, I am tn favor of sessions of the Legislature. But I amnot in favor of sessions beyond what.are necessary for the convenient administration of the' affairs of the State. I believe from:my experience, and from the experience of the people of Michigan, that they are satisfied, as well as myself, that all the interests of this State may be abundantly protected and fostered by biennia legislation; and that in case any interest was in a condition whereby it might suffer, it is within the province of the executive to convene the Legislature at a trifling expense, for the purpose of considering such questions as may require their action. As I have remarked, I have seen nothing that has led me to change:my views in' relation to this question. I do not believe that a majority of the people of this'State expect;this Convention to make this change. And I do not believe that a majority of the electors of this Stato desire the change. I know in regard to those whose in terests I represent in a measure, that they do not expect or desire it; and if it is adopted they will disapprove of it. Mr. DANIELLS. The gentleman fromOakland (Mr. P. D. WARNER) does not seem to have read the papers. I would ask him if he understands section nineteen of this article now? That section provides that in each 'House of the Legislature' lthe vote shall be taken separately on the final passage of each bill." We are not going to pass bills in mass hereafter, under this Constitution. Mr. CONGER. Gentlemen will find by reference to the table published in our journal, that in the last nine years there have been four extra sessions of the Legislature., Mr. HENDERSON. Three of them were on account of the war. Mr. CONGER. Some of them were; but we have had extra sessions when we had no war..: Mr. HENDERSON. When? Mr. CONGER. In 1858. Mr. BL/ACKMAN. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) has not stated all that may be seen by reference to the table to which he has referred. By -that table- it appears that from 1835 to 1850, when we had annual sessions, the sessions averaged seventyfive days each year. But since that time, from 1851 to 1861, while the time was limited-or rather for 1851, and from 1861 to the present time, when the time of the session was not limited-by the Constitution, the regular sessions, which were every second year, have averaged only about seventy five: days.: Then there are a few days to be added for extra -sessions. ABut taking the whole time, including when the sessions were limited, taking extra sessions and all, and the average has been only about thirty-six days a year. So that, notwithstanding all that has been said aboutthe great-and growing interests of the- State requiring more legislation, we find that during the years when we had: biennial sessions, although the interests of the State had grown considerably, we-i have got along with about half the number of days' session per year, or a little over half, that seemed to be required when we had annual sessions. I do not believe that we shall require much less time at each session of the Legislature, if we have sessions annually hereafter, than was taken at each session when we had them o'nly once in two years. The objection to the changing of the laws every year has: already been discussed.. Beyond,that,: those of us who have taken our, stand:infavor of biennial sessions, need not m this hUrry,and flurry be frightened from ouer senre of .DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGSO.1 . ugU..st -8.-1867. 7,07 -O8 — i C i t propriety by what may have been said by some of our public journals. I do not believe the mass of the people of this State demand annual sessions. I think, from what I can hear outside of this Convention, that that demand comes principally from men who are somewhat ambitious. I think the mass of the people have not troubled them selves much about the matter. I think, if we were to hear from the whole of them, we would find that their opinion would concur with the action already taken by this Convention on this subject. Mr. ALEXANDER. When this subject was acted upon by the Convention on a former occasion, I was at home. And when the news came of the action of tlie Convention in favor of biennial sessions, so far as my observation went, there was a general expression of regret at the action of the Convention. So far as I heard my constituents express themselves in relation to the matter, they were unanimously in favor of annual sessions of the, Legislature. I would not be in favor of any measure that would create unnecessary taxation and expense. But it seems to me it would be wisdom on the part of the people to hold annual sessions of their Legislature. I think the State of Michigan, with its rapidly increasing population, needs annual sessions of its Legisla ture. 'Mr. HOLT. I will occupy the attention of the Convention for but a mo~ment. I am satisfied that the people of the newer counties of the State are in favor of annual sessions of the Legislature; I am very well satisfied of that. At any rate, that is the fact in my county, so far as I in acquainted. It is regarded by the people there as one of the most important changes we can make. In reference to the time heretofore occupied by the Legislature, I am satisfied they have not occupied time enough. I think the time taken last winter was not more than half the time that was really required to mature the laws which were passed. I am very well satisfied that the Legislature should have more time, and therefore I am in favor of annual sessions. Mr. STOUGHTON. If this Convention finally refuse t9 provide for annual-sessions of the Legislature, it seems to me that one of the most important objects for which we were called together will jave failed. In my opinion the wants of the people, and the great material interests of the State require that we should have annual sessions of the Legislature. It has been said that we have al~eady h~d too much legiatio'~. X submit that the proper remedy for that will not be found in biennial sessions of the Legislature. We have tried that system, and found that under it we have crude legislation, or such, perhaps, as ought not to appear on our statute books. The wants of the people should be abundantly cared for. They have a right to come here for their- necessary legislation at such times as shall be convenient for them. The true remedy is in electing men who shall pass no other laws than those which are just and proper. It seems to me this State should take its position with other States. I know that so far as my own section of the State is concerned, the action of this Convention, in failing to concur in the amendment of the committee of the whole, was looked upon with regret. I believe now that it will be wise for us to provide for annual sessions of the Legislature; and that any other policy will be short-sighted and extreme economy. Mr. T. G. SMITH. When this question was up before, one gentleman from Kalamazoo, I think, (Mr. BRADLEY,) said he-had not heard a single argument advanced to satisfy him that the people of this State required annual sessions of the Legisiature. Now, I think there is one argument in favor of annual sessions to be derived from the practice of this State. With aprovision in the Constitution providing for biennial sessions, — during the last eleven years there have been but two years when there was not a session of the Legislature held, either a regular,sesgion or an. extra session; those two years were 1860 and 1866. Therefore, if with a provision of the Constitution for biennial sessions the necessity has been so great as to call for the convening of the Legislature in every year but two, for the last eleven years, we should make a provision in the new Constitution for annual sessions, and not throw the whole responsibility of annual sessions upon the Governor alone. In regard to the expense of the Legislature, I find a communication from the Auditor General's office, published in our journal of the 5th of June, giving the expenses of the sessions of 1861, 1863 and 1865, during which period there were three extra sessions of the Legislature, making in all six sessions of the Legislature. The average expense of the three regular sessions is a little over $55,000; and with the extra sessions would be about $28,000 a year. When gentlemen talk about the Legislature costing from $75,000 to $100,000 a year, I think they should be corrected. Mr. HE.NDERSON, W'll the gentleran sate thte length of thQOg extra sessions, three of which were during the war, and two of which were very short? Mr. T. G. SMITH. I only state the fact that there were extra sessions. My idea is this, that we had better have annual sessions and short ones, than biennial sessions and long ones. I think it would be better for the State to have annual sessions of forty days each, than biennial sessions of eighty days each. I think it would meet the interests of the people far better. Mr. McCLELLAND. I shall not state my experience upon this subject, although this seems to be an experience meeting. I stated the other day that I was opposed to annual sessions on several grounds; among others that the Governor had the right to call ex tra sessions whenever there was any necessity for them. I stated then that we were paying an enormous tax in this State, of which the people,knew but little. I find upon consulting the proper officer that I placed my —figures — too low on that occasion. This Constitution which we are framing, if adopted, will add to the expenses of the State at least $100, 000 a year. If we provide for annual sessions, the additional expense of this Constitution will probably be at least $200,000 a year. The entire taxation in the State will be some $600,000 or $700,000 a year. Besides all that, we are paying to the General Government perhaps one-quarter less than we did in 1865. I have before me an authentic report of those taxes for 1865, by which I find that in the first district we paid, in round numbers, $1,975,000; in the second district, $31-4,000; in the third district, $324,000; in the fourth district, $213,000; in the fifth district, $185,000, and in the sixth district over $400,000; or altogether for the year 1865, $3,414,582 13, collected in the State of Michigan. Now, if gentle men are disposed to pile Pelion on Ossa, I cannot help it. Mr. MUSSEY. I would inquire of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. Mc CLELLrJAND,) whether the people of the State of Michigan cannot pay five times the tax to-day, with the same percent age on property, that they could when the Constitution of 1850 was adopted? Mr. McCLELLAND. I have no doubt of that at all. But the gentleman will observe that in 1850 we were not paying auy such tax as we are now paying. X Mr.: CONGER. The taxation imposed by the General Government -for the purposes for which that tax is raised, for the suppression of the rebellion, and the maintenance of our common government,;:our:~omnmon country, a'l QIe'-?cmo~mQu free institUtiezj 708 CONSTITU'IUONAL -CON'V.WNTION. Th-arsday, I August 8, 1867. DEBAT AD PROCEEDINGS. 709 I assert will be cheerfully paid by the people of Michigan, as long as that tax shall be imposed upon them. I am not to be frightened from my propriety by having spread on our record here what is the voluntary contribution of our people to sustain the fidelity and life of our common country. Such arguments as those addressed to me, have neither weight nor force; and the only consideration I give to them is to think of the dark days that are past, and the bright days that are dawning upon our people in the future. Those arguments have no place here; or if they have, it is only to excite us still more to labor to preserve our common country, whether on the battle-field, or by taxation at home. The State of Michigan has such a variety of calls for legislation, that annual sessions are almost an imperative necessity. I admit that that necessity does not to-day affect those counties where all is settled and well conducted. But I can remember the time when those very counties, which do not now desire annual sessions, required legislation every year. And what were their wants then are the wants of the northern counties of this State now, of every one of them. There are interests accumulating, and increasing, and growing with the growth of this State, that require the annual watchfulness of the Legislature. Today the State of Michigan can pay the same number of men, or ten men more than it did in 1850, with one-tenth part of the per centage upon the property of the State. And shall not this State, as it grows in wealth and requires legislation to act for the protection of its interests-shall it not have that legislation? I have a word to say in reply to the venerable gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN,) who took up my authority. He says he is not to be frightened from his consistency by newspaper or other reports. I admit that the gentleman from Van Buren is one of those quick, impatient men, very apt to be driven from his propriety. He is not cool, calm and steady as I am, and as other gentlemen are, and it is right that he should protect himself from those influences. But when the gentleman states, from the table which I referred to, that the statement which I made was wrong, and that under the Constitution of 1850 the sessions were shorter than under the Constitution of 1835, I tell him that it was because the Constitution of 1850 limited the sessions not to exceed forty days. And what did the people of Michigan say about it? They endured it for a few years. For a few years gentleme~ asu* he di d, in these halls, and labored not only during the day time but during the nigt time to perfect the legislation of this State, with perseverance, assiduity, industry, and no regard for our health, or personal comfort. And yet we were unable to meet the demands of the people of the State. And the people of Michigan demanded longer sessions; and an amendment of the Constitution was made by which the sessions of the Legislature could be longer. The people of Michigan spoke on that subject, and said that biennial sessions of forty days in length were not enough, and that they would not limit the [length of the session at all As I stated, in every State in this Union where they have annual sessions, there are a less number of days consumed by the Legislature than in the States where they have biennial sessions. And those States which tried biennial sessions have, in the main, returned to the old plan. And so should our State. Take the sessions of the Legislature since the Constitution was amended so as to leave the sessions unlimited, and there will not be found any great difference between the biennial sessions and the annual sessions. In the early history of this State long sessions of the Legislature were required; they are required in every new State. In Vermont they can do all their legislation in two weeks; in Massachusetts, in three weeks; in New Hampshire in two or three weeks. But that is not the case' with new States, where there are growing and multiplying interests- coming up all the while, and no State has more of them than Michigan. There is no State where there are more frequent and continual changes in interests and business requiring such constant legislation. I will allude to but one thing more. Every gentleman who has ever been in the Legislature, knows how difficult it is to provide for the various charitable institutions of the State for the two coming years; for our insane asylum, for our deaf and dumb asylum, for the State prison, and for our other institutions; and how we have to calculate and; give more or less according to probabilities, when if there were annual sessions we would have more certainty in that respect, and be enabled to effect a saving to the State. I have not time to prolong my remarks upon this subject as we are limited. I throw out these suggestions as some of those which will influence my vote, and I doubt not will influence the votes of other members of this Convention in favor of annual sessions of the Legislature. Mfr. BLAC'33;5 I. X itoa is temerity in me to undertake to controvert any proposition laid down by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER.) And judging fromin the manner in which he assails those who attack his positions, I do not know but it is temerity for any one to do it. I would not, however, have arisen at this time, except to correct a misstatement. I did not say his former statement was wrong; I simply said that he had not stated all that was shown by the table to which he referred; I said it showed more than he tad stated. In reply to his remark that the length of the sessions of the Legislature during the period of which I spoke, was limited by the Constitution, I will correct the gentlman there. I stated that the average which I gave, was for those years when the sessions were not limited. I said that the biennial sessions during those years only averaged the same that the annual sessions did during the period from 1835 to 1850. So that his-reply has no bearing at all upon my remarks. I excluded from that average those years when the sessions were limited; I took only the regular sessions in those years when they were not limited. Then adding the extra sessions for the other two years, and the sessions of the years in which the sessions were limited, putting them all together only brought the average up to about thirtysix days a year. Mr. McCLELLAND. I did not allude to the war when I spoke before, nor do I mean to allude to it now. And I do not see how the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CoNGER,) came to allude to it, unless it was, as he is accustomed to do, to take advantage of it for the purpose of creating an impression. The gentleman speaks -without book when he says that the State of Massachusetts gets through wvith all its legislation in some two, or three, or four weeks. The last Legislature of that State was in session some three months. The Legislature-of Connecticut was in session some three months, and I believe has but recently adjourned. The gentleman also makes the statement that those States which had adopted the system of biennial sessions have receded from that system, and returned to the system of annual sessions. I would ask the gentleman to please state what States have done so? If he speaks by the book, let him state; I will give him an opportunity to do so. I read from the book the other day a list of some thirteen or fourteen States that had adopted the system of biennial sessions, the most of them western or southwestern r e ma Stttei on the ia i QioQoot~ August 8, 1867. DEBATES' A WD PROCEEDINGS. 709 0 I 710 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. I Will the gentleman be kind enough to sustain his statement by pointing out to me one of those States that have returned to annual sessions? Mr. CONGER. I understand the State of Ohio has done so. Mr. McCLELLAiD. No, sir, it has not. The gentleman from Kalamazoo (Mr. GIDDINGS,) says that it continues its sessions of the Legislature from year to year; but its Constitution requires the Legislature to meet biennially. Mr. GIDDINGS. Is it not the fact that it does continue its sessions from year to year? Mr. McCLELLAND. I am informed by a gentleman from Ohi6 that such is not the case. Mr. GIDDINGS. I was informed by a gentleman from Ohio that such was the case. Mr. McCLELLAND. I have been told it was not so. I have no political object in view in the course I am now pursuing. If I possibly can, I want to reduce the taxation of — this State, because I am interested in it, as well as every other citizen of the -State of Michigan. I believe that annual sessions are unnecessary. I believe that there are not those changing interests which the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CoNGER,) has alluded to, requiring anything of the kind in this State.. If those interests are changing, I know it not, and I do not believe that the people know it. The resources of this State that are being developed, are very much the same now that they were twenty years ago, except that theyare somewhat enlarged, and are being now prosecuted to a greater extent than they were then. I say if you want perfection in your laws, that is not the way to get it; if you want to subserve the great interests of the State, that is not the way to do it. But if you want to increase the taxation of the State, that is the way to get it. Mr. GERMAIN. I believe that the uncertainty which hangs over the interpretation of the statute laws of;Michigan, is attributable to the continual tinkering of those laws. The laws passed at the last session of the Legislature have not yet been distributed among the people. The people do not yet know what those laws are; they are not able to conform their action to them. I believe that the less legislation we have, the better. Let the laws which are passed be well considered, and let them be passed biennially; then the people will have time to ascertain what: they are, and to conform their action to their requirements. It has been- admitted that much of the legislation.we have is"erUde and illdigema. - I take issue with the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. T. G. SMITH,)that annual sessions of forty days, are better than biennial sessions of eighty days. Thereisthe time lost in the organization of the two houses, in the appointment of the committees, which will be saved in the session of eighty days. Many of the laws which came before the Legislature, calculated to foster and develop the growing interests to which reference has been made, are laws drawn up by the counsel of thei corporation or individuals asking legislation, and are carefully matured. If we have only biennial sessions, more time will be given to ascertain the actual and particular necessities that require legislation, to furnish the machinery calculated to develop and: give life to those associations. I think that, taking into consideration the fact that so far as our financial interests are concerned we are in- a i transition state, we should be careful how we take action calculated to increase the expenditures of the government. It is proposed by this Constitution to increase liberally the salaries of our Governor, State officers and judges. I believe that -should be done; I think theyshould be paid an adequate compensation. But while we do that, let up retrench where we may. I believe we may retrench in this direction without injury to the interests of the State. Mr. GIDDINGS. I suppose it is a foregone conclusion how we shall come out. on this question. The only difficulty in mmind is this: if it was not going against the Constitution of 1850, I should like to vote for annual sessions. Mr. MocCLELLAND. I would like the gentleman to explain where the wit is in that remark. Mr. GIDDINGS. I would have to take some other time than during the session' of this Convention; it would take too long to get it through the gentleman's head. The question was upon the.substitte offered by Mr. HOLT, whicl had been modified to read as follows: "?.The Legislature shall meet on the first Wednesday ofJanuary, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and'on the first. Wednesday of January of each year thereatter, but at no other time except as provided in this Constitution. The time of meeting shall be at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and the time of final adjournment shall be at twelve o'clock, noon." Upon this question Mr. MCCLELLAND had called for the yeas and nays. The -yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken, and the substitute was agreed to; yeas 42, nays 34, as follows: I YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander,' Bills, :Burtob, Case, Chapin, -Chapman,., Coolidge, I.Conger, Crocker, Daniells, Estee, Farmer, .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 1.,. Ferris, Giddings, Holt, Howard. Huston, Lawrence, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, McKernan, Morton, Murray, Musgrave, Parsons, Pratt, Rafter, Root, Shearer, T. G. Smith, Stoughton Tturner, Tyler, Van. Riper,, Van Valkenburgh,; Willard, Winsor, Withey, Woodhouse and the Presiden't42.' NAYs-Me8ssrs. Andrus, Barber, Blackman, Bradley Brown, Corbin, Desnoyers, Divine Duncan;,Duncombe, Elliott,' Germain,' W. F. Goodwin, Harris, Henderson', HiXson, Hlolmes, Kenney,.Luce, McMlelland, McConnell, Miller,..,Mussey, Ninde, Purcell, Richmond, Sheldon, Stokwell, Walker,' P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Winans and Yeomans-34.- - ~ Mr. ALTEXANDER. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to;. and accordingly, (at -ten minutes before six o'clock p. m.,) the Convention adjourned. SIXTY-THIRD DAY. FIDAY, August 9, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was caled to order by the PRESIDENT. - Prayer by Rev. Mr. MOINTME. The roll was called, and a quorum of member answered:to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. VAN RIPER. Mr. President, I shouild not, as I,propose now, to do, ask a second time for leave of absence, which has been once refused me, were it not that I desire to abide by the rules of this Convention. During the time that the Convention has been in session-now over twelve weeksI have at three different times asked leave of absence, and in each case because it was absolutely necessary that I should be absent-. Why I was singled out yesterday as an exception to the general rule, and leave of absence refused me, I am unable to tell; but I was surprised to find among those voting against granting me leave, gentlemen who have been- absent a great many more times than I have been. I simply wish now to state that I have matters of public business demanding my attention, and it is absolutely necessary. that I should be absent. I therefore ask leave of absence for an indefinite time. Mr. BARBER. Mr. President, as the gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VAN RipEr,) is one whom I regard as among my best friends, I trust that he will not take it unkindly when I say that I am for one opposed to granting any further leaves of absence for an indefinite time. I the'case of this gentles man or of any other gentleman whose business is as pressing as I understand his to. be, I should be willing to grant leave of absence for a limited time; but it seem to me that this Conventio i Friday, August 9, 1867: DEBATES AND) PROCEEDINS. 711 cannot with safety to itself and its organization, grant at this time indefinite leaves of absence. - Mr. VAN RIPER. I wishsimply to say in reply to-the gentleman, that my bus'miess is of such a nature that ITam unable to tell when I shall get through with it. Mr. GIDDINGS. Mr. President, I desire to say a word on this subject. The-PRESIDENT. The Chair will indulge the gentleman, as other gentlemen have made- remarks, although motions of this kind are not debatable. Mr. GIDDINGS. I understand that; but I want to make a single suggestion. The gentleman from Cass, (Mr. VA: RIPER,) who is a public officer, is called upon to perform duties which absolutely require him to be away. As he has been present so constantly heretofore, it seems to me -that, in consideration of his public duties, we should not hesitate to grant" him the leave of absence which he requests. The question being taken on granting Mr. Va RIPER indefinite leave of absence, it was granted. M. -LOTHIROP. Mr. President, my duties - elsewhere will prevent my further attendance after to-day:upon this Convention. I am therefore obliged respectfully to ask leave of ab sence for the residue of the session.- I should not feel quite satisfied with myself, if I did not embrace this, perhaps the only, opportunity to: publicly:ex press, as a member of the Convention, my admiration for the dignity, ability and impartiality with which the duties of the presiding officer of this Con vention have been adm'inistered.:; I shall always remember the pleasant acquaintances that I have formed here; and I wish especially to acknowledge the courtesy and forbearance which I have received at the hands of every member of the Convention. I re spectfully ask leave of absence'for the remainder of the session. Leave was granted. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, on last Saturday I asked and obtained leave of absence; but on account of the small number of members then in attendance, I remained. Since that time I have been quite unwell, and unable to attend the Convention all the time. I now ask leave of absence after to-day until Wednesday morning. Leave was granted.;: Mr. ROOT. I ask leave of absence after to-day until Tuesday morning. This is only the second time that I have troubled this Convention by ask ing leave of absence, having been here every- day, except one, during the session. I now ask this leave on ac count of sickness: -' Leave was gramt. CREDITING FINES TO POOR FUND. Mr. LEACH, from the committee on finance and taxation, submitted the following report: The committee on finance and taxation, to whom were referred sundry petitions, praying that the Constitution be so amended that fines shall be credited to the poor fund, respectfully report that: they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me:to report, the same back without recommenfdation and ask to be: discharged from the further consideration of the subject. D. C. LEACH, Chairrman. The report was accepted, and the committee discharged. The petitions were laid on the table. FINANCE AND TAXATION. Mr. LEACH, from the, same comiittee, also submitted the following report: the committee on finance and taxation, to whom were referred sundry resolutions of inquiry, respectfully report that theh.ave had the same.under consideration, and have di.rected me to report the same back without recommendation, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. .. D. C. LEACH, Chtairman. The report was accepted, and the committee discharged. The resolutions were laid on the table. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Mr. NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, submitted the following report:: The committee on arrangement and phraseology, to whom was referred the article entitled "Judicial Department," respectfully' report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to, re~ port the same back to the Convention, with the accompanying amendments,.recommending that the amendments be concurred - in, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. - T. NINDE, Chairman. The report was accepted, and the committee discharged. The article was laid on the table for one day, and ordered to be printed in the journal.: The article is as follows, the amendments made by the committee on arrangement and phraseology being ineluded within brackets: ARTICLE. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. SECTION 1. The judicial-power shall be vested in a Supreme Court, in circuit courts, probate courts, justices of the peace, and in such other courts and tribunals as shall be authorized by law. SECTION 2. The Supreme Court is continued subject to the provisions orf this article. The Legislature shall provide for the election of one additional judge, so that the court shall consist ot five members, and for a classification of the judges, so that one shall go out of office every two- years. The judge having the shortest [time] to serve, shall be Chief Justice during.the remainder of his term of office. The term of office of a judge of the Supreme Court shall- be ten years. SECTioN 3. The Siupreme court shall have a general superintending control over all other courts and tribunals, and also such appellate jurisdiction as shall be provided by law; and to that end, may'issue writs of error, certiorari, mandamus, procedbndo, prohibition, and all other appropriate writs and process. It shall also have original jurisdiction in cases of mandamus, habeas corpus proceeding in the nature of quo warrant, and proceedings'by scire-facias to vacate letterspatent.:It shall have such: jurisdiction of questions reserved as -shall'be provided by law. Its jurisdiction in all cases not embraced in this article, shall be appellate only. SEvCTION 4. There shall be held at least four terms of the Supreme Court annually, o ne in each oif the four judicial districts of theo Lower Peninsula of the State, at' such times and places as'shall be provided by law.''. SECTIoN 5.; The Supreme Court shall by general rules, establish, modify and amend its practice, and may also make all rules that may be necessary for the exercise' ot its app'ellate jurisdiction. It may appoint its own clerks and a reporter of its decisions. A concurrence of three judges of said'court shall be necessary to:a final decision. SECTION 6. The State shall be divided into: five judicial districts, four ofwhich shall consist of contiguous territory in the Lower Peninsula;.the fifth shall embrace the Upper Peninsula- and such portions. of the Lower contiguffous thereto, as shall be designated. Each judicial district shall be subdivided into circuits of at least two in number.- In each circuit,- there shall be elected.by the electors thereof, one circuit judge,- who' shall be a resident of the judicial district in which: such circuit is formed, hall hold shal ild:his otfice for the-term of eight years. It shall be the duty of all the circuit judges to meet at least once in two years, to establish uniform rules of practice in the circuit courts, and to modify the same. SECTION 7. The Legislature may provide for [the holding of].law terms in the several judicial districts by the judges thereof, with whom may be associated a judge of\the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction and powers at such law terms shall be such as may be granted by law. The Legislature may prcvide for holding a term or terms of the circuit court by a judge of the Supreme Court. SECTION 8. A circuit court shall be held at least twice in each year, in every county organized for judicial purposes, and at least three times in each year in counties contain nlug ten thousand inhabitants. The judges of the circuit courts in each judicial district, shall hold the terms thereof either within the circuit for which they are elected, or alter. nately within the judicial district, as they may elect, or as may be provided by law for either or all of such judicial districts. SECTION 9. The circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction in all matters civil and criminal, not excepted in this Constitution and not prohibited by law; and such appel. late jurisdiction from all inferior courts and tribunals as shall be provided by law, and upervisory control of the same. They shall also have power to issue writs of habeas core pus, mandamus,- injunction, quo warranto, certiorari, and other writs necessary to carry into eflect their orders, judgments and decrees, and give them general control over inferior courts and tribunals within their re spective jurisdictions. SECTION 10. The Supreme, circuit and pro bate courts, shall be courts of record, and shall each have a common seal. * SECTION 11. The respective circuit courts held in each county, shall appoint one or more persons residing therein, who shall be vested with such judicial and ministerial powers as shall be prescribed by law. - SECTION 12. Whenever a judge shall remove beyond the limits of the district in which he was elected, his office shall become vacant; and whenever a justice of the peace removes trom the township in which hejwas elected, or be placed without the limits -thereof byta change of boundaries, he shall be deemed to have vacated his office. mECTIr0 13. Whenever a vacancy occurs in , *x C l d l the office ofjudge of the Supreme, circuit or probate courts, it shall be filled by appointment of the Governor, which appointment shall continue until a successor to fill such vacancy is elected and qualified. When elected, such successor shall hold his office for the residue of the unexpired term. gECTION 14. The clerk of each county organized for judicial purposes, shall be clerk of the circuit court of such county. The judges of the circuit courts'within their respective jurisdictions, may fill vacancies in the office of county clerk and prosecuting attorney. SECTION 15. Each bf the circuit and Supreme Court judges shall receive a salary payable quarterly. They shall be ineligible to any other than a judicial office, during their continuance therein. All votes given for suchjudge, for any office other than judicial, given either by the Legislature or the people, shall be void. SECTION 16. In each organized county there shall be a court of probate. It shall have such probate jurisdiction, powers and duties as shall be prescribed by law. Other jurisdiction, civil and criminal, may also be conferred on any one or more courts of probate. Judges of probate shall hold their offices for a term of four years, and shall be elected by the electors of their respective counties or districts, as shall be provided by law. SECTION 17. There shall be not exceeding four justices of the peace in each organized township, who shall be elected by the electors of the township, and shall hold their office for four years, and until their successors are elected and qualified. A-justice elected to fill a vacancy, shall hold his office for the residue of the unexpired term. The Legislature may increase the number of justices in cities. SECTION 18. Justices of the peace shall have such civil and criminal jurisdiction, and perform such duties as shall be prescribed by law. -SECTION 19. The style of all process shall be, "In the name of the people of the State of Michigan." -
. ALEXANDER was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. Mr. W. A SmTH, what excuse have you to rendel for absenting yourself from the Convention without its leave? Mr. W. A. SMITIH. I tender my t thanks to the Convention for the very high compliment it has paid me in showing, by sending for me, that my E presence here is indispensable. The only excuse I have to make is that I have become so much attached to my colleague, (Mr. W. E. WARNER,) that I did not like to part with him, and as he wished to go to Jackson, I concluded to go with him. [Laughter.] Mr. MUSSEY. I move that the gen- tleman's excuse be accepted, and that he be permitted to take his seat. The motion was agreed to The PRESIDENT. Mr. WOODHOUSE, what excuse have you to render for absenting yourself from the Conven tion without its leave? Mr. WOODHOUSE. A desire to see nay family! [Laughter.] Mr. LOVETLL,. I move that the ex cuse be accepted, and that the gentle man be permitted to take his seat. The motion was agreed to. The Sergeant-at-Arms appeared at the bar, and announced Mr. GIDDINGS. Mr. CHAPIN. I move that the gen tleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GID DeNGS,) be permitted to come within the bar, and render his excuse. The motion was agreed to; and Mr. GIDDINGS came within the bar. The PRESIDENT. Mr. GIDDINGS, what excuse have you to render for ab senting yourself from the Convention without its leave? Mr. GIDDINGS. None. Mr. ALEXANDER. I move that the excuse of the gentleman be deemed satisfactory, and that he be permitted L to resume his seat. The motion was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. What is the further pleasure of the Convention? The Cpnvention having declined to re ceive the excuse of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, he cannot resume his seat without the permission of the Conven' t ion. l Mr. P. D. WARNER. I move that ) all further proceedings under the call be dispensed with. The motion was agreed to; there t being ayes 34, noes 27. ,Mr. FARiMER. I move that the s Convention do now adjourn. The motion was not agreed to; there being ayes 13, noes'45.: EDUCATION. The PRESIDENT. The business before the Convention'is the article entitled.',Education." The question is on the adoption of the article., Mr. McCLELLA'N,. Mr. President, the ninth section of this article now reads as follows: "The Legislature shall provide for the support and maintenance of an Agricultural College, for instruction in agriculture, and he natural sciences connected therewith." I am-not disposed to make the Agricultural College a permanent in3titution; and therefore I shall vote against the adoption of this article. The question on the, adoption of the article was taken by yeas and nays; and there were yeas 49, nays 22, as follows:. YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Case, 0hapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, HIuston, Kenney, Lovell, Luce, McConnell, Miller, Mussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Tyler, Utley, VanValkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Woodlouse, Wright and the President —49. NAYs-Messrs. Brown, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Giddings, Hixson, Lawrence, Leach, McClelland, Morton, Murray, Norris, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Sawyer, Shearer, W. A. Smith, Stockwell, W. E. Warner,'Winans, and Yeomans2- -- Mr. LUCE, (when his- name was called,) said: It is not usual with me to explain my votes; but I will say that, while the ninth section of this article is very objectionable to me, I having opposed it unsuccessfully in committee of the whole, yet, believing that the artiele generally is about as good as we can get, I vote "aye." Mr. LEACH, (When the call of the roll had been concluded,) said:. Mr. President, on this question I have voted in the affirmative; but as the article has not been adopted, I now change my vote to "no," for the purpose of moving hereafter a reconsideratior. The PRESIDENT. A majority of the members elect not having voted in favor thereof, the article entitled "Edu cation" is not adopted. Mr. ALEXANDER. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and the Convention (at six o'clock p. m.) ad journed. SIXTY-FIFTH- DAY. MONDAY, August 12, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mr. POTTER. The roll was called, and a quorum of members answered to their names. ta a] no PETITION. Mr. BROWN presented the petition 0 c I t t i s Monday, 761 August 12, 1867. DEBATES A ND PROCEEDINGS. 765' of Rev. Isaac French, Samuel McKifney, John Harris, and one hundred and thirty-two other men and women, citizens of the township of California, Branch county, Michigan, praying that the three following important recognitions be incorporated in the Constitution: First. That God is the source of all power and authority. Second. That the Lord Jesus Christ, the Mediator, is the rightful ruler of nations and States. Third. That the will of God, as reyealed in the Scriptures, is the supreme law of nations and States. The petition was referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. Mr. NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, submitted the following report: The committee on arrangement and phraseology, to whom was referred Article -, entitled "Miscellaneous Provisions," respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report the same back witbliome corrections, recommending that the same be concurrrd in, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration ot the subject. T. NINDE, (,Iairman. The report was accepted, and the committee discharged. The article was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed at large in the journal. It is as follows, the amendments made by the committee being included within brackets: SECTIoN 1. Members of the Legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnlyswear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of, according to the best of my ability." SECTION 2. Judicial and legislative proceedings shall be conducted, and the laws and public records promulgated and preserved in the English language. SECTION 3. The Legislature shall prohibit public officers receiving or having charge of public moneys, [from] using or employing the same in any manner for their private use or benefit, and shall provide that whenever such moneys are deposited with any person or corporation, the interest thereon shall be paid to the fund to which such moneys belong. SECTION 4. Private property shall not be taken for public use, or for private roads, [unless] the necessity for such taking, and the just compensation to be paid therefor, shall have first been ascertained and determined, and the compensation therefor paid or tendered in such manner as shall be prescribed by law. Whenever private property shall'be taken for any purpose, without the limits of any incorporated city or village, except a public highway, the necessity fot the taking thereof; and the amount of compensation to be paid therefor, shall be first ascertained and determined by a jury of twelve freeholders, or three commissioners appointed by a court of record; and whenever such property shall be taken within the limits ot any incorporated city or village, the necessity for such taking, and the amount of compen sation to be paid therefor, shall be first ascertained and determined by a jury of twelve freeholders. SECTION 5. The Legislature may authorize the construction of dams across navigable streams, and the improvement of the navigation thereof; but such authority shall not interfere with the public right to the use of [any such stream] for any purpose of which it was susceptible before such dam was built or improvement made. ELECTIONS. Mr. LUCE. In order to facilitate business, I move that the Convention take from the table the article entitled "Elections," so that the amendments made in committee of the.whole may be concurred in. The motion was agreed to; and the Convention proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled "Elections." -. RESIDENCE REQUISITE FOR VOTERS. The PRESIDENT. The question is on concurring in the amendments reported by the committee of the whole to this article. The first amendment is to strike out in section one the word " ten" and insert in lieu thereof the'word thirty," so that the section will read: "In all elections, every person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in this State three months, and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote, thirty days next preceding an election, belonging to either of the tollowing clastes, shall be an elector and entitled to vote," etc. Mr. ALEXANDER. On this amendment I call for the yeas and nays. Mr. MORTON. I hope that the amendment made in committee of the whole will not prevail. In cities, it certainly would operate very unfavorably, and would deprive of the privilege of voting many men who have been residents for years, and are known to be voters. In cities, men are constantly removing their residences from one ward to another. Now, if we are going to sustain our registry law, there is no necessity for a provision of this kind; for under that law, there is no danger of anything like fraud, though we allow this limitation to stand ten days, instead of thirty days. If we adopt a requirement that a voter shall have resided in the township or ward thirty days next preceding ant election, some of the most intelligent voters of the State will be debarred from the exercise of the elective tranchise. If our registry law is good for anything, the requirement. of a ten days' residence iS a sufficient, protection against fraud. I hope that this amendment will not be adopted. Mr. VAN VATLKENBURGH. This section, as reported by the standing committee, corresponds with the provision of the present Constitution. -I have never heard any'complamnt with regard to the requirement of a ten days' residence. I think that this is sufficient. I hope that the amendment made in committee of the whole will not be adopted. .Mr. CHAPIN. I hope that the amendment made in committee of the whole will be concurred in. The object of increasing the time from ten to thirty days was to prevent the removal of voters from one ward to another just prior to an election, in order to carry doubtful wards. This can easily be done under a requirement of only ten days' residence; and the object of the amendment made in committee of the whole was to prevent a system of "pipe-laying" which has extensively prevailed in some of our cities and towns. It is a very easy matter to colonize a number of voters from one ward of a city to another that may be regarded as doubtful, and to keep them there for ten days. But if we require thirty days' residence, it is more difficult to carry out successfully such a proceeding. I shall vote for concurring in the amendment. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. Mr. President, I certainly hope that the amendment will not be concurred in. It would cause great inconvenience in our cities, and perhaps to come extent in our country districts. A greater number of persons change their residence during the spring and fall than at any other seasons of the year. Hence, a man is likely to remove from one town into another, just before the fall election, or just before the town meeting. Under this amendment, such a person could not vote unless he had resided in the-township thirty days preceding an election. I think that such a provision will be found to operate badly. The old rule prescribing ten days' residence has worked well. I hive not heard any objection to it. I think we had better continue it. Mr. SAWYER. The objection which has been raised in regard to the removal of persons from one township or ward to another in the spring-of the year, can have no force as against this provision requiring thirty days' residence prior to the day of election; because we have changed the time of holding the spring elections to March, the season at which persons usually remove being about the first of April. The object of this amendment is, as ias been stated, to prevent frauds growing out of colonizing voters to carry municipal elections. There are a great many places in the State where there have been complaints in regard to this evi Ten days is but a short timer during which to board men who are imported into the ward or tewnship for this purpose; and where there is a close contest, the reqliirement of so short a residence affords a facility for . ig J6(................. —':'f FY'.?...........:d...., violating the election laws. If we require thirty days' residence, it will be much more inconvenient to evade the law in this way. As we have changed the time of holding our local election from the spring of the year, I think this provision cannot materially interfere with the proper exercise of the elective franchise by any individual. The provision seems to me to be very essential The subject has been not a little canvassed among the people in my own part of the State; and they are, as a general rule, in favor of requiring thirty days' residence or more. Mir. CONGER. Mr. President, I think that the thirty days' rule would deprive more voters of their right to vote —at thl spring election than could be imported, into any town under the ten days' rule. In all the lumbering districts, the men come out of the woods prior to the first of -March, just at' the breaking up of the season; and almost invariably a large portion of these'men change their residences about that time. Every man familiar with the lumbering region knows that the first of March is the time when men, having spent their winter in the woods, hinake their arrangements for their summer's work. It seems to me that the little temporary danger of affecting the result in some wards or townships by colonizing voters, is not a sufficient reason for changing our whole system. It is true that such thing6 may occur; but men who will colonize for ten days will colonize for thirty days. Mr. SAWYER. Do men lose their residence when they go up into the woods to lumber? Mir. -CONGER. They do not; but large numbers of lumbermen, working in the woods during the winter, make, just before the opening of spring, their arrangements for work during the summer. And as soon as the ice-breaks up, and before the season for running logs or for commencing mill operations, a great number of these men change their residences. With our registration law, as the gentleman from M]onroe (Mr. MoRTos) has said,-it is almost impossible for men to commit frauds by colonizing voters, without detection. I have seen no inconvenience under our present system, and I would prefer the ten days'l rule, rather than require a resi dence of thirty days, or even twenty days. Mr. McCLELLAND. Mr. Presi dent, I suppose that there is, in all.prob ability no place in the State where a system of colonization, if practiced at all, can be carried on with more ease and facilty than in the city of Detroit; yet since the registration law has been in operation, I have never heard lany complaints -in regard to this matter; and another gentleman from that, city who is perfectly familiar with-poltical matters there, informs me that he has not known a solitary instance of the kind since the registration law has been enforced. I fully concur in- the remarks of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CosGER,) on this subject. As the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) has said, the provision ini the Constitntion of 1850, requiring a residence of only ten days, has worked well The people have become accustomed to it; and I have not heard a single complaint against it. Mr. WITHUY. Mr. President, I hope that the section as reported by standing committee will be sustained, and that- we shall not require a longer residence than- ten days in the township or ward. It seems to me that this is all that we ought to require. In our cities, there are in the spring numerous removals from one ward to another; and if we require a residence of thirty days prior to an election, many persons thus removing will be deprived of the privilege of voting. The evil which will ebe experienced in this way will, in my opinion, be- great er than any evil which can re sult from the importation of voters. I hope that the amendment reported from the committee of the whole will be rejected. Mr. GIDDINGS.- I desire to ask the gentleman from Kent, (Mr WITHEY,) whether these changes of residence are made in the month of February? It must be borne in mind that our elections are to be held "in March. This is so early in the year that I think very few changes of resi dence are made- before that'time... It seems to me that a requirement of only ten days' residence is not enough. The proposition of the! gentleman from Branch, proposing twenty days' -resi dence, was, I think, a fair proppostion,, and one upon which I believe we could all agree., Mr. PURCELL. Mr. President, so far as regards the city of Detroit, I am perfectly satisfied that' thiere is not the shadow of a possibility of any fraud whatever being practiced under our present law. The' board 0of registra tion are required', when they'meet, to register the names of all persons re moving. When this- has been done, they are also required, under' the same law, to meet at the City Hall and com pare notes, making memoranda, of these'removals, these memoranda being referred to on the day of election. Thus there is no possibility of iany frauds being committed under the present law in the city..'of Detroit.- I do not know what the law is in relation to other cities. The PRESIDENT. On concurring in-thitamendment, the yeas and nays have been demanded by the gentleman from Befrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER.) The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were yeas 23, nays 50, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Bills, Blackman, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Duncombe, Farmer, Leacll, McConnell, Musgrave, Sawyer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Thompson, Tyler, Walker, P. D. Warner, White, Winsor, Woodhouse, and'the President-23. NAYs-Messrs. Andrus, Barber, Bradley, Brown, Case, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Divine, Duncan, Elliott, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, Henderson, Hixson, Holmes, Holt, Huston, Kenney, Lawrence, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, Miles, Miller, Morton, Murray, Mussey, Ninde, Norris, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Shearer, T. G. Smith, W. A. Smith, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, W. E. Warner, M.: C. Watkins, Willard, Winans, -Withey Williams, Wright, and_Yeomans-50. Mr. LOVELL, (.when his name was called,) said: I desire to say, in explanation of py vote, that, in committee of the whole, I supported this amendment, with the idea that our friends who were opposed - to railroad- measures demanded it as a security against railroad taxes being voted by colonized voters. I thought it was also desired by some gentlemen as a security that the Indians should not be colonized to elect supervisors, etc. But I observe that the members who in committee of the whole were, on these grounds, strongest in favor of the :amendment, are to-day voting against it. I haye myself no personal interest in this matter, and am inclinied to vote in- the same way. Another reason why I-am disposed to vote against the amendment is that as I conceive, there is considerable force in the argument of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) that by requiring a residence of thirty days, a large portion of our people may be disfranchised. When this question was considered in committee of the whole, that view of the question was not presented. -I therefore vote "no." The result of the vote was announced as ~bov'e Stated. SUFFRUAGE FOR WOMEN. The PRESIDENT. The next amendment reported from the committee of the'whole, -is to strike out in section one, the word "male" before the word " citizen" so that the-first class of votees shall be, "-every citizen of the United States." Mr. FARVRMER. On this amendment -I call for, the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. COOLIDGE. Mr. President, CONS".UITUTION A T, CONVLR,,WTION - Monday - 766 0 1 DEuBATES AND PROCEEDITINGS. when this amendment was adopted i:n' committee of the whole, I had nothing to say on the subject; nor do I propose this morning to occupy more than a few moments. The character and number of the petitions on this subject which have been sent to this body, demand, I apprehend, some — considera tion at our hands; and I. should deem -it impropertoallo w the m,atter-to pass without saying a wdord tort: min explanation of the reasons which will govern my vote on the question. Mr. President, I shall vote against the amendment made in committee of the whole. I am not in favor at this time of inserting in ou3 Constitution a provision by which women over the age of twenty-one years shall be entitled to vote in this- State. That, so far as intelligence and morality are concerned, they are ascapable of voting as the men, I do not for one moment doubt. Upon that point I have nothing to say. But, sir, in the first place, I am opposed to making this serious change in the Constitution on this subject,: unless the women of the State demand or wish it. So far as regards the petitions on this subject, they furnish, it seems to me, conclusive evidence that the women of this State wish for no such privilege at our hands. There must be in this State somewhere between one hundred and twenty-five and one hundred and fifty thousand women, over the age of twenty-one years, who would be entitled to vote, were this amendment adopted. The number of petitions sent to this Convention by women is so exceedingly small that to me it seems perfectly evident that the women of our State do not wish any such privilege. This is a question which is well understood throughout the State. It has been for a long time agitated in this and other States, in newspapers, periodicals and public lectures, as well as in private conversation. Yet I have no idea that one woman out of twenty in this State desires to exercise the right of suffrage. Furthermore, sir, I believe, from such evidence as I have before me, that if this provision for the extension of suffrage should be made, not one woman put of twenty would go to the polls and vote. This is what the women almost uniformly tell me; and the statements I have thus heard on this subject correspond with the inferences which I would naturally draw from the, petitions which have been sent here. In the State of New Jersey women were for a number of years entitled by law to exercise the elective franchise; yet, ~according to the information which I have received from reliable sources, women did not vote in one c ase out -of fifty. While I re sided -in the Lower Province of Canada, where a property qualification - was required for the exercise of the right of suffrage, women possessing the prescribed amount of property could , legally vote. Yet, during the six years I resided there, I never saw, I believe, more than one woman vote; and in that case there was a very heated election. In the next place, there is, in my es timation, no necessity for this pro; posed extension of suffrage. As a gen eral rule, the result of the election would not be at all changed if the women should vote. There is in no slight sense a unity resulting from the marriage contract; and there generally is, and ordinarily must be, an agreement upon political matters between the-husband and the wife. I admit that there are exceptions; but as a general-rule this is so. Hence there is no reason toi suppose-that at any election:the result would be different, if women were allowed to vote, from what it would be without their votes. I cannot conceive that it would make any difference in -one case out of a thousand. Besides, sir, there is, in my estimation, some danger to be apprehended from this proposed extension of the elective franchise. I take-it for granted from what I have seen and what I have heard, that — if a provision of this kind were made, a certain class of women throughout this State would go to the polls and vote; and their influence, so far as it might be exerted, would be, I am inclined to think, not at all beneficiaL I do not believe that women of standing and intelligence would go to the polls and vote. I doe believe that in our cities and large towns, there is another class of women who would vote; and I am not very much in favor of changing our fundamental law for their benefit. I understand the -arguments which are presented by ladies of intelligence and respectability who have spoken and written, and petitioned on this subject. I have a high respect for women of that class; but I cannot agree with their conclusions. I am opposed to adopting this-amendment, although we have been most respectfully asked to do it.- One reason, as-I have already stated, is that the women of our State, as a body, have not asked us to grant them this privilege, and this too, at the very time-when the question-is being agitated all through the State in newspapers, in pamphlets and in public discussion. In the second. place, I am opposed to this provision because I believe there can be no plea of necessity-for it, as it would not, except in very rare cases, change the result of any election. In L the third place, I believe that, so far as the influence of women would be felt at our elections, it would be the influ ence of a certain class of women whose influence would not be beneficial. A greater and more serious objection, in my mind, to this change, is, that I think it would operate unfavorably up on the social condition of society. I-will not dwell upon this consideration at,- all. But if women should get into the habit of going. to our elections and thena-ttend ing, as they must or ought to do, our pri nary meetings and conventions,. I am disposed to- think that a serious blow would be inflicted upon our social con dition. In this view, I regarcthis proposed change of our Constitution as one that might lead to disastrous consequences. There is an appropriate position in society for women. Every ,woman who understands her true mission knows this, and knows it- just as well as we do. In making.his -statement, I do not degrade woman- a at all; I exalt her. I would not do anything, either in framing our organic law or otherwise,-to induce woman to step aside from those high and appropriate callings forwhich Godhas designed her. Mr. FARMER. I would like to ask the gentleman one question. He speaks of the position for which "God designed" woman. Now, I ask him whether Gocl made man a voter? Mr. COOLIDGE. No, sir; nor woman either. But, sir, what I say is that God has placed woman in a position where she has appropriate and important duties to perform, and I am in favor of permitting her to occupy tie place which she is occupying, and which I think she still wishes to occupy. Mr. DANIELLS. I would -like to ask the gentleman one question. He says that woman has her appropriate position, and that we should not interfere with it by legislation. Now, I ask the gentleman whether that is not the very argument which was always used-in favor of keeping men in slavery-that the Africans had their natural position, and it was to be slaves? Mr. COOLIDGE. Some foolish men may have used-that argument; I never. did. [Laughter.] Now, sir, I wish to put a question to the gentleman from Clintonr (Mr. DANIELLS. ) I would like to know whether he would change the position of woman, so that the husband should rock the cradle and attend to the child, while the woman should discharge the rougher duties now performed by man? Mr. DANIELLS. Iwill answer that question by asking another: does the husband have to stay at home and rock the cradle, while the woman goes i August 12, 1867. 767 v 76:OSIUTOA COETIN Mod to church to worship her Maker? This argument that a woman's maternal duties should rob her of the rights of humanity, seems to me the weakest possible argument, and satisfies me that the proposition which it is used to support cannot be true. Another argument which the gentleman uses is that, if women vote, it will derange society and create discord. Why, sir, that is the very argument which was used when we proposed to let woman have the right to her own property after marriage. It was said that it would create social discord and family jars. But the evils which were foretold have not appeared. We have lived under a Constitution giving woman the right to her own property after marriage; and we have not experienced any bad consequences from this principle. Mr. MORTON. I would like to ask the gentleman from Clinton (Mr. DANIELLS,) a question. I know he will not object, as he interrupted me the other day. If husband and wife are one, would the gentleman allow one person to have two votes? [Laugh ter.] Mr. DANIELLS. I would not have man and wife one in politics, any more than they are now one as to property. I would have them recognized as pos sessing certain rights, separately and individually. I would -not have the man vote for the woman; because, sir, I assert here most positively, that she does not enjoy equal rights when man has the power to make all the laws. Men may talk as they like about equality; but in point of fact, whenever they have the chance, they cut off the fat slices, and lay them on their own plates. [Laughter.] The advantages of society axe at present with the men; at least that is my conviction. Mr. COOLIDGE. My friend from Cl1nton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) does not un derstand me, and I fear he will not. Mr. DANIELLS. I will try. Mr. COOLIDGE. Now, sir, it is not to be denied that woman exercises over man in society an influence which is desirable and powerful. We all feel it. I have noticed that, whenever three or four, or half a dozen ladies have been visiting this Convention, my friend from Clinton has always been very courteous and attentive toward them. Mr. D)ANIELLS. I hope I shall al ways be a friend of the oppressed. [Laughter.] Mr. COOLIDGE. Mr. President, I do not hold to any such doctrine as that women in this State are "op pressed." They themselves do not be lieve it, and I do not believe it. The cry that women are "oppressed" in this State has no weight -with me. I do not believe that such is the fact. Mr. DANIELLS. Does the gentleman believe that, in the present condition of society, woman receives as much compensation for her labor, according to its value, as man receives for his labor? Mr. COOLIDGE. No, sir, I do not believe it. If that constitutes oppression, then woman is oppressed. Mr. DANIELLS. Is it not oppression when any class of persons are deprived of a part of the money that they earn? MIr. COOLIDGE. To say that a young man under twenty-one years of age is oppressed and does not have his just rights, is not proper language, and has no weight with me. The right to vote is a mere matter of State policy. It is not one of those "inalienable rights" of which we sometimes speak. It is, in my estimation, a mere matter of State policy-nothing else. Now, sir, let me state what I meant when referring to the social influence exercised by women. God designs that there shall be an influence exer cised by this class-a desirable influ ence, and one which, though silent, is very powerful. It smoothes the rougher features of man. But for this refining influence, I do not know what men would become; and sir, I have observed, not only in this community, but in other communities, that wherever women have entered into those employments which are ordinarily considered appro priate for men, they have in just the same proportion lost — their influence over man. Now, I have no doubt that the effects of a change in our policy, allowing women to vote-bringing them ito our elections, to participate in our political discussions and con tests-wouldcbe disastrous with regard to the social influence of the female sex. The PRESIDENT. The ten min utes of the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. COOLIDGE) have expired. Mr. GIDDINGS. Mr. President, the remarks which have been made by the gentleman who has just taken his seat, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) satisfy me that considerable interest is felt in this sub ject. When I came here this morning, I did not expect to say a word on this question, though I have thought some what about it, chiefly since I first came to the Convention. I know that my friend from Berrien is somewhat exci ted and alarmed over the conduct of my friend from Clinton, (Hr. DANIELLS,) because he gives especial attention to the ladies when they visit the Conven tion; and I suppose that I may be charged to some extent with the same offense. - But, sir, I do not stand here as the particular champion of ladies' rights. I stand here as the champion of right. At least that is the position I mean to occupy, and trust I always shall. I acknowledge the influence of woman upon myself. I came from a State, of whose women the poet said "And when you dream of woman and her love, Her truth, her tenderness, her gentle power; The maiden listening in the moonlight grove; The mother smiling in her intant's bower; Forms, features, worshiped while we breathe or.nove, Be, by some spirit of your dreaming hour, Borne, like Loretta's chapel, through the air To the green land I sing; then wake, you'll find them there." I am glad that, in reference to the rights of women, the State of Michigan stands high above most of the States of this Union. I am glad that in this State the law does not sanction the doctrine that the husband and wife are one, and the man is the one. [Laughter.] I am glad that the State of Michigan has put herself high above many of those lingering ideas. of a barbarous age, which have always been to me exceedingly odious. I have seen the rights of women too much trampled upon, and I am glad that the laws of our Statehave- placed woman, comparatively speaking, in the proper position. The time has-gone by when, if a wife died, the husband stepped into her estate and held it as a tenant by courtesy. The time has come when the wife has the right to own personal property and real estate, independent of her husband. Not only that, but you put obligations upon her. It has been determined in this State that a woman may carry on a boarding-house, her husband living with her, and she being liable individually for the debts which she contracts. In this State, woman stands in a different position from that which she occupies in any other State of the Union. We have made progress, and I want to see this Convention take one step further. I do not expect that this proposition to strike out the word "male" will prevail to-day, although I shall cheer fully and cordially vote for it. Yet I have no fears on this subject. The time is at hand when this word will be stricken out of our Constitution, though Kansas and probably Wiscon sin will be, in this respect, ahead of the State of Michigan. I am sorry for this; for I think we have kept in ad vance in many things. Upon this question there have been expressions of public opinion which should not, I think, be disregarded. We have received many petitions on this subject; and I have regard to petitions more than to my own views. It is said than only a few women have asked for the right of suffrage. I do not wonder at this. Women generally have been educated in the belief that they caunot be useful as voters. But 768 CONSTITUTION CON VIENTION., -Monday, 'I August 12, 1867. DEBATES AD roaEEDIGS.' 769 in determining this question, we are to consider the strong and I think un answerable reasons upon which the claim for woman suffrage rests. The,claim of suffrage without regard to sex is based, in the first place, on the fundamental principle that govern ments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.. No person undertakes to deny that woman is a human being, that she ought to stand substantially, upon the same basis as man. Every one admits as to men, that their consent should be given to the laws by which they are governed. I do not speak of children-those be low twenty-one years of age, because I take it that the elective franchise is based on intelligence. When a person, male or female, attains the age of twenty-one years, and is sane, is compos mentis, that person is presumed to possess ordinary intelligence, and to be capable of acting independently in the affairs of life. Our government differs essentially from other governments. Gentlemen say that the women do not ask this privilege." I base the exercise of suffrage upon higher, nobler ground than that of "privilege." I regard it as a right. While, under the government of England, the elective franchise may be asked as a privilege, here it may be claimed as a right. The second proposition on which this claim is based, is that, as a general rule, there cannot justly be taxation without representation; and it cannot be truly said that there is representation, without the voice of the person represented. "But," says one, "women are represented by their husbands, fathers and brothers." Suppose that a woman has neither husband, father, nor brother. Is that a representation of me which is not exercised through my volition? One who represents me is supposed to act according to my voli+tion. Can a man chosen by the votes of others be supposed to represent my will? The principle lying at the foundation of our governmen-not of all governments, but of a government of the people-is that whenever there is taxation, there should be representation of the party taxed. Aother ground on which this right is claimed for woman, is that all persons, having the right to life, liberty and property, are, as a general rule, entitled, as an incident of that right, to a voice in making the laws by which these rights may be secured and maintained. Admitting that a person has the right to/life, liberty and property, why shall some one else step in and make all the laws by which the life, liberty and property of that person are affected? Under the law as it formerly existed in this State, and as it still Vol. 2 —No. 97. exists in some of the States of this Union, the personal property belonging to a woman became her husband's by obtaining possession thereof, the'mo ment she was married. Where was her enjoyment of the right of property? It vanished with her marriage. A further proposition on which the claim for suffrage without regard to sex is based, is this: woman's intelligence having fitted her for the exercise of the elective franchise in at least an equal degree with man, her physical weak ness, if any, furnishes a strong reason for the exercise of this additional right, in order to secure and protect her against the strong. Laws are needed for the protection of the weak, not of the strong. If it be true that woman is ! the weaker vessel," she should have power to protect her rights and protect herself against wrong, through the instrumentality of law. Again, the admitted principle that a woman is, like man, entitled to herself, her property and earnings, is without effect, unless she has the power of enforcing the principle by legislation, through law-makers of her own selection; and without this power her rights become precarious and uncertain, and dependent upon the volition of others. Of what avail is this abstract right to herself, her property and her earnings, if she cannot protect and enforce this right through the instrumentality of law? Again, it is claimed, with a great deal of force, that the moral element to be secured by the enfranchisement of woman is already needed in the politics of the State. I have not time to enlarge upon these propositions. I hasten on and state another: that, on any basis on which human rights can be maintained at all in connection with society, there never can be any difference of rights founded on physical differences. Without dwelling upon this idea, I will state one additional proposition; all persons, under our form of government, occupying the same position as to intelligence, loyalty and allegiance are, by the theory-of our government, entitled to all the rights which are conferred upon, or belong to any, with every means of enforcing the same. It seems to me there is considerable force in these propositions. They are entitled to consideration, and should not be passed over lightly. It is said that the pebitioners in favor of the exercise of suffrage by women number only a little over five thousand. But among these petitioners are members of Congress, judges and other men occupying resposible and influential positions, men who thoroughly understand this question, and who, in signing these petitions, have not, I think, been actu ated by mere courtesy to the ladies. The objections raised by the oppo nents of equal suffrage are, it seems to me, puerile. It is said that woman cannot go to the polls without being contaminated. It is not true. The meanest man on God's earth would stand aside when a lady stepped up to the polls. If you think there is any danger, do as some woman suggested employ eunuchs to attend them to the polls. [Laughter.] No scoffs or sneers will debar me from saying what I think on this subject. When any man fears that his wife may attain a higher standard, intellectually or otherwise, than himself, I begin to doubt lis manhood, not her ability. Many of the objections against women as voters are founded upon considerations of assumed propriety and fitness. It is alleged that fitness and propriety would be violated, if women should go'to the polls to vote. I- ask, who is a:better judge of fitness and propriety than woman herself? Such objections -are - mere scarecrows. It is said the ladies do not want to exercise the elective franchise. I understand perfectly well how the gentiemen are in the habit of getting their information as to the wishes of the ladies on this subject. A man says to a woman, "You do not want to put on breeches and go to the polls among a lot of roughs?" "No," she will reply, " I really should not like to do that; I should like to have a vote on some great questions, though I would not like to go to the polls under such circumstances." Another man says, "The ladies would not vote even if permitted to do so." Is that any of his business? Imay not go to the polls The PRESIDENT. The time of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GrDDIGS,) has expired. Mr. DANIELLS. I move that the gentleman from Kalamazoo have leave to proceed. The motion was agreed to. Mr. GIDDINGS. I have but a few words more to say; I desire to allude to the difficulties, it is said, will attend the exercise of the right of suffrage by women. Now, sir, you and I, and other members of this Convention, could easily devise a method by which these difficulties could be removed. There is no possible necessity that the woman should cast her ballot in the same box with the man; there is no necessity that she should stand out in public and vote. All these difficulties are unworthy a moment's consideration as objections to the exercise of suffrage by woman. The great question of right underly'ig the subject is what we DEBATES AND PIROCEEDINGS.' 769 August 12, 1867. .1 77 (OSIUIALCNETO. M 7ond ought to consider, and that is unaffected by these little ridiculous objections. In discussing this question in conversation, I have inquired of gentlemen over and over again, What reason can you give me, other than notions of supposed fitness and proprietr, why a woman of proper age and intelligence should not be entitled to vote, as well as a man possessed of the same qualifications?" It is the intelligence, not the sex, of the voter that constitutes the essential qualification. A young man, on attaining the age of twenty-one years, if a citizen of this country, either native or adopted, and possessed of a sound mind, is permitted to vote. Can any man state any reason why a woman possessing similar' qualifications is not entitled to vote? I should like to hear what answer any man can give to this ques tion. I want all the light I can obtain on this subject. When any man says that suffrage is a question of privilege-a matter of expediency-I say that I doubt that. In view of our theory of government, that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the govern ed," and that wherever there is taxa tion there should be representation, it strikes me that the question of voting goes down deeper; that it is a right, a fundamental right. It is not for one half of the community to say to the othery "You shall not exercise the right," because they happen to have the power. I hope that we shall rise above any such spirit. I do not sup pose that this Convention will adopt this proposition, but I believe that it is right. I know that there is such a feeling among the people on this subject that we may safely send this question to them. As I said before, there are several questions which I very much prefer should go to the people. I do not say that I desire this question to be submitted to the ladies. I know the power which is exercised over them, and the influences which will affect their decision. Ridi cule is one of the severest. weapons in the world. Used on a lady, it is a terrible weapon. Hence I desire that this question shall be submitted to the voting population of the State. I do not wish to have the question left to the ladies exclusively, to. be decided by them under the derision and sneers of the other sex. In that way we should get no proper expression of their will. All I ask is that this question: shall be submitted to the people. If, on con sideration, we should conclude that the exercise of the elective franchise by women is improper, we can, when we go to the polls, vote against it. But let us at least speak on this subject at the polls. Mr. SHE'ARER. Mr. President, I am in favor of this amendment, striking out the word'-male" in defining the qualifications of electors. I am in favor of it on principle. In my younger days, I read the admirable and lofty oration of the immbrtal Adams on female education. I recollect that he uses language somewhat like this: "Too long has man suffered the female genius, like the unpolished diamond, to lie buried in its native rubbish. All that is needful is to raise it from its bed, knocking off the rough corners and polishing it, that it may shine in its native brilliancy." Now, sir, in the same spirit, I say, too long has man suffered female genius to occupy among us a degraded position. It is true that we have, as my friend from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) has re marked, made great advancement in protecting the rights of women in rela tion to property. But, sir, we ought to go further, and give to woman the same rights as are enjoyed by man in every respect; because, sir, not only are women a part of the human family, but they are the most temperate, the most industrious part of the human family, and, I would add, the most intel ligent part. Their susceptibilities and perceptions are more quick and keen. They perceive at a moment things which it will sometimes take a man a week to discover. They have a faculty for fath oming great as well as minute subjects. Now, sir, why should we in the State of Michigan be behind any other State in conferring upon women the high privilege of going up to the polls and assisting in the settlement of political questions? I think that the influence of woman in elections will be very beneficial. When the women of our State come up to the polls, it will im prove the manners of the men, and will tend to do away with much of the disorder and angry feeling often wit nessed in our elections. I am willing that all who possess the requisite intelligence should vote; and I consider that intelligence is gen erally on the side of the ladies. They may not be able to do the rougher kinds of out-door work, such as men do; but their intelligence, their thoughtfulness, their industry and their economy entitle them to stand on an equality with man in respect to po litical rights. It is woman that makes the impress on the mind of the child. All the great men that we have ever had have attributed their greatness to woman. To the mothers of our land we are indebted for all the advance ment that we have attained. They give us our early training; and, as gentlemen have often heard "'Tis education forms the common mind: Just as the twig is bent, the tree's inclined." Again sir, think how wonderful has been woman's work during the great rebellion. During the war just closed -a war which stands out in bold relief beyond all other wars- from the earliest history-woman has shown her patriotism and devotion by her attention to the war-worn veterans, lying on the couch of sickness and of death. How numerous have been the instances of woman's heroism during this war? Do we not know many cases where, in order to relieve our poor soldier lying on the battlefield, women have gone into the very midst of the conflict, where the balls were flying in every direction? Yet, sir, there are men who would undertake to deprive woman of the glorious privilege of the ballot-box. Sir, it is the ballot-box on which our government rests. The ballot-box in our government is the sacred depository of the people',s will. Why should any one attempt to deny to the heroic women of our land the privilege of assisting, through the ballot-box, in maintaining the fabric of our government? When we consider the important services rendered by women in all the relations of life-from the cradle to the grave-in the social circle and on She battle-field-why should any man in the State refuse to take a position in favor of placing this Commonwealth in advance of any other State in the Union, by granting woman the privil ege of the ballot? In the State of New Jersey, the wo men, by law, had a right to vote from 1776 to 1807. But, it seems, some in fluence prevailed to deprive woman there of this glorious privilege. Now, sir, if we, in the Constitution of Michi gan, take a step in advance, and give to woman the right of suffrage, our action will be applauded everywhere, and it will be one important means of assisting the ladies to obtain this right in other States. I hope that the amend ment will prevail. The PRESIDENT. With the con sent of the Convention, the Chair de sires to be absent during the remain der of the day. He will consider leave of absence granted to him, if there be no objection. With the permission of the Convention, he will call to the Chair the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LUGE.) Mr. LOVELL. Mr. President, I deem no apology necessary for submit ting a few remarks on this important question, though perhaps I might have forgone this pleasure, had not the gen tleman from Allegan (Mr. W;LLIAMS) broadly- in timrted the other day-nay, 1 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 770 Monday, '4 August 12, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 771 substantially asserted-that those who would vote here in favor of admitting women to the exercise of the right of suffrage, would do so as a joke, and not as a matter of honest belief. For one, I shall feel it a privilege to record my honest sentiments in favor of this amendment. Mr. WILLIAMS. I made no such statement. Mr. LOVELL. The gentleman will find, I think, when he turns to the record, that he said something like this: "If this is all a farce, then I have nothing to say." Mr. WILLIAMS. I did say that. Mr. LOVELL. Well, sir, it was not then, and it is not to-day, a farce. I shall vote for this amendment, because I honestly believe it to be right. I shall vote to admit woman to the privilege of the elective franchise, because I believe she has a right to the enjoyment of this privilege. When the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIi)GE,) says that the question who shall vote, is a matter of State policy, I say to him emphatically that it is not so. He may believe it; but I say, on that ground he cannot justify the authority of government. It was long since laid down as a fundamental principle that "all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Now, sir, how is this consent obtained? When have the women ever consented to the existing government? When have they ever declared, by a direct positive vote,that they would take no part in the government. If you say that a past generation has done this, I ask, by what right does a past generation bind the press ent generation? Our ancestors consented that kings should rule, and rule even without a parliament; but we did not consider that their action bound us. So long as we consented to it, it was right; but when we raised our protest against it, it was no longer right. The consent of the governed is necessary at all times, that a rightful and just government may exist. The gentleman from Berrien tells us that the women are already repre-. sented. Who represent them? By the last census there were in this State about one hundred and forty-five thousand pairs of people. In other'words there were twice that number of people, half of them niale and half female, living in the bonds of wedlock. It may, by a stretch of the imagination, be said that, as regards these, the men in their voting represent the women. But, sir, at the same time, there were nearly one hundred thousand unmarried men, and an equal number of unmarried women. Who votes for the unmarried women? Does my colleague (Mr. T. G. SMITH) do so? Does he, when he goes to the polls, vote for some unmarried woman? If so, for whom? By what right should he be privileged to vote for an unmarried woman? Has he shown a. higher appreciation of the sex, does he feel a nobler zeal for their welfare, than other men? It is not so. He may love and honor them; but I insist that the unmarried men do not represent the unmarried women. Nor do the married men represent these unmarried women. When a man leaves father and mother and cleaves unto his wife, he no longer votes for his sisters, even if he did so before he was married. Who votes for the widows? Who represents the large number of families in our State, of whom perhaps many gentlemen here would say they are without a head? The man of the family has gone to his account. Who represents the family at the polls? It is unrepresented. Mr. RAFTER. The gentleman might carry his question a little further, and ask, who votes for the minors? Mr. LOVELL. Mr. President, I lay it down as a principle, that every intelligent person of sound mind and discretion, has a right to say, at some time or other, whether he consents to the existing government, and has a right to a voice in that government. This is a right every one should have, when he arrives at a suitable age and proper discretion. The age of twentyone years has been fixed as the age at which the discretion is sufficiently ripe to entitle a person to exercise this privilege. If you choose to fix a lower age, very well; but you cannot honorably and honestly make a discrimination on the ground of sex, excluding all women without regard to age, unless they freely consent to it. We are told that the petitions which have come up here show that the women do not want to vote. I say that this statement is not correct. Five thousand women have said in explicit terms that they do desire to vote. Mr. T. G. SHITH. I wish to ask my colleague, (Mr. LOVELL,) whether the lady whom he represents is in favor of female suffrage? Mr. LOVELL.. My colleague desires to know whether my wife wishes to exercise the privilege of voting. This, sir, is a personal matter; but I have no objection to putting it on the the record. I will say that my wife does desire to vote; and if permitted, she will give as honest- and intelligent a vote as he who now addresses you. But, sir, we propose to constitute ourselves guardians of the women, and to say that their virtue is so weak that they cannot be trusted to go near the polls! Sir, did not Clara Barton do her work nobly in the army? No place where were found the soldiers of the Union, needing succor, was too repulsive, too loathsome, too thoroughly surrounded by vice, for the noble women of this land to penetrate. Go into your cities, and you will find women serving as city missionaries, and penetrating, in order to do good, the lowest and most degraded hovels. - On their errands of mercy, they are safe in the most degraded places; and they go there and do good continually. In heathen lands, you will find the ladies carrying the good news of peace to men, and proving themselves the most efficient workers among the degraded, the uncivilized and the unenlightened. If they can go into the haunts of degradation and vice, on their errands of mercy and love-if they can sacrifice themselves in this way, and be respected by the vilest of men-can they not go to the polls along with us and still escape contamination? Any man should blush to offer such an argument as a reason why women should not. vote. One gentleman inquires, "Would you have the man rock the cradle?" Now, sir, let me ask, is there in this hall a father who has not rocked the cradle, that his wife might go to church? And if woman can leave her home and go to church in the performance of her religious duties, may she not also, by some means, discharge her duty with reference to the government? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ten minutes of the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. LOVELL) have expired. Mr. GIDDINGS. I move that the gentleman be permitted to proceed. The motion was agreed to; there being ayes 31, noes 18. Mr. LOVELL. I feel deeply grateful to the Convention for this courtesy, and will endeavor to avoid trespassing unreasonably upon the patience of members. Although I feel earnestly on this subject, I had intended, when I rose, to simply state a few propositions; yet the interruptions to which I have been subjected have carried me off into an argument on the question. I was saying w hen my time expired, that the question had been raised whether the man should rock the cradle, that his-wife might go to vote. Sir, I think there can be no question that a man would do that; something less than man might refuse. Another argument which has been used on the other side is that, "God has placed woman in a high and holy position." I am glad to know that; but I would like to hear some gentlere'an define what is the divinely-ap i i 771, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. pointed mission of woman. In less enlightened times than the present, t women could be seen harnessed by the side of the mule, drawing the t plow. Did God mark that out as t -" woman's high and holy position"? It ] is but a very few years since woman unsphered herself, as some people sup- posed, by going upon the stage as a public orator; yet how many men in this free land of ours exert to-day a higher and holier influence on the country than Miss Anna E. Dickinson? Do we not know that crowds go to hear her addresses, and that those who hear go away with higher aspirations, nobler ideas of truth and duty, and firmer resolves in favor of virtue and the right? Do we not all know that crowds last winter went to hear in various cities and villages of this State, Miss Clara Barton's story of her army-work, and the incidents of army life. Who, in lis tening spell-bound to her eloquent words, did not feel that this woman was doing a high and holy work? Mr. Speaker, God has endowed wo man with faculties as exalted as ours. They may not in all respects run in the same channel; but who shall dare to set a bound to the noble influence that woman may exert? Woman's high and holy mission on earth is to do good where opportunity offers, just as much as it is man's mission. If a woman can speak to men the words of wisdom, and they will hear her, why should she not be heard? Is there any danger that women will be unsexed, if they go to the polls? No man here believes it. I say it is desirable that woman should go to the polls, because of the good influence she will there exert. I ask any gentle man here, who has ever been upon the stump discussing political questions, whether he has not felt a pleasure when the audience that he has addressed upon grave subjects of State or na tional concern, has been composed in part of ladies. I ask him whether, when addressing such an audience, he has not found that the ladies followed his argument with'as much discrimin ating judgment as was manifested by his male hearers. Now, sir, if women can hear political discussions, if they can wisely decide political questions, they are able to vote intelligently, and ought to be permitted to do so. I grant that women, in voting, may be perhaps less bound than men, by the shackles of party. I grant, sir, that we, as partisans, are often constrained to do things at which we secretly blush, and which we could not obtain tlie consent of woman to do. But this, with me, is no argument against allow -ing woman to vote. If she will always Rote more surely right than we, then, as a mere matter of policy, she ought to vote. , But, sir, I go back and stand upon the proposition that woman has a right to be represented in the government. I do not insist that this word " male," shall be stricken out irrevocably from the Constitution; but I do insist that this is a question which should be considered weightily and well. I do insist that we should to-day cast off all our old prejudices-not only ourprejudices of color and race, but our prejudices of sex. This may be a question which we should submit to the voice of the people. I believe in submitting to the people these questions with regard to great changes in governmental policy; but I will never consent, by my voice or my vote, to deny to woman the right of suffrage. We have been told t that, even if women should vote, there would be no change in the result of our elections; that the wife would vote with the husband, and ought to do so, lest the family peace might be disturbed. I am frank to say that I should not ex pect my wife to vote always with me. Graver and more delicate questions continually arise in the conduct of family affairs than this question of how we shall vote. Why, sir, we find our wives going forward in works of charity and benevolence, engaging in them with a zest and pursuing them with an ardor which we ourselves do not feel; yet we honor them for it Again, I undertake to say that nc question that can arise in politic can by any possibility be so delicate as are questions that arise in the family with reference to the proper government and training of children Yet we find that in the family relation the man and the wife, the father and mother, are able to agree, or i they cannot agree, they can agree to disagree; and they live in har * mony. I like much the remark o the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr GIDDINGS,) that this old idea that hus band and Wife are one is exploded.: desire to join my testimony with that of the gentleman from Kal amazoo on this point. When I was married, I felt that the two per sons joined in the bonds of wedlock were, so far as individual rights were concerned, just as much two person after the clergyman had pronounced the bans of marriage, as before. I be liege so still. I know not by what righ any man can claim Lhat the individual ity or the identity of his wife is merged ~ in his own, unless he is prepared to adopt the doctrine of the Koran, and say that woman is given to man for hi comfortand consolation here' below and that when she is done with thi life, her being expires. If this be true-if woman is made merely to minister to man's comfort and happiness-then I grant the position of gentlemen on the other side is correct. But if woman be indeed our equal and our peer (and I;- of course, am not asking that woman shall be anything higher than this; I utterly repudiate the -idea that places woman upon a pedestal to be worshiped)-if woman is the equal of man, and is to be so treated-if she has an immortal nature, if she has a mind and soul and heart, she is entitled to the freest range in the exercise of her faculties, and should judge for herself, as man judges for himself, what are the demands of duty upon her. No man, whatever may be the relation in which he stands to a woman, has a right to say to her, if she be of sound mind and of full age, "You shall do this," or "You shall not do this," on account of the superiority of the po sition whicli he oc-cupies. These are my views; and I am pre pared to follow. them out in my action here and elsewhere. I know indeed that this position may appear ultra; f but I also know that the tendency of the age is gradually but surely tending in this direction; and feeling that this f is a tendency in the right direction, I shall use my feeble influence to accel erate it, not to retard it.: I want woman to have an opPortunity, unrestricted by prejudice-certainly untrammeled by law-to find the proper field for her influence, and to exercise that influence with the same degree of freedom, the same unconstrained liberty with which man exercises his powers. Let the question with regard to the divinely-appointed position of woman be determined by God, not by man. We are not the vicegerents of God; we are not authorized to declare'His will. Does any man pretend that he is so inspired as to be able to pronounce the will of the Almighty? We may perhaps assume that we are the saints of the earth, and that to us God has delegated His kingdom; but events will prove the fallacy of that assumption. And, sir, though some of us may to day vote against this proposition, yet it will be a vote of which, a few years hence, we. shall not be proud. We may perhaps be able to say-that we voted honestly; but we shall also try to shelter ourselves under the excuse that'we voted ignorantly. Mr. CHTAPIN. Mr. Presidcent, I have no disposition to place myself for ward on this floor as the champion of the rights of woman; nor have I any disposition to oppose conferring upon the women of this State any Mand'ay, . 772 Augu 1, 1867. DEBATES AD ROC]EDING 773 rights which should properly and justly belong to them. I look upon this whole question as one purely practical; and if the majority of the women of this State had respectfully petitioned this body to confer upon them the right i of suffrage, I should regardthe question 2 in a very different light from that in whichInow viewit. I believe it is con- ceded that there are in the State of Michigan one hundred and fifty to one hundred and sixty thousand women who would be voters if we should strike from the Constitution the disqualifica-' tions on-account of sex. Out of this number we have received petitions from, I believe, only two thousand, or. twenty-five hundred, asking an extension to them of the elective franchise. M r. FARMER. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question? Mr. CHIAPIN. Yes, sir. Mr. FARMFR. Did not the gentleman vote to extend the elective fran-' chise without regard to race? Mr. CHAPIN. Yes, sir. Mr. FARMER. Were there any petitions, or, if any at all, any considerable number of petitions, asking us to grant the right of suffrage to the colored men of the State? Mr. CHAPIN. That is a very different question. That question has been discussed and agitated in this State for years past. It has been a question of party politics. It has en tered into the political discussions, not only of this State but of the nation. Mr. NORRIS. I would like to ask the gentleman whether Indian suffrage has been called for in this' State, and has been discussed? Mr. CHAPIN. I do not know that it has been particularly discussed. Still I do not apprehend that that has any special connection with this question. Mr. LOVELL. I should like to ask the gentleman a question. Mr. CHAPIN. I would very much like to oblige the gentleman; but I have only ten minutes in which to ex press my views on this subject, and I do not care to have my time entirely frittered away by answering questions which have no relevancy to the issue before us. Now, as I was about to remark, it being a fact that only one in every sixty or seventy of those who would be voters if this right sh6uld be extended without regard to sex, have asked for this privilege, it strikes me that the extensiofi of the right of suffrage to the women of the State, is a matter of at least very doubtful propriety. ~ I do not regard this as aquestion that is to be considered particularly as a smatter of abstract right; I regard it more as a'question of expediency. All these arguments of gentlemen here, viewing the question as an abstract one, urging the " inalienable right" -of women to vote, might with propriety have been urged when my friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) introduced his pifoposition that the young men of the State who had attained the age of eighteen years, should be permitted to vote. That proposition was presented here and was voted down. Yet it is, I believe, a fact which every gentlemen will admit, that a large number of young men of this State who- have attained the age of only eighteeni years, are sufficiently ma tured in intellect and well enough informed in regard to public affairs to be enabled to cast an intelligent vote upon any political question that may arise in this State. Yet this Conven tion saw fit to vote that proposition down by a pretty large majority and it was, I apprehend, rejected on this ground: that we must fix some where a line of demarcation; that we must fix somewhere a limit in regard to the exercise of this right; and tha it belongs to the sovereign power o the State to define who shall and who shall not be voters. It was under such Ea view of the question, I presume that this Convention declared by pretty decided vote that none but thos who have attained the age of twenty one years should-be permitted to execise the right of suffrage.. I apprehend that this whole questio with regard to who shall exercise th right of suffrage-whether women shall exercise it, whether Indians sha exercise it, whether negroes shall exe cise it-is a political question; an that it- is within the competency o those exercising or representing th sovereignty of the State, to fix th limit, and decide who shall be and wh shall not be permitted to vote; an there is, I conceive, no violation o abstract justice, no infringment of in alienable rights, when we decide tha one class shall vote, and that anothe class shall not vote. I apprehend tha the whole question is to be determine by the sovereign people of this Stat through their representatives, and tha it is, to a great extent, a question: expediency, a practical question, question of propriety, to be considere with regard to:the effect which an proposed extension of the right of su frage will have upon the interests o the commonwealth. -I do not propose to enter upon a argument with regard to the abstra right of women to vote. I propose t treat this question simply as a practic question; andmy view uponthis ma ter, so far as regards the vote that shall give here, will be governed l this essential fact: that we have ha from the women of this State no such expression, by way of petition, as calls upon us here to insert in the funda mental law a provision conferring upon the women of the State the right to vote. I suppose no man,would urge that we should confer the right of suffrlage upon any class of indiiduals - when it is doubtfulwhether they wouldl l exercise the right after it had been con ferred upon them. Sir, the petitions which have been presented furnish no assurance that any considerable por- tion, numerically considered, of the - women of this State would exercise the right of suffrage, if it were conferred ) upon them. So far as this question is presented y here, we have the right to assume that - only the fifteen hundred or two thous- and, or twenty-five hundred ladies who ; have signed petitions, — would exercise :this right of suffrage, if it were confer red upon them. We have no right to e suppose that any others would do so. This question has never hitherto been t agitated to any great extent in this f State. It is a question in regard to o which there has been no great amount h of investigation or discussion. We are, , to a great extent, uninformed upon the asubject, except so far as it is presented e in the petitions which have been laid r- before us. With regard to the views - in general of the large class of women to whom it is proposed to extend this n right, we are without information. eOnly one in sixty or seventy of the n women of this State have asked for this right. Under these circumstances, r it seems to me it would be highly imLd politic to extend the elective franchise f generally to all the women of the State, ewhen we have no sort of assurance e that they will exercise it, or that they 0 will consider it a desirable privilege to d go to the polls and vote. With these of views, Mr. President, I shall vote a- against the amendment reported from at the committee of the whole. er Mr. FARMER. Mr. President, time at will not permit me to go into a general ~cl argument on this question. I shall ;e, therefore content myself, in the main, at with stating propositions And generally of admitted facts, regarding facts which a are incapable of contradiction as being 3d the strongest species -of argument. ly We may theorize upon this question if-.without reaching a satisfactory result; of but when we come to apply to its solu tion generally-recognized principles, m we cannot, I think, fail to come to a ct correct conclusion. to We have been told that the question al who should have:the right to vote, is' ~t, a mere question of State policy. Sir, ,-I~'I will not argue against ethis position by for a moment. -I wil}-by no means d take the position that the right to vote s s t e .7 3 .-DEB-A-TES AND -p-ROC-E'FT-)INGS. Auust.12,1867. 0' 774 COTITUTIOAL Mond, is a natural right. We will treat this as a question of State policy, or of national policy if you please. But ] apprehend that the rights enunciated by our fathers were the rights of man lind, not the rights of a class, or o individuals-the rights of mankind in the broadest sense of the term. Then why should we make a distinction, and say that only a portion of our people shall have the full enjoyment of those rights, because they are of a particular race or sex? The more' than eloquent James Otis spoke but the truth when he said, " No good reason can be given in any coun try why every man of sound mind should not have his vote in the election of a representative. If a man has but little property to protect and defend yet his life and liberty are of some importance." I apprehend that when James Otis used that language, he used it in reference to mankind in a genera] sense, and did not intend it should be confined to a class. It is general in its terms, and I would apply it generally, not confining it to race or sex. Without going into the discussion of natural rights, I think no one will deny that those rights belong equally to both sexes. Now I hold that unless you can establish the fact of an inferiority, you have no moral right to discriminate, and disfranchise any particular class in the community. Any regulution which you establish, should be equal in its application, not dis criminating, but applying the same rules to all, without regard to sex or race. Now, sir, in saying that a person, before being allowed to vote, shall be twenty-one years of age, shall be of sound mind, we do not depart from this rule, because we apply the rule generally to all persons. The gentleman from - Monroe, (Mr. RAFTER,) is not correct when he assumes that there is no more injustice in depriving women of the right to vote than in withholding this right from minors. Mr. President, a minor can look forward to the time when he shall be able to exercise this right. So soon as he attains the proper age, he is allowed the privilege. But as to women, you exclude them without regard to age; you declare that they-shall never be allowed to exercise the right of suffrage, though they should reach the age of Methuselah. Hence, I say there is no just analogy between these two cases. Mr. Madison forcibly expresses the trute principle of our government, when he says, "it is derived from the great body of the people, not from an inconsiderable portion or favored class of it." If this position is the correct one, how will you justify the exclusion of one half of the people from the privileges f of the ballot? N ow; sir, as a question of policy, I ask is it correct policy thus to withhold - an essential political right from one f half the adu]lt population of our corm munity, they being admitted to be in no way inferior to those who exercise the privilege? Mr. President, I claim for humanity a perfect freedom of development; and r I insist that it is a fallacy for gentle men to argue here that there is such .freedom, so long as we exclude any large portion of our adult population from the privileges of the ballot; for I consider the ballot as one of the most powerful t instruments to be used in working out , freedom. It is a motive power in the hands of every person using it, to be applied as may best suit the purposes to be accomplished. I consider the ballot a great educator. It is not only an educator directly, but it is a means of inducing persons to educate them, selves to an intelligent understanding of our form of government, and the principles to be applied in administering it. Failing in legitimate argument to answer the demand for this equality of privilege, the opponents of the demand very commonly answer by a jest or a sneer, or an innuendo, and' talk largely of ",woman's proper sphere." Now, sir, I will ask, with all due deference to the members of this Convention, whether they propose to constitute themselves the judge and the jury to determine the proper sphere of woman. Has God, in His infinite wisdom, conferred upon the f male sex power to judge without ap peal.as to the proper sphere of woman? Shall we presume to say that it is not woman's proper sphere to assist in 3 such manner as she may determine in forming the laws that are'to govern her l along with the man? Sir, this is nothing more than an assumption ' that those who have the power ' shall deprive those who are pow erless) of the right to a voice in the enactment of the laws that are to govern both classes. L This assumption, I apprehend, comes ' from the same source as the "divine right of kings." It is founded only on * the strong arm or an overreaching strategy, and is supported by the same feeling-an unwillingness to part with power once obtained. Gentlemen may disclaim any such motive and may do * it with sincerity. I have no right to question their honesty of purpose. I extend to them the same charity of ' judgment that I claim for myself. I r believe woman should be allowed the ~ sam,e opportunities for development, the same means of impressing her will upon the laws of the land by which she is to be governed, as man enjoys; and in advocating this opinion, I claim the charity of all other men in judging of my motives, my honesty of purpose, and my sincerity. But, sir, honesty of purpose does not establish the right of the few to rule over the many-the.right of a part to exclude another part from par ticipation in that in which all have an equal interest. I have no doubt, sir, that the absolute monarch is sincere and honest in his opinion when he claims his "divine right" to rule, and asserts that the exercse of that right is the best possible system for the gov ernment of his subjects. But such dogmas do not meet with the approba tion of the people who inhabit this re publid in this nineteenth century. And, sir, I predict that before the inau guration of the next century, the views of those who oppose this movement in favor of woman's equal rights with man, will be equally discarded by the people. Mr. President, I would like to say more on this subject, for it is one in which I feel a deep interest; but I ap prehend that I have about reached the limit of my time, and I will now yield' the floor. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, when this discussion commenced, I was in favor of suffrage for women. But I must confess- that my mind is fast changing to the other side. I did not expect that we were to sit here this whole morning and discuss the rights of women and their capacities. I do not propose to listen to much more of this, if I can avoid it. I hope that we shall come to a vote. I want to vote to sustain the amendment made in committee of the whole. I think that, on the whole, we had better give women a vote and take the consequences, running the risk as to whether she'will vote for or against us; and I think she will be as often against us as for us. [Laughter.] Mr. DAANIELLS. Mr. President, the gentleman who has just taken his seat says that he feels a deep interest in this question. I presume that he does. He has exhibited it very intelligently. Now, sir, seriously believing that there has not been brought before this Convention any question which excites more general interest throughout the State, and which affects more largely the welfare of its inhabitants than' this very question, I hope every man will be permitted to express fully his views and tovote deliberately. If any gentleman favors suffrage for women in the way in which the gentleman frem Saginaw, (Mr. MILLER,) favors it, I 774 CONSTJLTUTIONAT, CON'V'FNTION. Monday, Auut1,16.DBAE aD PRC~In(~ think he ought to have an opportunity to express his opinions; and I hope he will not be silenced. Mr. President, I desire to examine one or two propositions which have been presented by the gentlemen from Gratiot, (Mr. CHAPIN.) He says that there is no question of abstract right involved in the matter of voting; that the government has a right to admit one class and exclude another, as it chooses, and can do so without any violation of abstract rights. If this position be true, then the Declaration of Independence was a mistake. That document declared that governments are instituted for the benefit of the governed, and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. If it is a matter of abstract right that those who are the subjects of the laws, should have a right to declare their will with regard to the formation and administration of those laws, then I cannot see but that the right to vote is an abstract right. The gentleman from Gratiot may hold a different opinion. I think, however, that my friend from Gratiot, and Thomas Jefferson, do not belong to the same school. It appears to me that this question of admitting women to the exercise of the right of suffrage is a question of civilization. Two thousand years ago woman was absolutely a slave Mr. CHAPIN. I desire to ask the gentleman a question: If the right to vote is ail abstract right, inherently belonging to every person, by what right does the government exclude from this privilege a y6ung man of eighteen years of age, of competent intelligence and possessing all the requisite qualifications, except that of age? Mr. DANTTELLS. The government has the right to exclude such a one, because he is an infant. That is the reason. Mr. MoCLELLAND. What makes him an infant? Mr. DANIELLS. He has not arrived at years of discretion. Mr. CHAPIN. I will ask the gentleman whether an infant does not possess the same absolute natural rights that the gentleman himself possesses? Mr. DANIELLS. An infant, of course, has certain absolute natural rights. But, sir, suppose it should be proposed that the government of this State should be entirely under the control of lawyers; that the lawyers should have all the offices, and that none but lawyers should vote.'Would not the other tax-payers have an abstract right to reject such a proposition? Have they not, in this view, an abstract right to vote? Are not all men created with certain inalienable rights? -- Mr. CHAPIN. The gentleman's supposition hardly presents a supposable case; and if it were so, I presume the gentleman and the board of supervisors would make it all right. [Laughter.] Mr. DANIELLS. I do not care to recur just now to the question in regard to boards of supervisors. The gentlemen from Gratiot voted that there should be no appeal from the decisions of those boards. I did not vote in that way. Now, sir, I say simply that the extension of the elective franchise to women, is a question of civilization. As man has advanced in civilization, woman has naturally become elevated. She is now more nearly on a level with man than she was two thousand years ago. Now, she is allowed to speak in our churches, although Paul was of the opinion that woman had no business to speak in the churches. Besides that, women now vote in the churches. They also vote in the school districts. Under our present statute, every woman liable to tax is entitled to vote at the school meetings where taxes are to be imposed. In this respect, we have allowed her the same right as a man. But I do not think the men have all been obliged to stay at home and rock the cradle, while the women were voting at the school meetings. The gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) is very much afraid that he will have to stay at home and rock the cradle, while his wife goes to vote. On this point I want to read a little anecdote which I think will relieve the gentleman considerably. It is a slip from a newspaper, which has been handed to me by a friend of suffrage for women: 4'A correspondent of the Louisville Courier writes as follows from Litchfield county, Ky.:' As this is the season of the year that ginseng is dug, one day last week a woman living five miles southwest of this place, with hoe and basket in hand went into the woods to dig for ginseng, and made a very profitable day's work of it. She dug and gathered ten pounds of ginseng, worth $6.50; caught a young spotted fawn, which she sold to-day in Litchfield for $10; caught and killed five young gray toxes, for which the State pays her $5; and killed two black snakes and one rattle snake. Can any hunter beat that? She took theyoung fawn home, and having a young babe, nursed the fawn and babe from her breast at the same time.'" [Laughter.] Mr. COOLIDGE. I suppose that settles the question in the gentleman's mind. Mr. DANTELLS. It ought to settle the question in the mind of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE.) The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, striking out in section one the word 4'male," before "citizen," so as to allow the right of suffrage to "every citizen of the United States." On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered. The question was taken; and the amendment reported from the committee of the whole was not concurred in, there being yeas 23, nays 46, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Barber, Case, Chapman, Daniells, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings, Hixson, Lovell, Miller, Murray, Sawyer, Shearer, Stockwell, Tyler, P. D. Warner, White, and Wright-23. NAYs-Messrs. Andrus, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Chapin, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Divine, Estee, Germain, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Huston, Kenney, Lawrence, Leach, Longyear, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Morton, Mussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Thompson, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, M. C. Watkins, Willard, Winans, Winsor, Withey, Williams, and Yeomans-46. Mr. LAWRENCE, (when his name was called,) said: Mr. President, this amendment, if concurred in, will give the privilege of voting to all the women in this State, including the wives of savages, as well as all others. I am unwilling to vote for such a proposition. A MEMBER. The article says "citizens." Mr. LAWRENCE. I understand that; but have we not, by a vote of this Convention, declared that the Indians shall be citizens? Mr. DANIELLS. If the gentleman wants to vote for suffrage for women, we will strike out the Indians. Mr. LAWRENCE. I was about to say that, if this extension of'suffrage were limited to intelligent women of the State, perhaps I might vote differently; but as the proposition stands, I vote "no." Mr. T. G. SMITH, (when his name was called,) said: Desiring to represent the sentiments of the one hundred thousand unmarried women to whom my colleague, (Mr. LOVELL,) has alluded, I vote "no." Mr. ALEXANDER, (when his name was called,) said: Mr. President, I am not a champion of suffrage for women. I am, however, willing that the women of this State should vote. Some gentlemen of the Convention have urged, as an objection to inserting this provision in the Constitution, that we are not asked to do it by the women of the State. Now, Mr. President, I propose that we submit this as a separate question to the voters of the State, and then the women can exert their influence on whichever side they prefer. I vote "aye." Mr. ESTEE (when his name was called) said: I am in favor of suffrage for women; but not knowing whether or not a majority of the women of this State desire this privilege, I am in favor of separately submitting the subject to the people. Consequently, on this proposition, I vote "no." DE]3.ATES AND PROCE'FT)INGS. Aiigust 12 1867. 0 775 77 ()-TTTOA COV-'O~ ody Mr. HOLT (when his name was called) said: Mr. President, if I were satisfied that a majority of the women 'of this State desired to exercise the right of suffrage, I should vote in favor of this proposition; but I do not think they do;, consequently I vote "no." Mr. RAFTER (when his name was called) said: Mr. President, believing that a large majority of the ladies of this State do not desire the elective franchise, I vote " no." Mr. SHELDON. Mr. President, I am in rather a bad fix in voting upon this question. [Laughter.] I am a thorough-going Republican, while my wife is about half Democrat. I am afraid that, if- women should vote, there would be a fuss in our family. I therefore vote "no." [Laughter.] Mr. WILLARD (when his name was called) said: Mr. President, if this were a vote upon submitting this whole question to the people of the State, or to the women of the State, I would vote "aye;" but on the simple proposition to put this provision into the Constitution, I vote "no." Mr. WITFHEY (when his name was called) said: Mr. President, if this were a proposition to be submitted separately, whether women should have the privilege of voting, I should give my vote in the affirmative;' but as it is a proposition to place this provision in the body of the Constitution, I vote "no." When the roll-call had been concluded, Mr. GIDDINGS said: With a view to endeavoring to procure a separate submission of this prop6sition, I change my vote from ",yea" to no." I desire that this question shall go before the people. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, as explaining votes seems to be the order of proceeding, I would like to state the reason which induced me to vote as I have done. Before coming here as a member of this Convention, I heard little or nothing one way or another in reference to this proposition. I did not suppose it would be presented for our consideration. But after this question had been presented to this body by resolution or otherwise, I took occasion when at home to ascertain what the women in the city where I reside think on this subject. In the course of numerous inquiries which I have made, I have found but one woman who has said that she would vote if she had the opportunity; and while I believe that among-those who have sent petitions to this Conven tion, there are mfany ladies of intelli gence and refinement, who may safely be permitted to vote, yet I think that were the privilege allowed, ladies of this class would not generally exercise it, but a class whose reputation is, to say the least, doubtful, would vote. Hence I think that in the end, we should regret our action. Mr. LOVELL. Before the vote is announced, I desire to add a word of explanation. From what I said sometime ago, in reply to an inquiry of my colleague, (Mr. T. G. SMITH,) it might be supposed that my vote on this question is given rather as a personal matter. I say now, and desire it to go upon record, that a very large propor tion of the best women in the constituency which I represent, and in the city where I reside, have personally told me that they believe they have the right to vote, Bnd ought to have the privilege. I could name some of the ladies to my colleague; and he would admit that their wishes are worthy of all respect. I think it is perhaps true that a majority of t]e women of this State may not at this time be desirous to exercise this privilege; but I insist that a majority of women have not the right to disfranchise a minority of women, any more than a majority of men have the right to disfranchise a minority of men. The result of the vote was annudmced as above stated. Mr. FARMER. I ask the indul gence of this Convention for a moment. From the number of votes Mr. WILLIAMS. I rise to a point of order. My point of order is, that there is no question before the Conven tion. Mr. eFAR'MER. I propose to offer a resolution before I sit-down. I do not propose to discuss any question. I have not occupied much time on this floor;- and the Convention will, I' hope, indulge me at least two minutes while I state a proposition. SEVERAL MEMBRS objected. Mear. F.A:RMER. I propose to offer a resolution. The PRESIDENT pro tempore.. A resolution would not be ill order at; this time. -- VOTING BY SOLDIERS- AND SAILORS. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The next question is upon the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, to amend section two by inserting'after the word "State," the words "at such place and in such manner as shall be prescribed by law;" so that the section will read: "In time of war, insurrection or rebellion, the right to vote shall be enjoyed by all persons otherwise entitled thereto, who may be in the actual military or naval service of the United States, or of this State, at such place and in such manner as shall be prescribed by law: Provided, Their votes shall be made to apply to the township or ward of which they are residents."' The amendment was concurred in. PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST AT ELECTIONS. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The next amendment reported from the committee of the whole is to insert in section four the word "misdemeanor;" so that the section will read "Every elector, in all cases except treason, felony, misdemeanor, or breach of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during his attendance at election,, and in going to and returning from the same."' 'The amendment was concurred in. EXCLUSION OF DESERTERS FROM SUFFRAGE. The PRESIDENT -pro tempore. The next amendment reported from the committee of the whole, is to add to section nine the words, "nor who -may after the adoption of this Constitution desert from the military service of this State or of the United States;" so that the-section will read: "No idiot or insane person shall be entitled to the privileges of -an-elector, -nor who may, after the adoption of this Constitution, desert from the military service ofl this State or of the United States." Mr. CONGER. I move to amendby by inserting after the word " nor," the words' any person." The sentence in its present construction seems to be somewhat obscure. Mr. FARMER. I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair will not be adopted, and that the ~amendment made by the committee of the whole will not be concurred in. I protest against making Mr. CONGER.I If the gentleman does not wish thb amendment concurred in, he should at least be willing to allow us an opportunity to perfect it. Mr. FAMMER. I do not want it put in such a shape that it will stand any chance of success. Mr. NORRIS. I hope that tilhe gentleman from Berrien does not wish to disfranchise any idiot or insane person. [Laughter.] Mr. FARtMER. That is not the point upon which I am speaking. I am referring to the amendment made in committee of the whole. I am imwilling that a board of elections shall be made a tribunal to try the merits or demerits of a person who may be alleged to be a deserter from the military service of the State or of the United States. The principle of our laws is that no person shall be condemned for any crime, without a trial by a proper tribunal; and I submit to this Convention whether the board of elections or the board of registry is a proper tribunal to try a person charged with desertion from the military service of the State or Gf the United States. This is. my reason for objecting to the 776 .CONSTITUTIONAL CONVPWTION. Monday .i Asu~ 12 187 )-A]~AD?OED~~7f clause which has teen added to the section by the committee of the whole. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Mr. President, I trust that the Convention will not concur in the amendment made by the committee of the whole. I do not think it right that we should disfran chise for all time persons who may have been guilty of the crime of de sertion, and who may possibly have been pardoned. It is a crime against the government, and I presume a par don will not be granted in such a case, unless upon some good and sub stantial ground, which would be suf ficient to entitle the person to be rein stated in the right of the elective fran chise. The exclusion of insane persons and idiots rests upon a different principle; because so long as mental incapacity exists, it is not proper that a person should vote. But a man who has been guilty of desertion may, by pardon, be reinstated in all'his other rights and privileges; and I do not see why he should not be reinstated as to the right of suffrage. MIr. CONGER'S amendment to the amendment was adopted. The question then recurred on concurring in the amendment as %mended. Mr. BLA_CKMAN. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Presilent, it seems to me that this is a matter which should be left to the General Government, which has already prescribed penalties that are sufficient in this direction. I think we should abide by the action of the United States government. Mr. T. G. SMITH. In my own county, there is a young man who went into the military service as a member of the Third Michigan Cavalry, in 1861, when that regiment was first organized. He continued in the service without leave of absence during the whole period of the rebellion, taking part in all the engagements in which that regiment participated. He continued in the service till January, 1866. In the fall of 1865, his regiment was sent to Texas. On account of some difficulty in the regiment, some fifty or one hundred men mutinied against some order or direction, and were thrown into prison. This young man, being out of health and being in fear of fatal sickness, broke out' of jail and came home. He is now marked upon the books of the Adjutant General's office as a deserter. Yet during the late rebellion, there was not a more faithful and devoted soldier than this young man His'character stands high, and he has received a certificate of commendation front every officer under whom he has fought. After hia de Vol, -l, 9a tion he applied for and obtained an honorable discharge; yet still he stands on the books of the War Department as a deserter. Now, I think it is not right that we should insert in the Con stitution a provision of this kind, which may disfranchise any person of that class. Mr. CHAPIN. I cannot consent that we should omit from the Consti tution a salutary provision, simply be cause in an exceptional case it may work with apparent hardship. I believe that no provision which we can incor porate in the Constitution, will meet with more general acceptance on the part of the people of this State, than a provision for the disfranchisement of those who may hereafter desert from the military service of the State or the United States. The case mention ed by the gentleman from Gene see, (Mr. T. G. SMITH,) is not really a case of, desertion. When the facts of the case are known, the individual has not 4eserted;l he has, as it appears, an honorable discharge from the United States Goyernment. He simply stands technically upon the books of the Adjutant-General as a de serter. The circumstances are capable of explanation, and in this way his competency as a voter might be estab lished. I cannot, on account of a single exceptional case, consent that we should omit from the Constitution a principle of so much importance as this. Mr. HUSTON. Mr. President, as I understand tliis amendment, it will not apply to any past desertions, but only to desertions which may happen after the adoption of this Constitution. Now, I, for one, am decidedly in favor of the proposition. I think that any man who, having enlisted in the military service in time of war, is guilty of desertion, should be disfranchised. In the case stated by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. T. G. SMTH,) if the young man has an honorable discharge, he is not a deserter. According to the custom in these matters, as soon as a man procures an honorable discharge, he is exempted from the consequences of any such crime as desertion. This is the principle, I believe, upon which the War Department acts. The honorable dischiarge is a sufficient answer to any allegation which may be brought against him in regard to desertion. The gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. FARMER,) says he is opposed to allowing boards of elections to tr~ matters of this kind. Now, sir, I take it there will be nothing more of a trial in a case of this kind than in any other case affecting the qualifications of an elector. If a foreigner disqualified to vote comes up to the polls, he is challenged, .ad put on oath to awer inquires relative to the facts in'his particular case. The same proceeding can be pursued in the case of a deserter, and it can be provided bylaw that if a man, by false swearing, succeeds in voting, he shall be punished for illegal voting and for perjury. I do not see that the board of elections would have any-diffi culty. For one, I am opposed, and I believe the people of this State are op posed, to allowing any man who has been guilty of desertion to exercise the elective franchise. I hope the amend ment will be concurred in. Mr. FARMER. The mere fact that a man is a deserter is not sufficient to condemn him, even before a military court. Such a tribunal always takes into consideration the extenuating cir cumstances, and oftentimes will not convict even where the fact of deter tion is undoubted. Besides, before such a court, a man convicted of what is technically desertion can have an opportunity for an appeal; and on such an appeal the extenuating cir cumstances will be taken into account. In many cases during the late rebel lion, the President of the United States, in consideration of such exten uating circumstances, reprieved and pardoned persons who had been con victed by military tribunals of desertion. But, sir, in this case, suppose a man' be placed on oath, and be compelled to acknowledge that he has deserted from the service of the United States; the extenuating circumstances are not taken into account. In such a case a man is condemned without the formalities and safeguards of a trial, and without those opportunities of vindicating himself which would be afforded before a proper tribunal. I hope that we shall not establish any such iron rule as this. Mr. MILLER. At this time the banners rolled in blood are all laid aside, and we hear no more the voice of war and desolation throughout the country. In these "piping times of peace," we are all valiant. Now, let us not, while we are in this state of exaltation, impose any rule in consequence of which hereafter, if we should be called into a war, we may not be able to get away without bringing upon ourselves such odium and such political disfranchisement as is provided for in this section. [Laughter.] The section provides simply for something hereafter; and there is no necessity that we should now make such provision. The contingency may possibly never occur; and if it should occur, I do not know but that some of us will be apt to run away; and yet we may not wish to be deprived of the privilege of voting. [Laughter.] Mr. BI,ACKIAN. M. President, I DEIRATIMS AND PltOCEEDINGSs 771 Angust 12, 186,7. - -t s 778 OOSTITTi,OAL OOVTIOe Monday, I hope that this amendment will not be concurred in. Although this disfranchisement is to operate jprospectively, yet I think the principle is the same as though it were to operate retrospectively. It may be very easy for us who have never experienced the trials-and the privations of soldiersmany of them inexperienced boys at that-to sit here and prescribe penalties for desertion, without knowing or taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances that may attend many of these cases. I think that we had better leave the punishment of this offense to the tribunal to which it belongs. If there are no mitigating circumstances, the punishment provided bylaw is sufficient; and if, in the judgment of those who are best competent to.decide the matter, that penalty should be inflicted, we certainly cannot desire to add to it anything by way of stigma, especially when in many cases the person suffering the penalty, or the person who may be excused on account of mitigating circumstances, has nobly done his duty in the most trying emergencies. For, sir, it is not only the cowardly, not only those who wish to avoid the duties and responsibilities of the soldier, who desert. Many times some of our best soldiers, under trying circumstances, have been guilty of desertion. Many such have afterwards nobly redeemed their characters, when they have again gone upon the field, after the offense had been pardoned or the punishment mitigated. They have in many cases redeemed their characters by the sacrifice of their lives. I do not think it becomes us, as a Constitutional Convention, to impose a punishment which operates not only as a depriviation of the elective franchise, but also as a stigma upon those who may be technically deserters, and yet may have done for their country ten times more than we were willing to do. Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, this provision as it now stands seems to me liable to objection, because it recognizes State rights; it puts the State before the General Government. If there were in the Constitution of any Southern State such a clause, we should regard it as an indisputable evidence of treason. Now, sir, I think it well enough to punish persons who desert from the military service of the United States. But under this provision, supposing that this State should ever be in conflict with the General Government, it would be impossible for a person to escape, if he fought on the side of the General Government, from being punished for not adhering to the State. The Legislature of this State adopted in 1859, a law:by which the State arrayed itself against the de cisions of the Supreme Court, and the constitutional provision requiring the surrender' of fugitives. This provision would compel a soldier to fight for this state against the General Government. If the Convention would consent to strike out this word "State," and pro vide that the soldier should be subject in all cases to the orders of the United States, then I would vote for it. I do not believe in treason. [Laughter.] Mr. SHEARER. Mr. President, there were, we know, in the war of 1812, a great many instances in which soldiers deserted, being under age and not realizing the culpability of their act. Now, in such cases it seems to me it would not be just, either by constitutional provision or by legislative enactment, to deprive deserters of the elective franchise. All offenses of this kind should be provided for by military law and punished by the appropriate military tribunal. I consider a provision of this kind an encroachment upon the military power. We all recollect the "case of the noble Bird, who, although he hal shown his bravery by fighting in the cause of hiscountry, deserted under peculiar circumstances, to go home andsee his mother, who was on her dying bed. Yet, by that act he subjected himself to the punishment of death. Regarding this provision as an interference with the military power, I shall vote against the amendment. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH.. Mr. President, a clause similar to that which has been added to this section by the committee of the whole was thoroughly discussed in the standing committee, and we came to the conclusion that it was not best to insert such a provision. We thought that the adoption of such a provision would be the assumption of powers which we do not possess. I believe that, if a clause of this kind should be made applicable to the recent rebellion, many patriotic and valiant soldiers would fan under the disfranchisement here proposed. After due deliberation upon the subject, the committee came to-the conclusion-I believe unanimouslythat it was not best to adopt any such provision., I hope the *amendment made in committee of the whole will not be concurred in. ~Ir. CONGER. It seems to me, Mr. Prresident, that the penalty for any crime should be affixed to the crime by the law,* and that we should not in a constitutional provision attach to the crime -an additional penalty. I believe that in our Constitution, we should not: provide a punishment for desertion from the armies of the uJnited States. ln mtime ofwar, the punishment for that offense is death; and in time ,of peace, there it some other pen alty which is presumed to be an ade quate punishment for the crime. But, the great objection which I have to the insertion of such a provision as this in our Constitution is that there is no means provided for ascertaining the fact of desertion by any proper legal tribunal. By this provision, a person charged-with this crime may have his rights and privileges taken away from him in volation of the spirit of all just ' constitutions and without "due process of law." I think that this provision would be not merely useless, but would in many cases work injuriously in the future, as it is admitted it would oper ate unjustly if applied to those who may have committed dur ing the late rebellion what is [technically considered as desertion. As a provision for the future, I can see no utility in placing this in the Constitution.. A-person may have been con victed of desertion and may subse quently have been —pardoned, either upon proof that the offense was not actually committed, or that it was at-tended with mitigating or extenuating circumstances. Yet, on account of the mere fact of conviction for desertion, a person niay under such a constitutional provision as this, be deprived of his rights as a citizen. This is not, I believe, a proper subject for a con stitutional provision. I agree with the gentleman. (MIr. VAN VAL KENBURGer) who represents the committee that reported this article. I think we should reject this amend ment. Let each crime bear its own penalty. Let each case stand upon its own merits. Then if any person be wrongfully convicted, although he may be compelled to bar the penalty affixed to the crime by law, yet he does not stand condemned as a citizen through -all his life by a constitutional proscriphion. Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I believe- that this amendment was offered in the committee of the whole by-myself. In; making the motion, I was influenced by a consideration of the fact, known to us all, that there were during the late war a large number of "bounty-jumpers" and deserters from the army. These desertions had a very injurious effect upon the country, many- persons being compelled to go into the army to take the place of {bounty-jumpers" and deserters. But, Sh~ since I have heard the arguments presented on this question, I have changed my views; and I cannot vote tn sustain the actiob of the committee of the whole, because I now see how the provision might do injustice, or at le1st worl hardship lin the case of many I 11 CONSTITTITIOXNTA coxvuxtioe 778 Mondayp t Allgllt 12, 1867. DEBATES AD PROOEEDIGS. 779 young men who might be impelled tot desert from the service of their country under circumstances affording them some excuse. I shall, therefore, Mr.: President, vote against concurring in the- amendment reported from the committee of the whole. Mr. HOLMES. Mr. President, as a member of the committee on elections, I was anxious that there- shiuld be inserted in the Constitution a clause of this kind. I have not changed my mind. I think it is a very important provision, and I shall vote to concur in the amendment. The question was taken on concurring in the amendment reported from the committee of the whole, and it was not concurred in; there being yeas 7, nays 56, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Case, Chapin, Germain, Holmes, Huston, McConnell, and Yeomans-7. NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger,, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Divfne, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings, Henderson, Hixson, Keuney, Lawrence, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, Miles, Miller, Morton, Murray, Musgrave, Ninde, Norris, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Thompson, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, and Wright-56. DISFRANCHISEMENT FOR PRIZE-FIGHTING. The next amendment reported from the committee of the whole was to insert after the word " duel," in section ten, the words "or prize fight;" so as to make the section read as follows: "Any inhabitant of this State who may be hereafter engaged in a duel or prize fight, shall be disqualified from holding any office, or from voting at any election." Mr. T. G. SMITH. Mr. President, it was with the committee a matter of some doubt whether this section should be retained at all; but in consideration of the fact that dueling is a crime, the commission of which is confined mainly to a class of persons who are most sensitive in regard to their political rights, it was thought that it might be proper to insert in the Constitution a provision of this kind. But I think that, if it had been proposed in committee to couple prize-fighting with dueling, the committee would never have thought such a provision advisable. I think that we should not dignify such a class of persons as prizefighters by even naming them in the Constitution. I trust that this amendment will not be adopted, but that the Legislature will be left to make such laws in regard to prize-fighting as they may deem necessary. Mr. HUSTON. I would like to inquire whether the argument used by the gentleman from St. Clair,; (Mr. in,?c rfer to the yr9'g9U with regard to deserters, would not equally apply to this provision His argument was that we ought not to prescribe penalties in the Constitution. If that is a correct doctrine, then certainly this section ought to be stricken out; for it proposes nothing but a penalty for dueling and prize figthing. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I believe, Mr. President, that dueling is prohibited in almost all the Constitutions of the various States. It is prohibited in our present Constitution. The committee thought it best to retaii the provision. I hope that it may be adopted. The amendment was not concurred M. The PRESIDENT pro tem?pore. Amendments to the body of the article are now in order. VOTING BY INDIANS. Mr. STOCKWELL. I move to amend by striking out in section one the last clause, as follows: "Fourth, All male Indians, natives of the United States." Mr. WITHEY. I move as an amendment to the amendment to add at the end of the last clause the words, "who shall possess sufficient knowledge of the English language to converse therein;" so that the clause will read: "Fourth, All male Indians, natives of the United States, who shall possess sufficient knowledge of the English language to converse therein." 'Mr. President, as this section now stands, without amendment, or as it will stand, if the last clause be stricken out, all the male Indians of this State, except those who pay no taxes, will be voters. How many there -are of this class, I do not know; but I know that of those who live in this State, a large majority, or atleast a large proportion, do not speak the English language. This class of Indians are generally ignorant; they have very little civilization; they have no intelligence-upon any of the political questions of the day. Necessarily they cannot be acquainted with political questions as they have no written or printed language, enabling them to read discussions upon the current political topics. I think it would be unwise to place in the Constitution a clause under which persons of this class-barbarians in fact-could come to the ballot-box and vote. I at least do not wish to have it said, when one of these creatures shall come to the polls to vote, " There is a person whom you helped to make a voter." My vote shall not assist in making any of these Indians voters, unless they can speak the English language so as to G vCP ia,tuli-bly, Mr. BILLS. MBr. President, it ap pears to me that there is a further ob jection to this provision, even as pro posed to be amended. I do not, however, rise to discuss the appropriate ness of the provision, but rather to make an inquiry, whether under this section, even as proposed to be amended by the gentleman from Rent, (Mr. WITHEY,) those who are mem bers of tribes, who acknowledge no allegiance whatever to our Government, and who are not in fact citizens, would not be entitled to vote. It seems to me, to say the least, unwise that persons of this class should be permitted to take part in our Government, when they are not citizens, when they are members of independent Indian tribes, acknowledging no allegiance to our Government, and are altogether ignorant of our institutions. This objection, so far as I can see, would not be obviated by the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, though I favor that amendment. Mr. CROCKER. I offer the following as a substitute for section one: SECTIO 1. In all elections, every person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in this State three months, and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote ten days next preceding an election, belong-. ing to either of the following classes, shall be an elector and entitled to vote: First. Every white male citizen of the United States. Second. Every white male inhabitant of this' State who shall have resided in the United States two years and six months, and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, pursuant to the laws thereof; six months preceding an election. Third. Every white male inhabitant residing in this State on the twenty-fourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirtyfive.. Fourth7. Every civilized male inhabitant of Indian descent, and not a member of any tribe, a native of the United States, and not receiving an annuity from the same. Fifth. Every male inhabitant of African descent, a native of the United States. Resolved, That at the election" when the votes of the electors shall be taken for the adoption or rejection of the revised Constitution, a separate ballot may be given by every person having-a right to vote for or against the adoption thereof, which said ballot so given shall be deposited in a separate box. And upon the ballot herein provided for shall be written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, the words, " Negro Suffrage -Yes," or "Negro Suffrage-No," as such person may prefer. And if at said election a majority of all the votes given for or against negro suffrage shall contain the word " Yes," as above provided, and the revised Constitution is adopted by the people voting at said election, then the fifth subdivision ot seco tion one, Article —, of the revised Constitution, shall be and remain in the same in fall force and effect. And if at said election a majority of all the votes given for or against negro suffrage shall contain the word " No," as above provided, and the said revised Constitution is adopted by the people voting at said election, then she said fifth subdivision of section one, of Article -, shall not be and remain therein; -and the said revised- Conq stitution "hall become operative with the said above named fifth subdivision of section one', oArticle -, forming no patrt or portion 9tef 0 DEBATES A.OCE-FT)INGS* ND.- PR, Auguist 12,-1867. 79 CO7NS'TITUj TION A T, ICON MENTION.' The PRESIDENT pro tempore. An amendment, and an amendment to an amendment, are already pending. This substitute will be held in abey ance. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Mr. President, I hope that the amend ment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) will not prevail. There was no subject to which the committee on elections devoted more time and attention than the question with re gard to the right of Indians to vote; and after due deliberation, and avail ing ourselves of all the information which we could obtain on the subject, we came to the conclusion to report the clause as it here stands-providing that "all male Indians, natives of the United States," shall be entitled to vote. The reasons for the conclusion to which we came were simply these: Most of the Indians in our Statd of suitable age have voted for twenty years past. Although they were proscribed by the Constitution of 1850, still they have voted. They are not recognized as belonging to tribes. Many of them are in dustrious settlers, owning farms; yet, although they are intelligent, they are in some cases unable to converse fluently or read in the English language. Still, they possess all the other qualifications necessary to make them voters: they are intelligent, industrious, and good citizens. Such was the testimony we had before the committee They have exercised for years the right of suffrage; and the committee thought it would be unjust and cruel -that it would be calculated to excite enmity in their breasts against us, if we should proscribe them now, when we are extending the elective franchise to the black man, and when some desire to extend it to women, and some to boys. Under all the circumstances, the committee thought it right that this class of Indians should be entitled to vote. Mr. President, there were other considerations that had weight with me. The Indians were the original owners of the soil. They were the monarchs here, before we drove them from their strongholds and their hunting grounds. They have grave claims upon our consideration. They are subject to our government; they are affected by our laws in the same way as other persons in the State. The committee thought it right that they Should have the privilege of expressing their wishes at the ballot box, of declaring their voice in regard to the choice of our Governor and other officers. With this view the article was presented. I hope it will be adopted in the form in which we have reported it. I think that we ought to do something for the Aborigines of this country. At least they are enti tled to demand at our hands the boon of suffrage. Mir. LIEACH. Mr. President, I feel indisposed to go over the discussion we have already had on this question. When the subject was before under discussion, I stated fully and frankly my views in regard to it, those views being based on my knowledge of the Indian race as existing in this State. But I do not propose to go over the subject again. I wish simply to say that the amendment of the gentleman from Kent (Mr. WITHErY,) will fail to accomplish the object he has in view. His object is to extend the right of suffrage to the more intelligent class of Indians, and to withhold it from the other class. Now, from an intimate knowledge of the Indians of this State, I can say that very many of our most vicious Indian-the worst class in every sense of the word-are those who speak our language most fluently. On the other hand, very many of the more intelligent and the more industriou-the best class of -Indian-are those who have very little knowledge of the English language. Hence this proposition will defeat the object which the gentleman has in view. For my part, as I stated when the subject was up before, I think it rather ungenerous for us, in this age of progress, when we are so generally extend.. ing the elective franchise, to exclude from its enjoyment men who have exercised it for the last seventeen years. Mr. P. D. WARNER. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kent (Mr. WITHSY.)It embodies a principle which I think will not be endorsed by this Convention. It is proposed to disfranchise a class of our inhabitants, because they cannot speak the English language. We do not attempt, I believe, to apply this rule to any other class of inhabitants. If the attempt were made to apply thisprinciple to other classes, it would meet with much opposition from members of this Conyention. We have to-day in our State many persons of foreign birth enjoying the privilege of the elective franchise, although they are not able to speak any language except their native tongue. Hence the amendment proposes to engraft upon our organic law a new principle, and to apply it only to a particular class of individuals. Now, as I have heretofore remarked, I am opposed to class legislation. I am therefore opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman!from~ Kent. I am opposed also to the fourth clause of this section. I am in favor of the amendment offered by the gentie an from Lenvwee, (Mr. SeTx WELL,) to strike out this clause, so as to allow the rights of this class of our population to be. regulated by the law of the United States, with regard to citizenship-thus giving to each person of this class who pays taxes the right to vote, provided he is a citizen under the laws of the United States. I hope that the amendment of the gentleman,'from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) will be rejected, and that the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL,) to strike out this last clause, will be adopted. Mr. RAFTER. I move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion was -agreed to; and the Convention, (at ten minutes after twelve o'clock, p. m.,) took a recess until half-past two o'clock, p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at halfpast two o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PEESIDENT pro tempore, (Mr. Luck.) The roll was called, andcl a quorum answered to their names.' LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. UJTLEY asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. ESTEE, for the afternoon, on account of sickness. QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS. The PRESIDENT pro tern. When the Convention took a recess, it had under consideration the article entitled "Elections," and it was engaged in the consideration of section one of that article, which section is as follows: "In all elections every person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in this State three months, and in the township or ward in which he oflers to vote ten days next preceding an election, belonging to either of the following classes, shall be an elector and entitled to vote: First, Every male citizen of the United States; Second, Every male inhabitant of this State, who shall have resided in the United States two years and six months, and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, pursuant to the laws thereof, six months preceding an election; T/ird; Every male inhabitant residing in this State on the twenty-fourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five; Foutrtl, All male Indians, natives of the United States." The gentleman from Lenawee, (Mlr. STOCKWELL,) moved to amend the section by striking out the last clause, viz: "Fourth. All male Indians, natives of the United States." Pending which, the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITH-r,) moved to amend the clause by adding the words-" who shall possess sufficient knowledge of the English language to converse therein." The question is on the amendment of' the gentleman fr.om Kent. The question was then taken upon the ame'ndi'ent 6f MHr;' WITHEY; ain' Mo'nday, 780 Auu* 12 187.kBAE iD rROEDNs. -7 -o 1 v upon a division, ayes 23, noes 28, it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the mo tion of Mr. STOCXKWELL, to strike out the last clause of the section. Mr. LOVELL. I move to amend that clause by inserting before the words "male Indians," the word " civ ilized;" so that the clause will read: "All civilized male -Indians, natives of the United States." I do not care to discuss the amendment. But I do hope that if we deny the right to vote to our civilized women, we will not grant that right to uncivilized Indians. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. r. DANIELLS. Will the gentle man permit me to ask him a question? Mr. LOVELL. Certainly. Mr. DANIELLS. I would like to ask the gentleman what he would establish as a criterion of civilization? There might be some dispute about some of us being civilized. Mr. LOVELL. I think the Legislature can set forth what shall be the signs of civilization. We need not here set forth anything but the general principle. Our present Constitution says that Indians shall be civilized before they shall have the right to vote. I think that the Constitution is right; thai the elective franchise should be enjoyed only by civilized persons, by persons who owe allegiance to civilized society, and not by barbarians, who deny all obligations of civilized society. Mr. SHEARER.' I am in favor of this amendment from this fact: "they shall be citizens of the United States." We know very well that Indians from Canada may come over here, through the instrutmentality of some of our people perhaps, and change the whole result of our elections. I am in favor of the word "civilized," and shall support the amendment. The question was upon,the amendment of Mr. LoveLL, upon which the yeas and nays had been asked. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. CONGER. This amendment has before been offered, argued and discussed; the records of our debates will show that almost every gentleman who wished to do so, has spoken upon the subject, and expounded his views. Now we make one rule in regard to representation; that is not the rule of civilization. We have already provided that we may count these Indians in our apportionment and for our representation; that provision we have adopted. The United States Government declares all Indians who are taxed to be citizent of the United States. Now, by what kind of rule, o~' for what particular object, gentlemen should seek to put in here a pro vision that would exclude citizens of the United States fropa being voters in this State, I cannot see. There is a nicety and delicacy of perception about this matter that I cannot com prehend. By the civil rights bill all Indians who are taxed are made citi zens of the United States. By the proposition here made, that only civil ized Indians should be allowed to vote, those who are taxed and those who are not taxed are excluded all the same. Mr. BILLS. As I was not here at the time this matter was discussed in committee of the whole, I rise to inquire whether the first subdivision of this section does not provide that "every male citizen of the United States" shall be a voter in this State; and if that remains, whether we need this fourth subdivision at all? The first subdivision extends the right of voting to all citizens of the United States.' Mr. CONGER. The proposition of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LovELL,) being in the same section, if adopted would exclude Indians'not civilized, whether citizens of the United States or not. By the first subdivision they would be allowed to vote; but when you say " all civilized male Indians," then they must not only be citizens of the United States, ablt civilized. I cannot see the necessity of any such distinction. By the first subdivision, as I understand it, Indians paying taxes are allowed to vote, being citizens of the United States. I do not remember whether the civil rights bill says, "not belonging to any tribe;" but I think not. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. Are there any uncivilized Indians who are taxed? Mr. CONGER. I do not consider that there are any uncivilized Indians in the State of Michigan. There is not probably an Indian family in the State of Michigan that has not some evidences of civilization, to the same extent with some families among the whites of this State. As I remarked on a former occasion, they live in houses, they sleep on beds, they have stools or chairs to sit on, they eat at tables; whether they all have knives and forks, I do not pretend to say. I do not believe there is to be found an Indian family in the State of Michigan but what somewhere has a house, built somewhat according to the rules of civilized life. It may not be a palace; it may not be gorgeous; but it is a home of the humble inhabitants-of th,; wilderness. And there are thousands of white men who live to-day on our northern frontiers who have for the time being no better homes, and no more signs of civiliza tion than our Indians. Why should we try to take from this small remnant of the old monarchs of the land the last right that human civ ilization shall give them? Shall we not encourage them to mingle with us, and become habituated to our customs, manners laws, and civilization? They are dwindling away like the falling leaves of the forest, and our children shall know them no more on the face of the earth forever. Why take from them this last lingering boon that civilization can extend to the red man? There are but a few hundred of them in the State. I suppose there are not over six or seven hundred, perhaps a thousand Indians, who could vote in any event. Why not encourage the last of them to become civilized, as they see their race dying out,- as they see the whites increasing in strength year by year, in might and power? Why not encourage them to come into our ranks, and see if perhaps by the civilization that may follow they may not still live a little longer a people on the earth? Is it worth while for a hundred representatives of the whites of this State to take away from these men the right of voting that they have possessed for the last seventeen years? There is not an Indian in this State but what has had the right to vote. The boards of election will declare that they come within the term "civilized," if they want to receive their votes. The only effect will be to injure their feelings, if they have feelings,.to put in here a phrase of doubtful construction. Let us be manly and honorable to this class. They are not all barbarians and murderers of the plains; they are as harmless a people as any in the State of Michigan. You do not find their names on the records of our courts; they are not prosecuted there; with a few exceptions they are not drunken, as I know to be a fact. They are an industrious, laborious set of people, dying out from the land. Let us give them this last boon of civilization. Mr. SHEARER. I agree perfectly with the last gentleman who has spoken, (Mr. CoNGER.) I would allow all Indians to vote who are citizens of the United States. But I think it would be wrong to permit them to be imported across the rivers and lakes, to receive the benefit of the ballot in this State. I am as willing-that the Indians should have all the liberties the gentleman has spoken of, as he or any other gentleman can be. But at the same time, I would not have the Indians of Gonads come over here ~nd DIMBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. August 12, 1867.. 781 I t..... CONSTITUTION AT, CON VENTION. put their votes in the ballot box in this State. Mr. CONGER. Has the gentleman ever known a Canadian Indian to come here and vote? I have for years lived just opposite the largest Indian reser vation in Canada; it is but ten min utes' row across the river. But I have never yet heard of an Indian coming over to vote in our county. I refer to the Indian reservation of Sarnia, right across from my house. 'Mr. SHEARER. If a constitutional provision, it might lead to the introduction of Canadian Indians into our State. There might be advantage taken by one party or the other to bring them over from Canada; there are more Indians there than we have. I would not take one particle of right from the red man; I revere- him and always did. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. This provision says they must be native Indians of the United States, to be entitled to vote. Mr. LOVELL. I would ask the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER) whether there are any Indians who-in his judgment are uncivilized; and if there are such in the United States, whether he does not by this section invite them to come to Michigan to help frame our laws? I have no disposition to oppress any man on account of the color that God chose to tint his skin. But I do think that every man who seeks to vote should have the means and ability to vote intelligently. The gentleman from Grand Traverse (Mr. LEACH) stated to us, when this subject was. under consideration the other day, that a large number of Indians of this State never presented themselves to vote. If they did, I apprehend they would be found unable to talk the English language or to read their own. I am entirely unwilling to put a clause in this Constitution which shall authorize them to help control the destinies of our growing communities. If they are intelligent, if they are civilized-I am willing the law shall point out what shall be the indices of civilization-then I am entirely willing they should vote. The gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGEI~) says we should not disfranchise them. Under the old Constitution more was asked than we propose to ask now. We propose to take nothimg from them. The simple question is, shall we give them something more? The question is whether we shall extend tto them, being uncivilized, rights which they have not enjoyed. I insist that the Indian is no more harmed, even-; if he were capable: of fe.iug at~ h ant hon the vi bt to vote extended tp him, than are the thousands of intelligent petitioners for suffrage of the female sex, intelligent, noble, virtuous in their aspirations and thoughts and deeds, who have asked the right to vote, and to whom we deny that right. The gentleman champions the rights of these Indians nobly and intelli gently. They, however, do not know, or have the first idea that this ques tion is before us. They will never in all their lives think of voting, unless politicians hunt them up. The great majority of them will never be able to read their ballots, or, when it is trans lated into their Chippewa, understand whatit means, or what they are voting for. These roving men ought not to be invited to tamper with the sacred right of voting. Our communities who go forward to clear up the forests and make new settlements, should not have this additional obstacle thrown in their way. I voted willingly to count them in the ratio of representation, so as to favor the newer portions of the State. But I say let the civilized people there vote, and not the uncivilized. This whole matter can be settled by the Legislature, who can enact a law which shall point out to the boards of elec tions the proper mode of determining whether these Indians are civilized or not. Mr. CONGER. The gentleman rose to ask me a question...But I have been watching so carefully the thread of his argument, to see what the point of it was, that his question has escaped my memory. Mr. LOVELL. Does the gentleman believe there are any uncivilized Indians in the United States; and if so, whether they may not come- into the State of Michigan and vote, under this section? Mr. CONGER. There are uncivilized Indians in the United States, living thousands of miles away from Michigan. I do not know what tempitation they could have to leave their homes land come thousands of miles through the wilderness for the purpose of voting-here. I have never heard of that danger before; I should expect to Qid it in some yellow-covered literature, if anywhere. There are no Indians on Lake Superior, not in this State, nearer than La Pointe, many miles from where my of our citizens are living. The farthest voting point in this State is mi Ontonagon county, and it is over two hundred and fifty miles to La Pointe, where those Indians are. If they will come that distance to vote, -hey will show greater desire to become citizens of the United States than I *vr ~uppQoel they wol;' Mr. COOLIDGE. A single wbrd. I am inclined to think I can vote very heartily for the amendment of - the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVE-Ly;) nor-can I feel any very serious objection to it, after all that has been said here. The right or pro priety of allowing the Indians of this State to vote is placed by gentlemen on two grounds: first, that they are so far civilized that they are entitled on that ground to vote; that from their intelligence, morality and conformity to the customs of our people they are entitled to vote. Now, until I came here I had not supposed that such was their condition. And when I heard the first day's discussion upon this subject I did not then suppose that such was their condition. - But honorable gentlemen, whose statements I take without any hesitationthe gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CoNGER.) would give me to understand that these Indians in Michigan are civilized; that contrary to what I had supposed, from what I had read and learned, they had conformed to the civilization of -the white people; that they had adopted our customs; that they li-ved as we do, and that their modes of life are substantially the same as those of white men. If that be-so, then I do not know why, so far as that is concerned, they have not the right to vote. As I stated the other day, there are from the latest accounts, 1,703 Indian men in the State of Michigan. I do not suppose that in any case their votes would turn an election. They may and probably do in certain localities, and that fact perhaps has some bearing on the discussion-here. If they are in this civilized state,then what is the objection to the amendment proposed here? If the Legislature find that they are civilized,.they can define what this term "civilized" means, and these Indians will have the right to vote. I can see no difficulty about it. Nor do I understand how the gentleman from St. Clair can seriously object to this amendment on that ground. The second ground upon which the right of the Indians to vote is placed, is that it is the payment of a just debt which the whites have incurred. That is a very singular ground; and yet it is made here the basis of very fine arguments, and of very pathetic appeals to us. But here is not the place for me to argue a question of that nature. How far the whites have been right, and how much the Indians have been injured in being driven from their lands, is not a question that I can debate here to-day. I have never felt very much the force of the argument thgl J~~Q thet'o wY43e pi bw;~i 782 Monday, August 12, 1867. DEBASES API) PROCEEDIN'(+ 783' onthis great continent, therefore they were the rightful owners of all' the land; land to which they never at tached a particle of value, except for fhe game that they found in the forests. Suppose that a man should land upon an island, ten thousand acres in extent, is he "monarch of all he surveys," and if another man comes there, is he to be allowed none of it? - If we owe a debt to the Indian, then let us pay it. If we have robbed him of the right to vote, then pay him back, and give him the right to vote. But if in other things we have injured him, I object to paying him by giving him the right of suffrage. I do not understand the force of the argument at all, that because we may have op pressed the Indians by taking lands from them and allowing them an insufficient sum for them, that because our forefathers did this thing, and all men in the United States are doing it, therefore it is proposed that this Convention shall pay these Indians by giving them the right to vote. I submit that that is not a very good argument; I do not feel the force of it. I would be glad to have this whole question disposed of; I would rather this whole clause should be stricken out entirely; I think nobody would suffer if we did that. I am not aware that these Indians are treated by the United States government as citizens at all. I had supposed that up to this day as much as ever these Indians are treated as tribes by the United States government. And when the UJnited States government takes them from that condition and places them -in the same status with other citizens,'t will do it by act -of Congress.' They have their tribal relations with the United states just as much as they ever had. Mr, LEKCH. It is very evident the gentleman was not present the other day, when this matter was fully discussed over and ever again. It was then shown precisely what is the tribal relation of these Indians. By'the treaty of 1855, it was provided that the tribal organization of these Indians should be dissolved, except so far as may be necessary to carry into effect the provisions of that treaty. Mr. COOLIDGE. I have to-day looked over that treaty very carefully; and I submit that I caunot give any such construction whatever to it. And I have furthermorb learned that that is not the construction given to it by the present Indian agent. Mr. LEACH. I did not mean to be drawn into this discussion to-day. But I would like to knowby what authority the gentleman says that is not the construction gi~v to thy treaty by the present Indian agent? I know what construction has been given by the United States government, and by all who have had. anything to do with these Indians for years past. The tri bal organization is dissolved, except so far as necessary to carry into effect the treaties made with these Indians; that every man knows, who knows anything about Indian matters. I am surprised that gentlemen will get up here and make statements that they cannot back up with documents. The law was read the other day, and every gentleman who was present un derstood very distinctly how far that tribal organization extends, and where it ceases. Reference has been made to the opin ion of the present Indian agent. I have a letter from tlle present Indian agent in my desk here, in which he urges very strongly upon this Conven tion that we should continue to the In dians the right to vote, which they have enjoyed for the last seventeen years; he thinks it would be a. great misfortune to the Michigan Indians to deprive them obf this privilege. Mr. COOLIDGE. Will the gentle man allow me to make a single remark at this point? Mr. LE.ACH. Certainly. r. COOLIDGE. I have nothing to say in regard to how the Indian agent may feel in reference to the propriety of the Indians voting. I simply stated what I had been informed was the view of the Indian agent of the acts of the government concerning the tribal relation of these Indians' Mr. LEACH. The gentleman is mistaken. I am-intimately acquainted with the gentleman who is now Indian agent; he was with me for four years, while I was Indian agent, and I know how he construes the treaty. Gentlemen on this floor, I think the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. LOvELL,) was one of them, said the other day that they were willing that Indians who paid taxes should vote. That statement was made by a number of gentlemen on this floor. Mr. LOVELL. I have no doubt that every Indian who pays taxes is civilized. Mr. LEACH. I am willing to strike out this fourth subdivision, and leave these Indians in the hands of the United States Government. I would rather trust them to the tender mercies of the Congress of the United States, than to some gentlemen on this floor. The civil rights bill provides "that all persons born in the United States, not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of .the United States." Therefore all In dians *ho are liable to pay taxes are by that act made citizens of the United States. I am perfectly willing this fourth subdivision should be stricken out, and trust these Indians to this act of Congress, and to the pending amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The gentleman from Washtenaw (Mr. NORRIS) told us of the wild Indians of our western forests and plains who would come here; the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. SHEARER) says they will come from Canada in hordes, so that there is danger that this great State of Michigan will be desolated from one side of the State to the other by these Indians. I tell gentlemen, there are not eight thousand people in the State of Michigan of any other class, who have committed so few offenses against the laws of this State for the last ten years, as the eight thousand Indians in this State. You cannot find a class of ten thousand against whom as few complaints have been made, or of whom as few have been convicted> of heinous crimes. I speak of what I know, when I say these things. I have been intimately connected with these Indians; I have had busi ness relations with them; I have had the superintendence of their affairs. I lknow they are peaceable and harm- less; I know they have done no harm during the last seventeen years'by voting. I do not believe a county election has been carried by the In dians, except in one single instance. I say, as I said the other day, that if you disfranchise these Indians you must disorganize three or four townships in one of the counties of this State, because there are not enough white men there to hold the offices. Those Indians a;e capable of filling those offices,.' Mr. LOVELL. Are those Indians civilized? Mr. LEACH. I cannot say whether they are civilized or not; I might erect one standard of civilization, and the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) would erect another. I will say this, however, many of those Indians can read more languages than I can, or than a majority of the members of this Convention, I have no doubt. Yet it mnay be that they would not be regarded as civilized. I said I had not intended to enter into this discussion to-day. Yet I cannot sit here' quietly, and hear this matter misrepresented, unintentionally, of course, and yet misrepresented. I want to have the facts and the truth laid before this Convention, and I will abide by their decision. I would prefer to have this fourth sub-division stricken out, and let these Indians take their chances as citizens of the'United DEBATES, A TiD PROCEEDINGS. .&ugust 12-) 1861. 183 784 CONSTITUTIONAT, CONVENION. Monday, States, rather than have this amendment adopted. Mr. McCLELLAND. I have my self always been opposed to extending this privilege of voting to the Indians, for the simple reason that I think it will have a bad effect upon them, as a general thing. I have always been opposed to their voting in this State, and in the Convention of 1850 I tried by all means in my power to prevent and prohibit it. It seems I was mistaken, for I was officially informed, -when I had the power to prevent it, that they did not vote. If they have been in the habit of voting for the last seventeen years, it has been in direct contravention of the provisions of the Constitution of 1850. And as the gentleman from Grand Traverse (Mr. LFACH,) was a portion of that time the agent of these Indians, I ask him whether he did not instruct them that their voting was contrary to one of the provisions of the Constitution of 1850? Mr. LEACH. I will say to the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND,) that I did not so inform them. I found, when I was appointed agent, that they had been voting for some ten or eleven years, and there was no objection made to their voting by the people among whom they lived. And why should I step out of my sphere, and inform them that they should not vote? Mr. McCLELLAND. Not to step out of his sphere; but that was a part of the gentleman's duty. These Indians were looked upon as the wards of the government, and as their guardian the gentleman should have taught them the law of the land in regard to this matter. Mr. LEACH. What does the*Constitution of 1850 mean, when it says "civilized Indians?" Mr. McCLELLAND. Indians who have thrown off their uncivilized character. Mr. LEACH. They have already done that. Mr. McCLELLAND. Notuntil1855. And I claim that, even under the treaty of 1855, they have been treated as tribes by the authorities of the United States up to this time. Has not a treaty been made recently with these Indians, and is it not now pending in the Senate of the United States? Mr. LEACH. A treaty was made with the Chippewas of Saginaw, while I was agent, to carry out the provisions of a former treaty. Mr. McCLELLAND. In regard to their lands also? Mr. LEACH. It embracedsthe lands also, and so did the previous treaty. - C Why d _it. I 1i nteSnt fteUie tts Mri EC.Itddnt benaohe1ray tret ic h n ae bena]tep hruhD.Avr Mr. MoCLELLAND. Has there not Mr. LEACH. There has been no Mr. MoCLELLAND. Has not there Mr. LEACH. I do not know what Mr. MoCLELLAND. Has there not Mr. LEACH. If the gentleman Mr. LEACH. There was an attempt Mr.' MeCLELLAND. In regard to sian agent. I wrote to'him' inquiring whether these Indians had thrown off there were of them. He answered that in 1866 the population was 7,796; of which there were 1,650 males, 2,031 females, and 4,11w children. His first letter was not as full as I desired it to be, and I wrote him again, asking EON. R. MCCLILLAND My Dear Sir: Your letter of the 8th inst., asking for the number of male Indians within this State now receiving annuities from the General Goverhment, is received. In reply to the same I have respectfully to say,' that according to my best knowledge, information and belief, all or nearly all the Indians in Michigan, are regarded as treaty Indians, and that up to last year they, with but very few exceptions, claimed and received annuities at the hands of the Government, Touching the number of them who have thrown off their tribal character, and who have adopted the habits and customs of the white man, I do not think that of the entire Indian population of the State, now numbering about 8,000 souls, (and who as to blood or race range from the wild Indian to the white man) not more than 300 could be found, and perhaps not so many. , Of the number last mentioned it is possible that from 100 to 150 males, 21 years old and upwards could be found, and who might answer very nearly the description you give. Notwithstanding this, most all of them have made more or less advancement in the pursuits of civilized liie, and in view of the limited advantages they have enjoyed and the obstacles in their way, I can but think they have done well. Let me assure you that the Michigan Indians are loyal and well disposed towards the citizens of the State, while a goodly number of them pay taxes and bear other resposibilities of the citizens. In view of these considerations, and believing that it may stimulate them to further efforts in civilization, I earnestly hope and trust that the Constitutional Convention of which you are a member, will grant them, in common with others, the elective franchise. In conclusion permit me, honored sir, to, say, that if it was an original question, which it is not, I should hesitate long and much before granting them that sacred right. Or if it was, under the circumstances, likely to work an injury to them or to the State, I would be the last man to urge it. The deep interest I feel in their welfare has prompted me to say in their behalf what I have. Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, RICHARD M. SMITH, '~ ~^ ~ Indian Agent. Now, all I have to say in regard to this matter is that some such amend ment as that offered by the gentleman from Genesee (Mrr. LOVELL) ought to be adopted. That will leave it to the Legislature to say whom they will de nominate " civilized Indians,". and what provisions they will throw around this right, so as to guard the proper exer cise of it. If we say that those that pay taxes shall be allowed to vote, well and good. If we say all those who are educated to any extent, well and good. Whatever rules we adopt, I will submit to, as a matter of course. But I do think, and I think all who are conver sant with the character of the Indians will say, that whenever you extend this right to them, you extend a right which will be of doubtful value. When you bring them to the polls, as they are often brought, they are in such a condition that they cannot give a fair or intelligent vote. Now, sir, the experience of almost every one in this State, and in other States, is this: There are some very honorable exceptions; there are Indians who have been well educated, and who are very intelligent, but they are very few in number, comparatively speak ing. Those who have seen these crea tures brought up to the polls, have seen them brought up in a very demoral ized condition; and that very fact, among others I could mention here, is one of the things that tend to destroy them and crush them out. The question was upon the amend ment Of Mr. LOVELL, to insert the word "civilized" before the words, "male Indians;" so that the clause wouldread: "All civilized male Indians, natives of the United Stn'tes." Upon this amendment the yeas and nays had been ordered. The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to; yeas 45, nays 25, a%follows YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Barber. Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Coo:idge, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings, Henderson, Hixson, Holt, Lawrence, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Miller,'Morton, Murray: Musgrave, Niede, Norris, Purcell, Ratter, Richmond. Sawyer, Shearer. Shel. don, Thompson, Utley, M. C. Watkins, White, Winans, Withey, and Williams-45. NAYs-Messrs. AndruN, Chapin, Chapman, 11 I .1 August 12, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 785 Conger, Dantells, Divine, Germain, Holmes, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, Mussey, T. G. Smnith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Tyler, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, Willard Wisnor Woodhouse, Wright, and Yeomans- 25.. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. STOCKWELL to strike out the fourth subdivision of the section, amended to read: "Fourth. All civilized male Indians, natives of the United States." Mr. LEAC.H. This proposition having got into the hands of its enemies, I hope it will be stricken out. Mr. FARMER. I would not rise to say a word on this occasion had I not, as a member of the committee on elections, made some small effort to continue the right of suffrage to the Indians, which they have exercised heretofore-whether with the law or without the law, I will not say. -I am opposed to making any invidious distinction on account of race, as I have said here before. I think the term "citizen of the United States" is sufficiently broad to cover all proper cases. And as that is defined by the civil rights bill, I am willing to leave this matter there. I shall therefore vote to strike out this fourth subdivision. Mr. STOCKWELL. I was not in my seat when this article was under consideration in committee of the whole, and consequently I have not the advantage of the debate that was then had on this subject. But in looking over this section, I cannot see any just reason for making this fourth subdivision a part of the Constitution. And although as amended it may be somewhat less objectionable, still I can see no reason why it should not be stricken out. While I would be very liberal in extending the elective franchise, and, as my vote this forenoon has indicated, would be willing to extend it to the intelligent women of our State, I cannot see any just ground for opening the door so wide as to extend it to Indians, who know very little, and care less, perhaps, about the political institutions of our country. It seems to me they will constitute a class that will be controlled by designing men. I think, therefore, this fourth subdivision had better be stricken out, and I shall so vote. Mr. T. G. SMITH. I trust this fourth subdivision will be stricken out; we are now about to grant the right of suffrage to males over twenty-one years of age, of all classes in this State, without distinction; and I hope we will not make an exception of the Indian. I can see no reason why we should grant this right of suffrage to colored men, however ignorant they may be, or to VoL 2 —No. 99. the ignorant foreigners who come into this State, and then deprive the Indian of it, because he may be ignorant. I trust the Convention will strike out this fourth subdivision. The question was then taken upon striking out the fourth subdivision of the section; a division on the vote was called for, but before the result was announced, Mr. McCLELLAND called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. LOVELL. I will only say that I hope we will not impose a property qualification on "the poor Indian," which we would not favor the imposition of upon the white man. Mr. WILLARD. I do not understand that this does that. Mr. CHAPIN. -- I will simply say that I am rather suspicious of any prayers or entreaties in behalf of "the poor Indian," from that source. Mr. LOVELL. My family have done more for the Indians than have the family of the gentleman from Gratiot, (Mr. CHAPIN,) or the family of the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mir. LEACH.) They have spent years among them as missionaries. Mr. LEACH. I do not rise here to boast of what I or my family have done for the Indians. But I will say this, that the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. LOVELL,) has not shown himself here to be a friend of the Indians, whatever his family may have done for them. I do not think he has ever been among them; otherwise he would have more charity for them, and would be more willing to do them justice. I I desire that this fourth subdivision shall be stricken out; and then -these wild roving Indians who have no settled homes or habitation, will not, be permitted to vote. But those who have settled upon farms, and who have property upon which they pay taxes, ought to be permitted to vote. And if this sub-division is stricken out, they will be permitted to vote, and the question :wlll not be raised before every township board whether they are civilized or not. If there is a man here claiming to be a Republican, who says that a tax-paying citizen of this State should not have the right to vote, I should like to know who he is. Is it the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. LOVELL,) or the gentleman from Washtenaw, (MIr. NORRIs?) Mr. LOVELL. Under the very first subdivision of this section, every taxpaying citizen of this State will have the right to vote, if he is a citizen of the United States. We who propose to amend this section, propose to do for the Indian what others propose to do out of spite, because they cannot do more. Under the first subdivision, every one of these Indians, of whom the gentleman speaks, who pay taxes can vote. This fourth subdivision proposes to extend that right still further, and to allow all civilized Indians without property to vote; there is no question about that. We will show by our work and our votes here, who are the true friends of the intelligent Indian. Mr. BRADLEY. If this debate degenerates into personalities, I am a little fearful that those of us down here "in Egypt" will not be able to see the light, and know how to vote when the roll is called. I hope we will have the roll called without any further discussion. Mr. COOLIDGE. "Abyssinia" is in the same condition. The question was then taken upon striking out the fourth sub-division as amended, and it was agreed to; yeas 38, nays 31, as follows: YEAs-MeSsrs. Andrus, Bills, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Conger, Divine, Farmer, Germain, Henderson, Holmes, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, Lace, McConnell, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Ninde, Shel(lon, T. GJ Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Tyler, Utley, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winsor, Williams, Woodhouse, Wright, and Yeomans-38. NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Barber, Blackman, Brown, Coolidge, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Giddings, Hixson, Holt, Lawrence, Lovell, Meglelland, Morton, Musgrave, Norris, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Sawyer, Shearer, Thompson, Van Valkenburgh, Winans, and Withey-31. Mlr. W. C. WATKINS. I move to strike out the second subdivision of this section, which is as follows: Secon(l, Every male inhabitant'of this State, who shall have resided in the United States two years and six months, and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, pursuant to the laws thereot; six months preceding an election. I offer this amendment as expressing simply my own views upon this subject; I do not know that it will receive the vote of any other member here. - But in lodoking over this section, it struck me that we were a little inconsistent. We refuse to allow minors to vote; we refuse to allow women to vote, and we have just stricken out a clause that provided that Indians might vote. Still it is proposed to allow foreigners to vote, after they have declared their intention to become citizens of the United State, and before they have become such citizens. In my view of this subject, there is no inducement whatever, for a foreigner in this State to become a citizen. When he- has simply declared his intention to become a citizen, he is allowed to vote; to hold and dispose of real estate; in short, he is allowed all the rights and privileges of citizens, without being obliged to take upon him I INGS. DEBATES AND PROCEH'I) .. 785 August 12, 1867. I 78 COTTTOA EOV~I~ ody self the responsibilities of a citizen. Now, I-think that is all- wrong.. — In our article on the military department, we- provide that all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years shall be required to perform military duty; but none but citizens are required; to do this. I understand that there are very many foreigners in our State to-day, who years ago declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States, and who have gone no further. And I do not know what inducement there is for them to go any further.: If they can have all the rights and privileges of citizens, without taking upon themselves the, responsibilities of citizens, why should they become citizens? There is nothing to induce them to do so. Mr. PURCELL. Would the gentleman, in case of invasion or rebellion, permit foreigners to enter our military service before they become naturalized? Mr. DM.(C. WATKINS. Yes,ifthey have a mind to enlist; but we cannot compel them to enter the service. We can compel citizens to do so, but we cannot compel foreigners to enter our- military service. Citizens may be -compelled to do military duty, but foreigners- cannot. And these,foreigners, who have simply declared their intention tobecome citizens, stand upon the same footing in that respect with other foreigners; we cannot control them in that matter. For that reason I am opposed to this second subdivision, and I think it should be.stricken out. It is time enough to allow these foreigners to vote-when they become citizens. - Very many of the foreigners who come into our State are ignorant of our laws and institutions. And I think they will1 not have any too much time to acquire -the'information necessary to qualify them to properly exercise the right of the elective franchise, if we'require them to be naturalized citizens of the United States before they are allowed to vote. - The question was upon striking out the second sub-division of the section. Mr. McCLELLAND. Upon that question I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken upon the motion to strike out, and it was not agreed to; yeas 9, nays 58, as follows: ..YE —Mes8srs. Andrus, Barber, Blackman, Brown, Case, Chapman, Duncombe, Murray, and M:. C. Watkins-9. a NAYs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Bills, Bradley, Chapin, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells; Desnoyers, Divine, Duncan, ^ElliOtt, Farmer, Germain, Giddings, Henderson, Hixson, Holmea, Holt, Huston, Kenney, Lawrence, Leach, LonDyear, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Miller, Morton, Mussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Norris, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell. Stoughton, Thompson, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, Willard, Winans, Winsor, Williams, Woodhouse, Wright, aindYeomans58. The question recurred upon the substitute for the section, offered by Mr. CROCKER, as follows: In all elections, every person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in this State three moriths, and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote ten days next preceding an election, belonging to either of the following classes, shall be an elector and entitled to vote: First. Every white male citizen of the United States. Second. Every white male inhabitant of this State, who shall have resided in the United States two years and six months, and declared his intentidn to become a citizen of the United States, pursuant to the laws theteof; six months preceding an election. Third. Every white male inhabitant residing in this State on the twenty-fourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirtyfive. Fourth. Every civilized male inhabitant of Indian descent, and not a member of any tribe, a native of the United States, and not receiving an annuity from the same. Fifthi Every male inhabitant of African descent, a native of the United States. Resolved, That at the election when the votes of the electors shall be taken for the adoption or rejection of the revised Constitution, a separate ballot may be given by every person having the right to vote for or against the adoption thereof, which said ballot so given shall be deposited in a separate box. And upon the ballot herein provided for shall be written or printed, or partially written and partially printed, "Negro suffirage-Yes," or "Negro suffrage-No," as such person, so voting, may prefer. And it at said election,. a majority of all the votes given for or against Negro suffrage, shall contain the word "Yes," as above provided, and the revised Constitution is adopted by the people voting at said election, then the fifth subdivision of section one, Article —, of the revised Constitution, shall be and remain in the same in full force and effect. And if at said election, a majority of all the votes given for or against Negro suffrage, shall contain'the word' No," as above provided, and the said revised Constitution is adopted by the people voting at said election, then the said fifth subdivision of section one of Article -, shall not be and remain therein; and the said revised Constitution shall become operative -with the said above named fifth subdivision of section one, of Article -, formno part or portion thereo f. Mr. CROCKER. As the fourth subdivision of the section of the original article has been stricken out, I will modify my substitute by striking out the fourth subdivision of it, and making the fifth; he fourth subdivision. The question was upon the substitute as modified. M~r.:HOLMES. I am opposed to the substitute for the reason that I am not in favor of a clause which recognizes a class of people in the State of Michigan as down-trodden victims of social and political distinctions, unqualified, unfit to enjoy the rights and duties of citizens, on account of a peculiar caste or complexion. I am not in favor of a clause by which the rights of citizen ship are crippled by prejudice. Mane hood is no longer traced out by race or color; but by the spirit of American institutions the rights of manhood carry along with them the rights and duties of citizenship. I stand to-day in favor of an equal and impartial suffrage, with no insurmountable qualifi-, tions, a suffrage in which color is not known. In my judgment the time has come, the people are ready for this this question. Already t catch the sound of the popular voice on this subject; the wheels of progress have moved us onward, old customs have been forsaken, old creeds and codes buried in the past. Higher ideas of justice and equality are established, and universal suffrage is coming from the dead letter of the past to lead us forth into a higher civilization. I am not alone in my opinion; it is the popular idea of the day. I believe there are many here, in this Convention, who will concur with me in my views-I hope a majority-when the right of equal and iimpartial suffrage shall be incorporated in this Constitution, and with it submitted to the people of this State. This I believe to be my own duty, and for this will I labor, for this will I cast my vote. The opposers of this measure-what can they say, what argument can they offer against it? Their stronghold, in which they have fortified themselves in times past, has been utterly demolished. The manhood of the negro has been established; the argument of the igferiority of the race, their being endowed with capabilities too small to claim a title to freedom and self-government-a question of science rather than of, morals-this argument has been buried beyond the hope of a resurrection. This we are forced to admit, when we review the record of their patriotism in sustaining our institutions, which we had ever denied them the privilege of enjoying-sustaining them at the point of the bayonet, and at the cost of their lives. Such patriotism as that intelligence cannot question. -' But why deprive them of — the right of the ballot? Is it- on account of their ignorance, their poverty? To this I answer, there now exists, and ever has existed, gradations in society; there has ever been a diversity of rank in all ages, among all races; and there ever must be; ft is a part of the divine economy. There must ever be bootblacks and day laborers; there must ever be men at the forge, as well as men to rule the Senate. There must be men to drive the plow, as well as men to occupy the Presidential chair. All we ask is that the boot-black, the day laborer, the farmer, the smith may . Monclay. -, 786- - CONS'XITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Auus 12 187 EAE. R(EDXS 8 alike have the privilege of the ballot, to secure for themselves fair wages for their labor, with unobstructed oppor tunities for improving their condition if they can; that the field of industry and talent may be open to all alike. Again, to deprive a man of the rights of citizenship is to cripple his liberties; it is to deprive him of his labor, or compel him to labor for a privileged class, they themselves fixing the price of his labor. The ballot in his hand is the only safeguard of his liberties. Under the demands of jus tice, it is our duty to grant him the rights of the ballot. He has a right to claim it, not as a privilege, not as a favor, the result of your benevolence, but as a human, individual right. For when you affect to pity the poor man, those who must labor or the world can not exist, you are trifling with the condition of mankind. As far as you withhold from him this right, just so far you are responsible for his subjugation. We claim the enfranchisement of the negro as a natural right, not conl ventional, not a concession, a political arrangement, but an individual, natural right, of which he has been long deprived by a privileged class, technically termed " white males." We claim that man, unconnected with society, has a right to all things on the earth; his natural right is unlimited, or only limited by his encroachments upon the rights of another. When he connects himself with society he sacrifices some of his natural rights, as a price for the privileges of society. But society has no right, as 4 fundamental principle, to demand of me one price fbr those privileges, and of you another. There is but one price it can demand, and that price must extend to all alike. The color of the skin, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, or the size of the physical organization, cannot of right affect that price. HIence, we claim that the "white male " never received from society his right to deprive the negro of his vote; society never gave him the right, society is not authorized to impose limitations upon it, that do not spring out of the necessities of the social state itself. Again, we ask this for the justice of their property and person, being controlled by laws they have no voice in framing. Do you say the negro shall have the right to American liberties, but have no share in the fundamental security of those liberties? If you say this, I say your laws degrade the negro; your customs cripple him, and your system of taxation is ungenerous and unjust. . I read in article eighteen, section fourteen of our Constitution, that'the property of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensa tion therefor. Is there- not a direct violation of this section, every time the tax-gatherer calls upon any one of this disfranchised class? Hear what Lord Coke says: " The supreme power can not take from any man any part of- his property, without his consent, in per son or by representation." Taxes are not to be laid on the people without their consent, in person or by repre sentation. This would seem to be in effect an entire disfranchisement of every civil right; for what civil right is worth a rush after a man's property is subject to be taken from him with out his consent? We boast of a government founded upon true democracy; the Christian principle is the corner stone of true democracy; all men are equal, -is the fundamental doctrine. It does not recognize liberty in a priv ileged class, the "white males;" but holds liberty and equality as univer sal, as belonging to, human' nature. How corrupt in principle have we become? We hold out our hands, wel coming to our midst our friends from continental Europe; we say to them, "Our laws demand that you renounce all titles, all allegiance to potentates and princes, and as a prize for this sacrifice, we will give you all the rights .and immunities of full citizenship under our democratic government." And at the same time we hold as much to title, we claim as much nobility, in this clause " the white males "we legislate as effectually for a disfranchised class, as d(o the nobility of England-or the bfrons of France. Again, we claim the enfranchisement of the negro as the condition of the reconstruction of the Southern States. Can we be so inconsistent as to frame a Constitution here disfranchising a man. on acdount of color? Can we claim more of any one of the Southern States than we would be willing to do ourselves? Can we urge upon our Representatives in Congress to stand for the principle of universal equality throughouit the South, and we still retain this invidious distinction among citizens? To what extent can such consistency be carried, and we be kept from disgrace'? How long can we be conservative with so great a load of guilt and hypocricy upon us? How long shall privileges so antagonistic to equality exert an influence amongst us? We had hoped that it was buried in the same grave with slavery. But our judgments and experience told us that governments were net unlike our own physical organization; when disease has been working its corruptions throughout our systems f6r gen :erations, after the disease has,. been checked, it requires time to purge the system of the malady, and to reinstate a healthful circulation. Is it not always wisdom to continue that purging process until health is restored? So with our Government; is it not wisdom to continue this purging process? Until the principles and title of our government shall correspond; until that true political. philosophy recognized and contended for by the Declaration of Independence, that, "all men are born free and equal," shall no longer be but a name; until we shall believe that doctrine recorded in Divine Truth, that out of one blood God created all the nations of the- -earth, and adopt it into the principles of — government, then and not until then will we be able to satisfy the demands of the age.: Open to the negro your common schools, the universal heritage otAm-erican children. Give him the -right-to the elective franchise in the State of Michigan; then will you do. your part in helping him along up in the scale of being, from the degraded slave to -the intelligent American citizen.: Mr. CROCKER. The ony difference between the original-section and the substitute I have offered, is that in my substitute the word " white is inserted before the word "male;" and there is a fourth subdivision giving the right of suffrage to the negro; and then there is a resolution attached to the substitute providing that the fourth subdivision shall be acted upon separately by the people, at the time they vote-upon the Constitution. It is only the separate submission of that fourth subdivision that is involved-in the substitute; - that is all I ask. In behalf of that proposition, I do not propose to submit any argument one way or the other. Mr. CONGER. Does the gentleman desire to make a distinction among the legal citizens of the United States? Mr. CROCKER. Not at all. Mr. CONGErs. I would ask the gentleman whether, by the laws of Congress, a person of African descent, born in the United States, is-not a legal citizen of the United States? Hr. CROCKER. He is made so by a law of Congress. Mr. CONGER. Then why does the gentleman want to put in our Constitution a word which will makee a distinction against a legal citizen of the United States? Mr. CROCKER. I am not making any such distinction. There are very many good and respectable-men inthis country who are opposed to extending [he right of suffrage to that class-of citizens to whom my friend refers; and 0 4 8 787 " August 12. 1867. DEBATES.AND -PROCEEDINGS. 0 .0 q 78 COSIUTOA _OVNIN 1 ny, they are not confined to the Republican party, or to the Democratic party. There are men in both parties who desire to have the question separately submitted to the people; there are men in both parties who are opposed to the extension of suffrage to negroes. I simply submit to this Convention fairly whether they will submit that to the people as a separate proposition. I raise no distinction, and make none. Mr. CONGER. I asked the gentleman if he wished to introduce a word here which would create a distinction against a certain class of legal citizens of the United States, and he said, no. I will now ask him him if putting in the word " white" would not create a distinction against a class of legal citizens of the United States? Mr. CROCKER. I think not. To all legal citizens is extended the right of suffrage, by the section as I propose to make it; it describes all classes. But for the purpose of having the issue fairly presented to the electors of this State, one class is described in the language which is there set forth;'that is the only purpose I have in view. I have not offered this substitute for the purpose of eliciting any discussion at all. I consider it a fair, straight-forward proposition, and all that -I ask for it is a fair vote. Mr. CONGER. If the gentleman is in earnest in desiring to give negroes the right to vote, then the only object of his substitute is to keep up a dis tinction against that class of citizens, by inserting the word" white" in our Constitution. The negro is just as much a citizen of the United States to day, by the supreme law of the land, as is the gentleman himself; he is just as much a citizen of the United States as I am, or as any member of this Con vention is. I asked the gentleman, because I desired it to go on the record here, whether he wished to put in the body of our Constitution a word which would cast a stigma upon a loyal citi zen of the United States? He says, no. Then I ask him, why put in a word which has been used for ages to throw a disgrace and a stigma upon the African race; why insert.the word in the Constitution, when he says he desires that they shall become voters in this State? What is the object of that distinction? Why not as well say that all citizens of the United States shall be voters, except those who have black hair, or except those who live in a particular county, Or except those who are of German descent? Why throw upon a class of citizens, whom he claims to desire to see voters in this State, that old long dishonored brand and stigma of disgrace, by calling them "black," or speaking of the others as white"? Why make any distinction of races, if the gentleman is in favor of all legal citizens of the United States, of proper age and sex, voting in this State? I tell you there can be no mistake in regard to the object of this proposition. There are those of us who desire that our new Constitution shall eitend the right of suffrage to all legal citizens entitled to it, without distinction of race. While we give them the power to vote, and acknowledge them as citizens by our Constitution, as we will even if the last sub-division of this substitute is submitted to the people separately and adopted by them, we are not willing to. put in the Constitution a distinction between the classes of voters, styling one class "white" voters, in contradiction to another class of voters. Why should we make that distinction at all between men entitled to vote, except for the absurd and unfounded prejudice which has rankled in the hearts of men, from generation to generation until now, and which even the power of Almighty God it seems cannot drive from the hearts of men, although they will admit these men to be citizens? Suppose this Constitution is adopted, as the gentleman proposes; suppose these two clauses find their places in our Constitution; would it be anhonor to this Convention, that they voted to make all classes of citizens voters and then divided them into the white class, and the dark class, those of the Cau cassian race, and those of the African race? Is there no limit to the hostility which leads men still to desire to grind down a race, which has been ground, down and trodden under foot hitherto? Or shall our Constitution have in it words conveying a meaning of dis grace, for the sole purpose of pan dering to the unholy prejudices of our children after us? Shall we put those. words there to show that although we did extend the right of citizenship and the right of suffrage to this class of men, we still desired to remind them of the bondage of their race in the past, and their subjection in days that are gone by to the ruling class, that we would still make them wear the badge of shame? If other gentlemen desire to link their names to such a vote, for their own edification and delectation, of course I am willing they should have that privilege. But, for myself, if I would extend the right of suffrage to the Mrical race, I will do it boldly and manfully, without a slur and without a reproach; or I will withhold the right from them altogether. * I desire to see in the body of this Constitution no word which shall recognize any distinction whatever between these two classes of citizens The people demand it; the country demands it; my own sense of right demands that action of me. Other gentlemen must follow the dictates of their own judgment and their own consciences. Mr. MORTON. I do not wish to make a speech, but simply to remind this Convention that this subject of suffrage has been before the people once, and it was rejected by them, so far as giving suffrage to American citizens of African descent is concerned, by a very large majority. For that reason it seems to me that it would be very appropriate to submit the question separately to them at this time, because if those who are in favor of extending the right of suffrage to this class are so sanguine that a majority of the people will sustain them, it will certainly command for their action in this regard, more respect to have it endorsed at the polls by a majority of the people of this State. I understand that all there is in the proposition of the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. CROCKER,) is the separate submission of this question to the people. It may be said that we want to endorse the proceedings of Congress in abolishing slavery. But if we do endorse their proceedings in this way, we' endorse the system of Slavery, which has been so much denounced, as a good school for the education and elevation of this race, as a school which has fitted them for citizenskip. Now, strong a pro slavery man as I am, I do not believe slavery has done that for the negro. To be consistent I must vote for the separate submission of this question to the people. M. CROCKER. When the gentle man from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) states that this is put in as a slur, and to make an invidious distinction, he is drawing upon his imagination. I take the language of our present Constitu tion. Will' any gentleman say that any slurs'were put in that Constitu tion? The honorable gentleman will not say so. I know of no facts that will warrant any man in saying that plain English, calling things by their right and true names, is slurring. There is nothing in the section, or in the resolution I have offered, that is in any manner a slur. It simply describes each class of indi viduals as it finds them; that is all there is about it. It makes no dis tinction, it makes no slur, it makes no invidious comparison. It simply calls things by their right names for a pur pose. t CONSTI'.UUTIONAT4 CONVENTION. Moncla'Y) 788 W DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. G What is that purpose? It is to get the distinct issue fairly before the people. How would the honorable gentleman get the question before the people, whether the negro shall be allowed to vote or not, except by calling things by their right names? If he knows any other manner of doing it so well, let him present it, and I will waive this plan. I have submitted this proposition in plain English, for one particular purpose, and for no other purpose; and the gentleman has no right to say that it is for any sinister purpose whatever. I say this matter is not confined to parties. There are honorable members who vote with the party to which the gentleman belongs, who- are not in favor of extending suffrage to the negro; there are men in the Democratic party who are in favor of extending suffrage to the negro; that is not confined to parties. I shall expect of course, that the honorable member from Grand Traverse (Mr. LE,cH,) will vote for my proposition. He has informed us on this floor that in 1850, whed. our present Constitution was framed, he was the only member of the Convention who was ini favor (,f negro suffrage. That Convention standing ninety-nine to one, treated his views with that much respect that they submitted to the people a separate proposition on the subject. Perhaps there are many here who would not be in favor of extending the right of suffrage to negroes; there are many in the State who would not be. And we owe this much of respect to theta, to submit the proposition fairly and clearly to them to vote upon. Mr. CON,GER. The gentleman says the proposition has been once submitted to the people of Michigan. I wish to remind the gentleman that when this proposition was submitted to the -people of the State of Michigan, there were millions of this race held slaves in,this country. By the laws of the United States, which are the supreme law of the land for the Stare of Michigan, this class of persons all through the country had not then been made citizens of the United States. But to-day they are citizens, as I asserted before, just as much as the gentleman from Macomb (Mr. CROCKER) himself is. ~s there no difference between the circumstances now and in 1850? Then there was a serf race recognized as such by the General Government, recognized as such by the people of the Uni;ted States, at least by acquiescence; a serf race comprising between three and four millions of people, recognized as slaves, as bondmen, as degraded serfs, as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the.rest of the people in tis country. To-day these people have been redeemed, regenerated, disenthralled, by the universal genius of emancipation, as a celebrated Russian orator once said, in speaking of his own country. To-day the laws of the United States say that these persons are citizens of the United States, the equals before the law of every other citizen. Is it then the same as it was in 1850? The question now is, and I put it to the gentleman again and again,will he make a distinction against a class of legal citizens of the United States? That is the proposition. Will he put into our Constitution a declaration, or even a suspicion, that a class of legal citizens of the United States, having all the other qualifications of age, sex and residence, shall not by our Constitution be allowed to vote? If he will, he will go beyond where I would go. And if he will do it in regard to one class of legal citizens, who will say to what other class he will apply the rule? The gentleman disclaims any intention to cast a slur on this class of citizens. I did not say.the gentleman intended to do so; I know his high-toned feelings too well to say that. But I said that if his proposition should be adopted as he has submitted it, if the two parts should, be printed together in the Constitution, that Constitution would be a living, lasting slur and disgrace upon one portion of the legal citizens of the United States, who might exercise the right of suffrage under that Constitution. Who desires these distinctions in the Constitution? I say I do not. And yet the gentleman would plant this distinction there to be seen and read of all men, through all time, if this Constitution is adopted and endures. Why can we not rise above that prejudice? The gentleman says there are gentlemen who belong to the party with which I act, who are opposed to citizens of the United States voting in this State, because they chance to be negroes. I say if there be such men, then let them withdraw themselves quietly and unobtrusively from the party; they do not belong to the party. If there are those professing to belong to the Republican party, who would deprive legal citizens of the United States, residing in the State of Michigan a sufficient time, and of legal age, made citizens of the United States, of the right to vote, they have no place in the ranks of that loyal army of'Republicans who have marched along to the tune of progress in the United'States for so many years; and they had better go where they do belong. Let the gentleman give his in vition and sound his hornlm, and see how great a rally he will have from our ranks. I tell the gentlemen that the shrewdest,4the wisest and the best of his patty, not only in this Convention, but in other parts of the State, have given in their adhesion unqualifiedly to the principle of negro suffrage in this State. The leader of his party in our part of the State has argued the question with the members of his party in this Convention, and urged them to go for negro suffrage ii the body of the Constitution. I believe a large portion of the Democratic party will vote for negro suffrage, when it is submitted to them in this Constitution. I say it is a slur upon any Republican, standing by the great national party that enforces impartial suffrage, tosay nothing of granting it, when you say that he will oppose negro suffrage in the C0astitution of Michigan. I have never found one of that class yet. I have heard of them lingering around ourranks somewhere, but they have never been pointed out to me, that I might admire and wonder -and let them perish. The question was upon the substitute of Mr. CROCKER. Mr. MUSSEY called for the yeas and nays on the substitute. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken, and the substitute was not agreed toyeas 15, nays 50, as follows: 'YEAs-Messrs. Alexander, Chapman, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Hixson, Lawrence, McClelland, Morton, Ninde, Norris, Purcell, Rafer, Richmond, Shearer, and Winans-16. NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Andrus, Barber, Blackman, Bradley Brown, Case, Chapin, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Farter,Ferris, Germain, Henderson, Holmes, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McConnell, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Sawyer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stookwell, Stoughton, Thompson, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, P. D. Warner,M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Win — sor, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, Wright, and Yeomans-50. Mr. FARMER. I move to amend this section by adding thereto the'~ following:' 4ourth, Females shall be entitled to vote. under and upon the same conditions and restrictions in-this secLion provided for males. Resolved That at the election when the votes of tl~e electors shall be taken for the adoption or rejection of the revised Constitution, a separate ballot may be given by every person having the right to vote for or against the adoption thereof, to -be deposited in a separate bow. Upon the ballot provided bor in this resolution, shall be written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, the words: "Shall subdivision four, of section one, of Article -, of the revised Constitution remain?-Yes;" or "Shall subdivision four, of section one, of Article - of the revised Constitution remain?-No;" as such person so voting may prefer. And, if at said election, a majority of all the votes given fbr or against ~he said fourth subdivision of section one,. of Article —, remaining as above provided, shall contain the word "SYes," anld the revised Constitution ls adopted by the people -t. A.ugust 12, 1867. 789 I I I o 4 CONSTITUTIONAL COINENTION. voting at said election, then the said fourth subdivision of section one Article-of the revised Constituti6n, shall be and remain in the same in full force and effect. And if at said election, a majority of all the votes given for or against the said fourth subdivision of section one, Article -, remaining as Above provided, shall contain the word. No, and the said revised Constitution is adopted by the people voting at said election, then the said fourth subdivision of section one, of Article -, shall not be and remain therein; and the said revised Constitution shall become operative with the said above named fourth subdivision of section one, Article.-, forming no part or portion thereof.. I do not propose to discuss this question. I offer th.-is amendment in order to give those who are willing to submit this question of female suffrage to a vote of the people an opportunity to so express themselves by their votes upon it. It is simplygiving the people of the State an opportunity -to vote directly on the question whether they will extend the right of suffrage to females pon the same terms that they extend it to males, who are citizens of this State. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. It is with great diffidence that I place myself in an attitude that can be by any means construed as being antagonistical to the kdies. If the gentleman had made his proposition to submit the question to the ladies of this State, and a majority of those ladies should vote for it, I should certainly be in favor of extending to them the right of elective franchise. Mr. FARMER. If the gentleman will allow me to interrupt him a moment, I will say that I do not do that simply because of the fact, which I think every gentleman here will acknowledge, that we have no such power. We can submit this question only to those who are now electors. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. It has been stated on this floor, that five thousand ladies of this State had petitioned this Convention min favor of female suffrage. I attempted to correct the statement at the time it was made. There were petitions from' but twentysix: hundred females, and about twent~y-four hundred males, before the committeei on elections; that was the whole number of petitioners inl our State for female suffrage. - There is no man who would bie more happy than myself to extend the elective franchise to- the females of this States if I thought they required it. I do -not yield in point of gallantry to the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (MIr. GIDDINGS, ) who has advocated their cause so eloquently to-day. Of all m~y acquaintance, and being chairman of the committee on elections, I have taken some trouble to inquire, I have not found a single solitary female who desired~ the right of suffrage. On1 the contrary, I found many who exhorted me to vote against it, and to use my influence against it. I think that it would infringe upon the rights and domestic duties of those ladies who are opposed to it, that it might prove a bone of contention, especially in the case of my friend from Lenawee, (Mr. SAWYER,) Who says his wife is a Democrat while he is a Republican; it would be the cause of great dissension in the family. Certainly I should dish to prevent anything of that kind. I hope the amendment will not prevail. Mr.'SHEARER. - I am very sorry that there should be any opposition to so great and magnificent a proposition to be laid before the people of Michigan. I am very sorry that in tHis Convention we should strike at the root almost of civilization. Why should man suffer female genius, like the unpolished diamond, to be buried in its own native rubbish? Raise it from the quarry, polish it, and let it shine in its native brilliancy. The time is coming when the right of suffrage will be granted to the. ladies of this State. I profess not too- be a prophet or the son of a prophet. But I hope that the gentlemen who vote against this proposition to submit. so beneficent a measure to the voters of this State, will live to see. the time when the voters of this State will grant this high and holy privilege to the females of Michigan. Sir, you may mark-the track of civilization from the Turk down to the European, and wherever you see the greatest marks of civilization, you see there the greatest respect paid to the female part of the population. I have advocated this cause at home and abroad for the last twenty years. We found in this Convention in the forenoon to-day twenty-three who were willing to vote for this measure. Why should we cast this invidious distinction u~pon our mothers; and wives,'and daughters, and sisters, and elevate the African race above- them? Whlatc~harms have youe seen in the-African race above those of the females who have given us all the privileges we enjoy? How is it, and why is it that such things- can be engendered in a disordered brain? I need not repeat what I have said before;- but I will say this much, that I[hope this Convention, when they are called upon to vote upon this proposition, to submit to the voters of this State the question whether theyr are willing that the females shall go up to the ballot box with the mnales-, will vote in favor of' it. It will cast a sunshine around the polls; it will allay that barbarity, and will lay that harsh feature of partyism inl the dust. When they ladies go into their presence it will mollify and break down all that party spirit and prejudice which men enter tain against each -other for the sake of party, and, establish that principle of liberty that our fathers fought and bled for on many a battle-field. Compare the intelligence of the ladies of this State with- the intelli gence of the African race, or the In dian race, if you please. Do not in telligepce and-virtue lie at the founda tion of our liberties? Should not that govern our votes? Shall we not put in places of honor and profit'an intelligent class of people.? Shall not intelligence be one of the foundation stones, one of the pillars of our republic? And where will you find it more manifest than in the ladies of this State? Will. yoti build up party by ignorance? Sir, when I look upon this question, and I has thought upon it for - many years, it is vital to me, I dissent from many men in this -'Convention on this point. I say, submit this question to the people. Do you distrust the intelligence of the people of this Sthte? Are you willing td say that you distrust the intelligence of the voters who come up to the polls in this State? By your vote " no" on this proposition, you say at once-" You voters of the State of Midhigan, who go to the polls, you are not capable of self-government." You will not allow the males the right to vote; much more- grant it to the females. I hope when this question is taken, gentlemen will vote by yeas and nays, and let the record go to the people of the State of Michigan. I have heard it said out of this Convention, and in this hall, that there aresome bad women in the State. I do not know that; I have' not seen any such women in the State. Other gentlemen must be acquainted with bad women better than I am; I am not acquainted with -them. Whet we look at history as shadowed forth down from the beginfling of time, I say that from the beginning to the end the females have been the nursery of everything that hlas been prosperous in our land; yes, a~nd in other countries, too. Why should we trample upon the females of our State? Why not elevate them, and give them the privilege of voting? They may vote and they may not. Bult the women I am a&quainted with- I think "womien" a better namfe than " ladies' "-say they would like to have the privilege of voting, and they can exercise it or not, Was they please. Mr. GIDDINGS. I rise more- to say that I- hope we will not enter into 790 Moncly, V- 0 0. .0, . -d Auus 12 87 EAE - RCEIG 9 a general discussion of this- subject. Many friends have suggested to me that while they could not vote for this proposition to go into the Constitution, they were entirely willing to vote to submit it to the people. I believe that is as good a plan as any, to have this question settled by the people, for it will end the discussion on this subject one way or the other, for many years to come. It strikes me that we had better submit this question to the people now. If gentlemen do not like to grant this privilege to the women of this State, they can vote against it at the polls. It is but just to the sentiment f this State that this question should be submitted to the people. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. BLACKMAN. So far as sulb mitting this question separately to the electors of the State is concerned, I have no objection to do it. I am nat sure I should not vote for it, if it comes up as an independent proposition. But it strikes me that this is not the proper way to get at a separate vote on any question, to incoporate it into an article which we adopt. Mr. FARMER. This fourth subdivision as I have termed it in my amendment, must necessarily go into this article on elections, if the vote of the people is an affirmative vote; it will not go in there till then. The resolution will not go into the article on elections, but will go into the schedule, as I understand it, like it was in the Constitution of 1850, on another proposition. Mr. BLACKMAN. I think the proper way is for the section to go with the resolution, and that the proper place is in the schedule. That is the way the proposition of 1850 was gubmitted. I think that is much more proper than to incorporate it in this article in this way. Mr. GIDDINGS. We can take a vote on this subject, and let the committee on arrangement and phraseology put it where they please.' I do not care anything about that; I do not suppose any member of the Convention cares about that. Let us vote upon it. Mr. BLACKMAN. I suppose we shall vote for it. I merely give-my views on this subject; I would rather vote for it as a separate proposition. Mr. ALDRICHt. I call for the previous question on this amendment. The previous question was seconded, and the main question was ordered. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. FARMER, and it was not agreed to; yeas 31, nays 34, as follows:-.. YEAs-Messrs. Aldrinb, Alexander, Barber, Blackman, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Daniells, Duncan, Dnncombe, Elliott, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings, Hixson, Lovell, Miller, Murray, Ninde,' Norris, Purcell,:- Sawyer, Shearer, Stockwell, Stoughton, Tyler, Utley, White, Willard, Winsor, and Withey-31. NAYS-MessrS. Andrus, Bradley, Brown, Coolidge, Conger, Crocker, Desnoyers, Divine, Germain, Henderson, Holmes, Huston, Kenney, Lawrence, Leach, Longyear, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Morton, Mussey, Mus-' grave, Richmond, Sheldon, T. G.'Smith, Thompson, Van Valkebburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, Winans, Williams, Woodhouse, and Yeomans-34. Mr. P. D. WARNER, (whenhis name was called,) said: I voted this morning for female suffrage. Mr. LONGYEAR. I rise to a point of order. I believe this vote is being taken under the operation of the previous question, and therefore no debate is in order. The PRESIDENT pro tenmpore. As the question strictly is a debatable one, the Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman can briefly explain his vote. Mr. P. D. WARNER. This morning I voted with others in favor of conferring suffrage upon the women of our State, because thousands of them have by their petitions, which have been presented: here, asked of us the bestowal of that favor, while no portion of our citizens, either male or female, have protested against granting to them the privileges of the elective franchise. But it is now proposed to submit this question to the electors of the State as a separate proposition. And being opposed to the submission of any particular question to the electors, seperate from the Constitution, I shall now vote "no." Mr. MORTON (when his name was called) said: I am opposed to female suffrage, because I know the ladies are. I am a ladies' man, and a widower at that. I am opposed to introducing them into the ranks of voters, with men of color and civilized Indians. I vote "no." ELECTIONS TO BE BY BALLOT. Mr. ANDRUS. Section three of this article reads as follows: "All elections shall be by ballot, except of such township officers as may the authorized by law to be otherwise chosen." I move to amend this section by inserting, after the words "all elections," the words "to office." I simply desire, by my amendment, to bring the attention of this Convention to the phraseology of this section, which I think is very vague, as it now stands. ' - Mr. T. G. SMITH. That is the intention of the section as it now stands; it will not alter the effect of it, to put those words in. All elections I believe are elections to office. That subject was brought up before the committee on elections, and it was understood that the spetion meant that, when it said-" all elections shall be by ballot, except of such township officers as may be authorized by law, to be elected otherwise;" referring of course to elections of officers. Mr. MUSSEY. The object of the amendment offered by my colleague, (Mr. ANDRUS,) is as he stated. I understand the section as it now stands, as the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. T. G. SMITH) says, to provide essentially for this very thing. This is the language of the present Constitution. But in: the town in which my colleague lives they voted by ballot to change the plac-of holding the town meeting; and the question was raised, and it was objected to, that that vote was. void, because it was not made in accordance with the provision of the Constitution; and the suit is yet pending, whether the next election they held was a legal election. The object of my colleague is to make that sure, and to prevent any recurrence of a like difficulty. I understand the section as it stands now to mean precisely thesame. But if there is any doubt about it, I would like to havesthese words inserted; if not, then let it be as it is. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. ANDRUS; and upon a division, ayes 25, noes 26, it was not agreed to. No further amendment was offered to the article. The article as amended was then ordered to a third reading, and referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, for correction and engrossment. -ORDER PF BUSINESS. Mr. WALTKER. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole, on the general order. Mr. MUSSEY. Is there more than one article on that order? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The only article on that order is the article entitled "Salaries."' Mr. STOUGHTON. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion to adjourn was not agreed to, upon a division; yeas 28, noes 30. The question recurred upon the motion to go into committee of the whole. Mr. T. G. SMIITH. -I move that the committee of the whole be discharged from the further consideration of the article entitled "Salaries." Mr. MUSSEY. I think that is rather an extraordinary proceeding. I was in hopes the Convention would consent to go into committee of the whole. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair would rule that the question must be first taken upon going into committee of the whole, as there were A —-n,-o,ust 12, 1867. .DEBATES A ND PROCEEDINGS., 791. . 6 792 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Monday, amendments pending when the committee last rose. The motion to go into committee of the whole was then agreed to. SALARIES. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. STOUGHTON in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Salaries," which had been amended to read as follows: 4' The Governor shall receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars. The Secretary of State shall receive an annual salary of fifiteen hundred dollars. The State Treasurer shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Commissioner of the State Land Office shall receive an annual salary of fifteen hundred dollars. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Auditor General shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five hundred dollars. The Attorney General shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Judges of the Supreme Court shall receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars. The J udges of the Circuit Court shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five hundred dollars. They shall receive no fees or perquisites whatever, for the performance of any duties connected with their offices.. It shall not be competent for the Legislature to increase the salaries herein provided.. The CHAIRMIAN. INhen the committee had this article under consideration, the gentleman from Tuscola (Mr. HUSTON,) offered the following as a substitute therefor: ", The Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Commissioner of the State Land Office, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Auditor General and Attorney General, shall reside, during the term of their respective offices, at the State Capital, and shall receive respectively the following annual salaries: The Governor, lour thousand dollars; the Secretary of State, twenty-five hundred dollars; the State Treasurer, three thousand dollars; the Commissioner of the State Land Office, twenty-five hundred dollars; the Superintendent of Public Instruction, twentyfive hundred dol'ars; the Auditor General, three thousand dollars, and the Attorney Geleral, twenty-five hundred dollars. The Judges of the Supreme Court shall receive an annual salary of three thousand five hundred dollars; the Judges of the Circuit Court shall receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars. None of the officers enumerated in this section shall receive any fees or perquisites whatever, for the performance of any duties connected with their offices. It shall not be competent for the Legislature to increase the salaries herein provided." Pending which, the gentleman from Muskegon (Mr. Hong,) moved to amend the original section by striking out the words, "It shall not be competent for the Legislature to increase the salaries herein provided," and inserting in lieu thereof the words," It shall not be competent for the Legislature to increase or decrease the salaries as herein provided until after the expiration of ten years next succeding the adoption of this Constitution; such salaries may also be modified at the expiration of each ten years thereafter, but not at any other time." The pending question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Muskegon. Mr. McCLELLAND. My impression is that that would be a bad amendment for us to adopt. I feel a great deal of interest in a portion of this article, that portion which relates to the salaries of the judges of our courts. I have no personal interest in the matter; but I think that so far as the people of this State are concerned, it is a matter of immense importance to them. I should now prefer-although I did not at first-seeing the tone and feeling prevailing in this committee of the whole, some such amendment as this: strike out the word "not" in the last clause of this section, and insert the words "or diminish," after the word "increase," so as to give the Legislature the power to increase or diminish these salaries. I would rather fix the salaries here now, so that when this Constitution goes into operation, thosp salaries may be drawn from that day; and then give the Legislature power either to increase or diminish them afterwards, as circumstances shall dictate. My own impression is that in regard to some of the judges at least, the salary or compensation prescribed by this article is entirely too small. No judge of the circuit court can live in the city of Detroit on twenty-five hundred dollars a year; it is out of the question, if he has any family. I know there is hardly a lawyer of any distinction or eminence whatever there, who is fit for that position, and I believe hardly one in any portion of your State, who would accept that position, unless he is a man of greath wealth, or has some other object in view, for that compensation. I hope this committee will take these things into consideration, before they undertake to trammel the Legislature in this way. The question Was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. HOLT, and it was not agreed to. Mr. McCLELLAND. I move to amend the last clause of this section, by striking out the word "not;" and also by inserting the words "or diminish," after the word "increase;" so that it will read- "It shall.be competent for the Legislature to increase or diminish the salaries herein provided." Mr. WITHEY. I wish to say in reference to this amendment, that I agree entirely with the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. MOCLELLAND,) in relation' to the propriety of it; I believe it to be a fit and proper amendment to be made here. I was not here during the discussion which took place on a previous day, in reference to salaries. But I am informed that a motion was made to in crease the salary of circuit judges to three thousand dollars a year, and it was defeated. Now, if this committee are of the opinion that twenty-five hundrea dollars a year is an adequate compensation for a circuit judge, then it seems to me it would be wise to refer this question over to the Leeislature, so that in case of the practical application of this section it shall be found that the judges' salaries are inadequate, the Legislature may increase them, coming as they will from the various representative and senatorial districts of the State, directly from the people. After this question shall have been fully understood by the people, they will know more directly whet the wishes of the people are in this respect than do this Convention. This is a question which was not raised particulorly before the people, when the delegates here were chosen. The general subject-matter of an increase of salaries was well understood as desirable to the people of this State, and they expected that this Convention would provide for an increase of the salaries of our State officers, and of our judges; but I apprehend there was nothing said in reference to the specified amount of compensation each of these officers should receive. The Convention came here to discuss, consider and determine upon this question of salaries, without really knowing what amounts the people of this State would be willing to have fixed as the salaries of the State officers and the judges of our courts. The Convention are determining this question rather from their own views than from the views which they know the people entertain upon this subject; because I apprehend we do not know what the people would say if they could pass their verdict upon this question of the salary of circuit judges. Then, in view of this lack of infor mation, in view of the fact that a salary of twenty-five hundred dollars a year is or may become evidently inadequate and unsatisfactory, not only to those who hold the positions, but to the people of the State, let us confer upon the Legislature the power to hereafter increase or diminish those salaries. I trust that this will be the view which this committee of the whole will take of this subject. I am entirely satisfied that twenty-five hundred dollars a year is an inadequate salary for our circuit judges. I am also satisfied that the salaries of some of the State officers are inadequate, as they have been reduced by this committee. As the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. MOCLELLAND,) has said, any one being a circuit judge and having a Monday, CONSTITU'.riLON AT,, CON VENTION. 792 August 12, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 793 family in the city of Detroit and in some other portions of the State, can no more than barely subsist, if he can do that, upon twenty-five hundred dollars a year. I do not care in what walk of life a man is, what position he occupies, he is seldom or never willing to devote his time and services to the public interests for a mere subsistence. And if we can do nothing better, let us refer this question to the Legislature. If it shall eventuate that the salary is too large, give the Legislature power to reduce it, although I do not apprehend that it will ever be the fact in this State that these salaries will be too large. I think they will be regarded by the people as too small. Let us leave this matter with the people and their Legislature. Mr. COOLIDGE. When gentlemen state on this floor that in the Detroit circuit, and in some other circuits in this State with which they are acquainted, the services of a circuit judge require a larger compensation than twenty-five hundred dollars a year, of course I believe them. But I am well acquainted with the duties of ci cuit judge in one circuit, and perhaps in three circuits of this State. One of them comprises four thinly settled counties. In none of those three circuits-of two of them I can speak advisedly, and perhaps of all three of them is the time of the judge occupied for onehalf of the year. My own deliberate opinion is, while I do not wish to have these salaries stinted -my own deliberate opinion is, that in a majority of instances a circuit judge is amply compensated with twenty-five hundred dollars a year. It may be true that in some circuits the compensation should be higher; that is an evil we cannot avoid. By no means would I put the salary so high as to make the office desirable and sought after on that account. The moment you do that, that moment will you get an improper set of men on the bench; such is the tendency, and such is the result. I do not know that fifteen hundred dollars a year in hard times has precluded the people of the State generally from finding persons willing to take that position. I should be entirely unwilling here to go with my friend from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) and my friend from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) if I understand their remarks, to place the salary of circuit judges higher than twenty-five hundred dollars a year. - Mr. McCLELLAND. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him one question? Mr. COOLIDGE. Certainly. Mr. McCLELLAND. What is the Vol. 2-No. 100. objection to leaving this matter to the Legislature, with power to increase or diminish the salaries, according as the circumstances by which they may be surrounded at the time shall dictate to them? For instance, if flush times come, would not the gentleman allow the Legislature to diminish these salaries if they are placed here too high? Or if the times continue as now, would he not let the Legislature increase these salaries if they are too low? Mr. COOLIDGE. My remarks were made in reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MOCLELLAND,) and of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) when they spoke of what the salary of a circuit judge should be now, and said that twentyfive hundred dollars a year was too low. In relation to the other matter, I do not know that I am willing to leave this matter now and every year to the Legislature. I am inclined to think that the Legislature will have a great deal of unnecessary work to do. Perhaps we ought not to establish salaries for any great length of time. A few years since, perhaps not more than four, the lawyers of our circuit were beseeched by the judge, who at that time was not devoting to exceed one-third of his time to the discharge of the duties of his office, to petition the Legislature to pay him his fifteen hundred dollars a year salary in gold. I suppose that was presented to the Legislature; I do not know how that was. And.the same gentleman stated that other judges in the State were making the same request. I should be very sorry to have our Legislature pestered with this business every year. Although I have had no experience in that body, I have heard a great many intimations since I have been on this floor that there was a variety of ways of controlling and approaching the Legislature. I will not say what is best. My remarks were in reply to gentlemen who have stated that as a general thing the duties of the circuit judges in this State were so onerous, and so burdensome that they ought to have three or four thousand dollars a year. As a general remark that is very incorrect, in my estimation. Mr. MUSSEY. I do not propose to discuss this question; I do not propose to defend this article against the amendment now offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAnD.) That was the very first amendment offered when the article was under considerationbefore, to strike out the word "not." The amendment is varied somewhat in another respect, but it is substantially the same amendment that was first offered. I do not propose to take up any time in discussing this question to-night. I am only anxious that the amendment may be voted upon, so that when this committee shall rise it can get clear of this article by reporting it back to the Convention. And then whatever changes are desired, in addition to those which have been already made, may be made in Convention rather than in committee of the whole. I feel confident we shall save time by that course. I have ,no objection to amendments being offered in Convention, as many as gentlemen see fit to propose. I hope these several amendments may be acted on to-night, so that the committee can report this article back to the Convention. Mr. WITHEY. I desire to say a few words more, in reply to the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE.) In regard to the gentleman to whom he refers as a judge who spends so little time in his duties and earns so little of his salary, I know nothing and care very little. But I undertake to say here that fifteen hundred dollars a year salary has not secured to the people of this State the best lawyers in the State upon the circuit court benches. I say it without any disrespect to those members of this Convention who may be circuit judges; I say what they would say themselves, if they were present. And they would say, in addition to what I say, that not only has the salary of fifteen hundred dollars a year not secured the best legal ability of this State in the various circuits, but it has been a salary wiolly inadequate and starving in its character. But that is not the question which we have particularly under consideration at this time. Those gentlemen who have occupied the bench, have occupied it with honor, so far as I know. I do not know about the gentleman to whom my friend from Berrien (Mr. COOLID.GE,) refers. But so far as I am acquainted with the circuit judges of this State, they honor the positions they occupy. And although many of them are not the best lawyers in the State-I speak within the range of my acquaintance-they have not had such a salary as they were entitled to receive. As the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) says, if in the changed prices of those commodities which go to sustain a man and support his fumily, the salary named should be found to be too high, then let the Legislature have power to reduce it. If those pri ces shall keep up at the maximum which we have had, or go beyond it, D.EBATES AND PROCEPDINGS. August 12, 1867. 793 I 791 CQSTITUTIOAL OOYETIO. Mond, then give the Legislature authority and power to increase those salaries. I .can hardly believe there is any gentleman in this Convention, who would be unwilling to pay any public servant, no matter what his position may be, from the lowest to the highest in this State, a salary which shall not only compensate him for his services, and enable him to support his family, but even leave a little surplus at the end of every year. I doubt whether there is to-day a judge upon the bench in this State who can lay by a single dollar at the end of the year, on a salary of twenty-five hundred dollars. Mr. VAN VALKrENBURGH. If we intend to fill the bench of our State by men who are competent, who will be an honor - to themselves or to the State, we must pay them a salary sufficient to support them. That to my knowledgehas certainly not been the case in the past. The judge in the district where I reside resigned his office for the reason that his salary was not sufficient to sup port him; and he has gone into other business. Who that is a lawyer of any standing and eminence in our State, cannot make more in a year at his profession, than we proffer to our judges, even as proposed by the committee here? There are very few lawyers who would devote their time and attention to any other busi ness for the amount of compensation we offer them. The gentleman from Berrien (Mr. COOLIDGE,) tells us that about a third of the time of the judge in his circuit and in the adjoining circuits is devoted to his legitimate business. I ask thegen tleman, does it not preclude him from every other business? And is not his attention called to the subject of his legitimate business when he is not up on the bench? Does he not have to examine his authorities, and deliberate and consider, in order to make up his opinions, and prepare them for publi cation? I was a member of the committee on salaries in the Convention of 1850, and I battled then with the standing com mittee upon this subject. I told them that the pittance we proffered the offi cers of the State would not and could not secure the best talent of the State. I opposed their penuriousness in the standing committee, and I opposed it upon the floor of the Convention, in committee of the whole. Ithink we cannot expect to employ the best talent of the State, which we certainly ought to have upon the bench, unless we give them a sal ary sufficient to support them. I ask you, where is the man with a family who can live even upon the salary proffered here, and lay up anything? Men upon the bench are men in the vigor of life, who ought if ever to lay up something from their salaries for a wet day and for old age. But with the salaries they have had heretofore they were unable to live upon them, but had to draw upon their other resources, in order to support themselves and their families. That was the case in our district; our judge had to resign his office and betake him-" self to other business. I hope this Convention will be generous and not penurious; that we will give a competent salary, so that we can command the best talent in our State to occupy places on the bench of our State. Mr. WILLIAMS. While I agree with the gentleman who has made the motion to amend this section, (Mr. MCCLELAND,) in reference to the main proposition in regard to salaries; and al so with my friend from Kent, (Mr.WITHEY,) in regard to the propriety of an increase of the salaries of circuit judges over the sum here mentioned, still I cannot agree with them as to the propriety of making this proposed amendment. I think there is no officer who would not naturally prefer a fixed salary, rather than a fluctuating salary. It would be better for them to know that they are to have a stated sum for the term they are to hold office, than to be subject to any fluctuations of legislation. I should think any such change detrimental, which would make our circuit judges, and the judges ff our Supreme Court simply beggars before the Legislature for their compensation. I say, let us put in our Constitution such a sum as will give them a fair and adequate compensation for the services rendered, and for the class of services required. Gentlemen may think twenty-five hundred dollars a year a large sum. I apprehend that it is not a large sum for the office of circuit judge. In the State of New iYork that was the sum fixed years ago, and they have been obliged to increase it to thirty-five hundred dol lars. In this State we cannot argue from any parallel drawn from the past services of our judges. Their ser vices will be far more onerous; we in tend they shall perform far more duty hereafter than they have done for the past seventeen years; that instead of occupying one-third of their time for the duties of their office, they will want the whole of it for that business. And we should calculate to pay them so that it shall be their business, so that they may not need to depend upon any other office or service they may render; that they may not be farmers to-day and circuit judges to-morrow, engaged in this and that service for A and B to-day or to-morrow, and as circuit judges the next day; but they must be circuit judges all the while, and that is to be their business for the year. For that reason, I think it is just that we should say here that every circuit judge should have as full and adequate a salary as the salary of the judges of the Supreme Court. I think the duties of our circuit judges will be fully as onerous, and require as high a degree of talent, as the supreme judges of this State. They are called upon suddenly at the moment to decide questions; and it will require a greater degree of capacity in them to transact their business, than will be required in the judges of the Supreme Court. We should give them a salary which will be an adequate compensation, and fix it here in the Constitution, and not leave it subject to the fluctuations of legislation. I am, —- therefore opposed to the amendment now pending. I would be very glad indeed to see the salary of the circuit judge fixed at three thousand dollars a year. But I do not believe there is any judge in the land but what would prefer twenty-five hundred dollars fixed in the Constitution to three thousand subject to the fluctuations of legislation. Mr. McCLELLAND. One moment, while I refer to the Constitution of 1835. The second section of the arti cle on the judicial department in that Constitution provides that " The Judges of the Supreme Court shall hold their offices for the term of seven years; they shall be nominated, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointed by the Governor. They shall receive an adequate compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." That left the increase of salary entirely to the Legislature, but they were prohibited from diminishing the salary during the term for which the judge was elected. I never heard any complaint of the action of the Legislature in that regard, from 1835 to 1850. And I apprehend that no one acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case would be willing to say that the judges then received more than an adequate compensation. I think a large majority of those conversant with the facts would say that they received too little for the services performed. In reply to the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) I would say that the judge of our circuit, who preceded the one now in office there, was engaged almost all his time, from' one year's end to another. And: the judge who has accepted the office recently, I CONS'JLIJLTUTION AT,, CONVENTION. 794: Monday, August 12, 1867, DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 795 have no hesitation in saying, was making at least five thousand dollars a year, and - could in all probability have made ten thousand dollars a year, if he had not been a professor at the University. He has taken that position -I have no doubt for many reasons perhaps besides this, but this was one of the stimulating motives with himbecause he expected the salary would be largely increased by this Convention. Mr. WILLIAMS. Does the provision of the Contstitution of 1835,which the gentleman has read, correspond with the amendment he has proposed? It strikes me there is a material difference between the two. Mr. McCLELLAND. The Constitution of 1835 prohibited the Legislature from diminishing the salary during the term for which a judge was elected. I have no doubt you would not find a Legislature who would diminish a salary, unless the circumstances of the time calling for it were of the most imperative character. I tried that amendment the other day, and it was voted down by this committee. Now, I try this one, and it is my last resort. The question was upon the amendment of Mlr. McCLELLAND, to the last clause of the section; to strike out the word "not," and also to insert the words "or diminish," after the word "increase," so that it would read: " It shall be competent for the Legislature to increase or diminish the salaries herein provided." The question was taken upon the amendment; and upon a division, ayes 24, noes 30, it was not agreed to. Mr. McCLELLAND. I now move to-amend this section by adding thereto the following: "But the county of Wayne, and counties in the same circuit therewith,may be authorized to vote such additional sum to the judge of that circuit, as it or they may deem proper." I apprehend the committee cannot have any objection to that amendment. The Legislature is left in control of the matter entirely. If they grant us the privilege we will -enjoy it: if not,, then we will not enjoy it. Mr. CONGER. I had prepared a proviso that I wish to offer to this section, embracing somewhat of the provisons of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAnD.) I will offer it as a substitute for his amendment, and let it go upon the journal; and then I will move that the committee rise, report grogress, and ask leave to sit again. I offer the following as a substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne: "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the board of supervisors of any county from authorizing an additional compensation to be paid by such county to the circuit judge thereof." Mr. MaoCLELTLAND. I will withdraw my amendment for the present, and support that of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER.) Mr. DANIELLS. I hope the gentleman from St. Clair will put in the words, " and from their decision there shall be no appeal." Mr. CONGER. I hope there.will be no objection to adopting my amendment, so that we may report this article back to the Convention to-night. Mr. MWYLLER. This is making a circuit judge an officer of the county. Mr. PURCELL. In the county of Wayne, the board of county auditors are the proper officers to fix the salaries of officers. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Where a circuit is composed of three or four counties. What then? Mr. CONGER. Each county can pay what additional compensation it pleases. That has been done heretofore, but it has always been doubted whether it was legal. If any county should want to do it hereafter, this will give them the power. Mr. BLACKMAN. It strikes me there is an inaccuracy in the latter part of the amendment. "The circuit judge thereof," would be the circuit judge of the county. Mr. CONGER. He is the circuit judge of that county, or holds the court of that county. Mr. MUSSEY. In regard to this amendment, I do not wish to say much about it. But as the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) expressed a desire to have it go upon the record, and have this article reported back to the Convention to-night, I hope the amendment will be adopted; and if the Convention choose to adopt the amendment, if there is a verbal error in it, the correction can be made when we have the article back in Convention. If it is rejected to-night, it can: be re-offered again in Convention. I am anxious to get this article out of committee of the whole to-night. The amendment of Mr. CONGER was then agreed to. Mr. STOCKWELL. I move to amend this section by reducing the salary named for the Attorney General from two thousand to fifteen hundred dollars. Mr. MUSSEY. I hope the gentleman will withdraw his amendment at this time, and offer it when this article comes up for consideration in Convention. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr, ST QOcwrLL, and it was not agreed tot The question recurred upon -the substitute for the article, offered by Mr. HUSTON, and which was as follows: " The Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Commissioner of the State Land Office, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Auditor General and Attorney General-, shall reside, during the term of their respective offices, at the State Capital, and shall receive respectively the folblowing annual salaries: The Governor, four thousand dollars; the Secretary of State, twenty-five hundred dollars; the State Treasurer, three thousand dollars; the Commissioner of the State Land Office, twenty-five hundred dollars; the Superintendent of Publie Instruction, twentyfive hundred dollars; the Auditor General three thousand dollars, and the Attorney General, twenty-five hundred dollars. The judges of the Supreme Conrt shall receive an annual salary of three thousand five hundred dollars; the judges of the circuit court. shall receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars. None of ftie officers enumerated in this section shall receive any fees or perquisites whatever, for the performance of any duties connected with their offices. It shall not be competent folbr the Legislature to increase the salaries herein provided." The question was taken upon the substitute; and upon a division, ayes 20, noes 35, it was not agreed to. Mr. CONGER. I move that the committee now rise, report this article, with the amendments thereto, back to the Convention, recommend that the amendments be concurred in, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the same. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the PREsIDENT pro tempore (Mr. LucE,) having resumed the chair, Mr. STOUGHTON reported that the committee of the whole, pursuant to the order of the Convention; hal had under consideration the article entitled Salaries;" had made sundry amendments therein, and had directed him to report the article, with the amendments, back to the Convention, recommend that the amendments be concurred in, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the same. The report was received, and the committee of the whole discharged. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is upon concurring in the amendments made in committee of the whole. If-there be no objection, the article, with the amendments, will be laid upon the table, and printed at large in the journal.: No objection was made. The article as amended is as follows, the portions stricken out being enclosed in brackets, and the portions inserted printed in italics: -; SECTION 1. The Governor shall receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars. The Secretary of State shall receive an annual salary of. [two thousand] fifteen hkuzdred dollars. The State Treasurer shall receive an annual salary of [twenty-five hundred] two thouzanct dollars. The Commissioner of the State Land Office shall receive an annual salary of [two thousand] fifteen hundred dollars. The Superintendent of Public Instruc. '41 -9 COSIUINLC-ETO.Tcdy tion shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Auditor General shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five hundred dollars. The Attorney General shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Judges of the Supremre Court shall receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars. The Judges of the Circuit Court shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five hundred dollars. They shall receive no fees or perquisites whatever, for the performance of any duties connected with their offices. It shall not be competent for the Legislature to increase the salaries herein provided: Provided, That notking herein container shall be so construed as to prevent the board of supervisors of any county rom authorizing an additional compensation to be paid by such county to the circuit judge thereof. Mr. Ii ENDERSON. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly, (at twenty minutes before six o'clock p. m.,) the Convention adjourned. SIXTY-SIXTH DAY. TUESDAY, August 13, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum of members answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. UTLEY asked and obtained leave of absence for IMr. ESTEE, for today, on account of sickness. Mr. HIXSON asked and obtained leave of absence for himself, for to-day and to-morrow. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. -Mr. NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, made the following report: The committee on arrangement and phraseology, to whom was referred Article -, entitled "Legislative Department," respect fully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report the same back to the Convention, with corrections, recommending that the same be concurred in, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. T. NINDE, Chairman. The report was received and the committee discharged. The article as corrected was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed at large in the journal. It is as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislative power is vested in a Senate and House of Representatives. SECTION 2. The Senate shall consist of t hirty-two members. But after the year 1870, the Legislature may increase the number to thirty-three, by authorizing the election of two Senators in that portion of the State now included within the limits of the thirtysecond Senatorial District. Senators shall be elected for four years, and by single districts. At the first election after the adoption of this Constitution, Senators in the odd numbered districts shall be elected for two years, and in the even numbered districts, for four years. Such districts shall be numbered from one to thirty-three inclusive, each of which shall choose one Senator. No county shall be di vided in the formation of Senate districts, unless such county shall be equitably entitled to two or more Senators. SECTION 3. The House of Representatives shall,consist of not more than one hundred and ten members. Representatives shall be chosen for two years, and by single districts. Each representative district shall contain, as nearly as may be, an equal number of inhabitants, and shall consist of convenient and contiguous territory; but every organized county containing a population of not less than four thousand, and every two or more contiguous organized counties, containing a like population, shall constitute a representative district, and be entitled to one Representative. In every county entitled to more than one Representative, the board of supervisors shall assemble at such time and place as may be provided by law, and divide the same into representative districts, equal to the number of Representatives to which such county is erititled by law, and shall cause to be filed in the offices of the Secretary of State and clerk of such county, a description of such representative districts, specifying the number of each district, and the population thereof, according to the last enumeration. SECrTION 4. The Legislature shall provide by law for an enumeration of the inhabitants in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-five, and'every ten years thereafter; and at the first session after each enumeration so made, and also at each session after each enumera tion by the authority of the United States, the Legislature shall re-arrange the Senate districts, and apportion anew the Repre sentatives among the counties and districts, according to the number of inhabitants. But no re-arrangement of Senate districts shall vacate the seat of any Senator. Each ap portionment, and the division into representative districts by any board of supervisors, shall remain unaltered until the return of an other enumeration. SECTION 5. Every Senator and Representa tive shall be a citizen of the United States, and a qualified elector of the district he rep resents. A removal from his district shall be deemed a vacation of his office. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he may have been elected, be eligible to any office which shall have been created, or the emolunents of which shall have been increased by the Legislature during such term; nor shall he be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the State, or any county thereof; authorized by any law passed during said term. SECTION. 6. No person holding any elective State office, except that of regent of the Uni versity, or member of the Board of Education, and no person holding the office of probate judge, county clerk, register of deeds, county treasurer, sheriff, county superintendent of schools, prosecuting attorney, or any office to which he was appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice land consent of the Senate, shall be allowed to take or-hold a seat In either House of the Legislature. SECTION 7. Senators and Representatives shall not be subject to any civil process du ring the session of the Legislature, or ior fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session; they shall not be questioned in any other place for any speech in either House. SEcTIoN 8. The Legislature shall meet on the first Wednesday of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and on the first Wednesday of January ot each year thereafter, but at no other time, except as provided in this Constitution. The time of meeting shall be at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and the time of final adjourn. ment shall be at twelve o'clock, noon. SEcTION 9. Each IRouse shall choose its own officers, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution; determine the rules of its proceedings, and judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its membres, and may, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members elected, expel a member. The reasons for such expulsion shall be entered upon the journal with the names of the members voting on the question. No member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause, nor for any cause known to his constituents antecedent to his election. SECTION 10. A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may prescribe. SECTION 11. The compensation of the members of the Legislature, during the session thereof, shall be four dollars per day, for actual attendance. When convened in extra session they shall legislate on no other subjects than those expressly stated in the Governor's proclamation, or submitted to them by special message. They shall be entitled to ten cents, and no more, for every mile actually traveled, going to and returning from the place of meeting, on the usually traveled route, and for stationery, postage and newspapers not exceedingfiftteen dollars for each member during any session. Each member shall be entitled to one copy of the laws, journals and documents of the Legislature of which he was a member; but shall not receive, at the ex-' pense of the State, books, newspapers, or other perquisites of office, not expressly authorized by this Constitution. SECTION 12. The President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representa tives, shall each be entitled to six dollars per diem compensation and the same mileage as members of the Legislature, and no more. SECTION 13. In case of a contested elec tion, each House shall determine the amount of per diem compensation and mileage to be received by each contestant, but the per diem compensation allowed to both parties, shall not exceed the sum of four dollars per day. SECTION 14. Each House shall keep a jour. nal of its proceedings, and publish the same, except such parts as may require secrecy. The yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall be entered on the journal, at the request of one-fifth of the members elected. Any member of either House may dissent from and protest against any act, proceeding or resolution which he may deem injurious to any person or the pub lic, and have the reasons of his dissent en tered on the journal. SECTION 15. In all elections by either House, or in joint convention, the votes shall be given viva voce. All votes on nominations to the Senate shall be taken by yeas and nays, and published with the journal of its proceedings. SECTION 16. The doors of each House shall be open, unless the public welfare require se crecy. Neither House shall, without the on sent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than where the Legislature may then be in session. SzCTION 17. Bills may originate in either House of the Legislature; but no new bill, except by a vote of two-thirds of the mem bers elect, shall be introduced after the first fifty days of a session shall have expired. SEcTIoN 18. Every bill and joint resolution passed by the Legislature, shall be presented to the Governor before it becomes a law. If he approves, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it with his objections, to the House in which it originated, which shall enter the objections at large upon its journal and reconsider it. On such reconsideration, if two-thirds of the members elected agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent with the objections to the other House, by which it shall be reconsidered. If approved by two-thirds of the members elected to that House, it shall become a law. In such case the vote of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays; and the names of the members voting for and against the bill, shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. It. r s 8 796 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. ,Tuer,day, August 13, 1867. DEBATES ANDI) PROCEEDINGS. 797 any bill be not returned by the Governor within ten days, (Sundays excepted) after it has been presented to him. the same shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature, by their adjournment, prevent its return; in which case it shall not become a law. The Governor may approve, sign, and file in the office of the Secretary of State, within five days after the adjournment of the Legislature, any act passed during the last five days of the session, and the same shall become a law. SECTION 19. Every bill and joint resolution shall be read three times in each House before the final passage thereof. No bill or joint resolution shall become a law without the concurrence of a majority of all the members elected to each House. On the final passage of each bill, the vote shall be taken separately by yeas and nays, and entered on the journal. SECTION 20. No law shall embrace more than one general object, which shall be expressed in its title. No public act shall take effect or be in force until the expiration of ninety days from the end of the session at which the same is passed, unless the Legislature shall otherwise direct, by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each House. SECTION 21. The assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each -House of the Legislature, shall be requisite to every bill appro priating the public money or property, for local or private purposes. SECTION 22. No law shall be revised, altered or amended by reference to its title only, but the section or sections of the act altered or amended, shall be re-enacted and published at length. SECTION 23. The Legislature shall provide by law that the furnishing of fuel and station ery for the use of the State, the printing and binding the laws and journals, all blanks, papers, and printing for the executive de partment and State offices, and all other printing ordered by the Legislature, shall be let by contract to the lowest competent and responsible bidder or bidders, who shall give adequate and satisfactory security for the performance thereof. The Legislature shall prescribe by law the manner in which the State printing shall be executed, and the ac counts rendered therefor, and shall prohibit all charges for constructive labor. It shall not rescind or alter such contract, nor release the person or persons taking the same, or his or their sureties, ftrom the performance of any of the conditions of the contract. No mem ber of the Board of State Auditors shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the State. SECTION 24. The Legislature shall not es tablish a State paper, but shall provide for the speedy publication of all statute laws of a public nature, and of such judicial proceed ings as it may deem expedient. All laws and judicial decisions shall be free-for publication by any person. SECTION 25. TheLegislature may declare the cases in which any office shall be deemed va cant, and also the manner of filling the va cancy, where no provision is made for that purpose in this Constitution. SECTION 26. The Legislature, may confer upon organized townships, incorporated cities and villages, and upon the board of' supervi sors of the several counties, such powers of a local, legislative and administrative charac ter as they may deem proper. SECTION 27. The Legislature shall not au thorize any city or township to pledge its credit for the purpose of aiding in the con structiorl of any railroad to such an extent that the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of in terest, on account of aid to any and all rail roads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the asses sed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to pledge its credit, or raise money by taxation for any such pur poses; but counties in the Upper Peninsula may 1)e authorized to do so, subject to the re strictions in this section as to cities and town ships. The question of such aid shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the county, city or township to be affected thereby. SECTION 28. The Legislature may empower any city or township to raise by tax in aid of any railroad company or companies, an amount of money not exceeding ten per centum of the assessed valuation of such city or township, but every such tax shall be first approved by a vote of the electors of such city or township: Provided, That the amount levied by any such tax, shall not, when added to the principal of the credits of such city or township, already pledged for like aid and then outstanding, exceed ten per centum of the assessed valuation aforesa.d. SECTION 29. The Legislature shall not authorize by private or special law, the sale or conveyance of any real estate belonging to any person, nor vacate nor alter any road laid out by commissioners of highways, or any street or public ground in any city or village, or in any recorded town plat. SECTION 30. The Legislature shall not grant or authorize extra compensation to any public officer, agent or contractor, after the service has been rendered or the contract entered into. SECTION 31. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the ben efit of any religious sect or society, theolog ical or religious seminary, or schools under denominationial control, nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes. Each House of the Leg islature shall provide for religious exercises at the opening of its daily sessions. SECTION 32. The Legislature shall not au thorize any lottery or permit the sale of lot tery tickets; nor grant divorces; nor audit or allow any private claim or account; nor pass special acts extending the time for the collection oftaxes; nor pass any act author izing the grant ot license for the sale of ar dens spirits or intoxicating liquors. SECTION 33. The style of the laws shall be, "The People of the State of Michigan enact." EDUCATION. Mr. LEACH. I move to reconsider the vote taken on Saturday last, upon the passage of the article-entitled "Education," by which that article failed to pass. The motion to reconsider was agreed to. The question recurred upon the passage of the article, and being taken, resulted, yeas 54, nays 23, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Divine, Duncan, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Henderson, Holt, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Shearer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, Wright, and the President-54. NAYs-Messrs. Brown, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Duncombe, Elliott, Giddings, Hazen, Holmes, Lamb, Lawrence, Luce, McClelland, Morton, Norris, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Sawyer, Stockwell, Winans, Winsor, and Yeomans-23. The PRESIDENT, A majority of all the members elected to this Convention having voted therefor, the article entitled "Education," is passed. The article as passed is as follows: SECTION 1. Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. SECTION 2. Institutions for the benefit of those inhabitants who are deaf, dumb, blind or insane, shall always be fostered and supported. SECTION 3. The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools by which a school shall be maintained in each school district in the State, free of charge for tuition, at least four months in the year. The instruction shall in all cases be conducted in the English language. SECTION 4. The Legislature shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a library in each township, and of at least one in each city. And all moneys belonging to the public, derived from fines, penalties, forfeitures or recognizances, imposed or taken in the several counties, cities or townships, for any breach of the penal laws of the State, after deducting the actual cost of collection, shall be apportioned in the same manner as is the income of the primary school fund, and paid over to the several cities and townships of the county in which such money accrued, for the support of such libraries: Providced, That the Legislature may authorize any township, by a vote of its electors, to apply its portion of said money to the direct support of primary schools. SECTION 5. There shall be elected eight Regents of the University, whose term. of office shall be eight years, two of whom shall be elected in every second year, on the day of the annual township election, so tas to suc ceed the Regents now in office, as their sev eral terms shall expire. When a vacancy shall occur in the office of Regent, it shall be filled by appointment by the Governor. The ChiefJustice of the Supreme Court shall be ex officio a member of the board of Regents. SECTION 6. The Regents of the University and their successors in offeice, shall continue to constitute the body corporate known by the name and title of "the Regents of the University of Michigan." SECTION 7. The Regents of the University shall, as often as necessary, elect a President of the University, who shall be ex. ofcio a member of their board, with the privilege of speaking but not of voting. He shall preside at the meetings of the Regents, and be the principal executive officer of the University. The board of Regents shall have the general supervision of the University, and the direc tion and control of all expenditures from the University interest fund. SECTION 8. There shall be elected three members of a State Board of Education, whose term of office shall be six years, one of whom shall be elected in every second year, at the time of the election of Regents of the University. They shall enter upon the duties of their office on the first day of January next succeeding their election. The Superintend ent of Public Instruction shall be ex officio a member and secretary of such board. The board shall have the general supervision of the State Normal School, and their duties shall be prescribed by law. SECTION 9. The Legislature shall provide for the support and maintenance of an Agri cultural College, for instruction in agricul ture, and the natural sciences connected therewith. SECTION 10. The proceeds from the sale of all lands that have been or hereafter may be granted by the United States to the State for educational purposes, and the proceeds of all lands or other property given by individuals, or appropriated by the State for like pur poses, shall be and remain a perpetual fund, the interest and income of which, together with the rents of all such lands as may re main unsold, shall be inviolably appropriated and annually applied to the specific objects of the original gift, grant or appropriation. SECTION 11. All lands, the title of which shall fail from a defect of heirs, shall escheat to the State; and the interest on the clear proceeds from the sale thereof, shall be ap 78CSTTTOA CVETO. Tedy propriated exclusively to the support ot primary schools. The article as passed was referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, for arrangement in the Constitution in its numerical order. SALARIES. Thei Convention proceeded to the consideration of unfinished business, being the article entitled" Salaries." The question was upon concurring in the amendments reported from the committee of the whole. Mr. MUSSEY. I rise mainly for the purpose of calling for separate votes upon the amendments reported from the committee of the whole. There are four of them; the first, reducing the salary of the Secretary of State five hundred dollars, or from two thQusand to fifteen hundred dollars; the second, reducing the salary of the Treasurer the same amount, or from twenty-five hundred to two thousand dollars; the third, reducing the salary of the Commissioner of the StateLand Office the same amount, or from two thousand to fifteen hundred dollars, and the fourth, adding a proviso authorizing the board of supervisors of counties to vote additional compensation to circuit judges. Before the Convention proceed to act upon these amendments, I wish to say that I have no feeling in regard to them, on account of the fact that I happen to be on the committee that reported this,.article. I feel compelled .to say, however, in justification of myself, that I endeavored to ascertain as near as I could the duties and labors that devolved upon these various officers, and also the increased amount of labor or business that had been thrown upon these officers since the adoption of the Constitution of 1850. It was the information thus obtained that influenced me, and perhaps the other members of the committee to report in favor of an increase of salaries; but it was not that alone. I believe the people of the State entertain the opinion that the salaries of their public officers are now inadequate; aye, more, that they are small, penurious, niggardly, and a disgrace to the State. I have often heard that opinion expressed; I believe that is the feeling of the people of this State. I desire to say a few words in reply to some remarks which were made when this article was under consideration in committee of the whole, which would seem to indicate that the people of this State are disposed to put: the salaries of their officers at the very lowest possible figures. One gentleman remarked, I think, that he should go for the very smallest amount that could be carried through this Conven tion. Now, I have to say, that if there be any gentleman on this floor - who represents such a constituency, he has a constituency very different indeed from mine, and those with.which I am acquainted. I do not believe that the people of this State desire any labor performed for them without returning an equivalent for it; they do not desire their public servants to labor for nought, at their own expense; they do not desire any man to render them service without their paying him for it, whether he be a mechanic, or a man who labors for them in an official position. The people of this State are not mean and niggardly; they are noble and high-minded. I think it is a misrepresentation of the character of the people of this State, to say that they are anxious to get men to serve them in a public capacity, for the smallest amount they can induce them to take for their services.. I submit to members of this Convention whether the salaries reported in this article are extravagant? Are they not low; low in comparison with the duties to be performed, and the salaries paid in other States to officers occupying similar positions? In my opinion there is not one of them that is not low, instead of being high. It has been urged here that these officers do not attend to the duties of their respective offices-that is the substance of the charge-that the business is done through deputies and through clerks; that the principals are not here in their offices. I submit to the Convention whether every one of them has not rendered a full equivalent for the salary he has received from the State? I think so. I have the evidence, not only of the present incumbents, but of their predecessors, that their salaries merely paid their expenses. It has been stated by the present State officers, that they were willing to render still more service; but if they did so now, they would have to do it at-their own expense, for their present salaries would not more than pay their expenses, leaving'nothing at all for their services and their time. I am not disposed to ask those officers to serve us in that way at all. I am disposed, so far as I am concerned, and I believe I represent the wishes of my constituents in this matter, to pay these officers a fair compensation for all the labor they perform. If they have earned their money in the past, and there is still labor unperformed, duties still to be done, have we not a right to expect, and do we not firmly believe, that if we increase their salaries, they will increase their services in proportion? I believe they will. There are many things in connection with the duties of these offices that have been neglected. I am willing to admit it; and the reason given by the officers, on being interrogated, was that they were attending to their duties, but they did not feel disposed to labor for the State at their own expense, and furnish their labor and time for nothing. Another thing should be taken into consideration; that when the present Constitution was adopted in 1850, fixing the salaries for these various officers, the duties of any one State officer was indeed but a fraction of what they are at the present time. Take the office of Secretary of State, for instance; since 1850 the labors of that office have been increased very much; four-fold at the lowest calculation. The labors, duties and responsibilities of the Auditor General's office have been increased to the same extent; and so with the offices of State Treasurer, and Commissioner- of the State Land Office.. - In 1850, the financial responsibilities of the State Treasurer were comparatively very small. Now they are very large, as I stated the other day. I am informed that about two millions of dollars pass through his hands annually. Does any one ask any individual to take the responsibility of having two millions of money pass througlihis hands:each year, he being responsible for the safe counting and safe delivery of all that money, for a mere song? I think not; especially when we take into account that he is-required to give bonds to the amount of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. I think we cannot ask him to labor for the people of this State, for a -less compensation than that reported by the committee on salaries. I hope these amendments of the com mittee of-the whole will not be concurred in. On the contrary, I hope the Convention will pass the article as originally reported. I am not sure they will; I shall -not feel as though the ConvenLion should be condemned if they differ with me in this regard. But I firmly believe that, in justice to ourselves, to the State, and to these State officers and their successors,we should fix their salaries at least as high as the amounts reported by the committee. I hope the Convention will not concur in the amendments of the committee of the whole, but will decide to adopt the article as reported by the committee on salaries. With that I should be satisfied. The only three officers whose salaries have been reduced by the committee of: the whole are the three officers I have named. Therefore I will not say ;k 798 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Tuesday, Augur 13 1867. DEAE. ROED~S anything in regard to the salaries of the judges, for that matter is not now before the Convention. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. I wish to say a few words in reply to the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) for I think his remarks are calculated to leave an impression unfavorable to those who have opposed high salaries, and perhaps to some extent to misrepresent them, though I presume not intentionally. The gentleman says the people of this State are not niggardly, are not mean, are not penurious. Well, sir, who on this floor said they were? I have not said so, and I have not heard any other member say so. I understand that the people of this State are in favor of increasing the salaries of our State officers and of our judges. I think on that point- there is no dispute; there is no disagreement. But with regard to the amount of that increase there may be and there is a difference of opinion. The report of the committee on salaries proposes a very great increase of salaries, some of them three-fold, and others very considerably. I think there may be an honest difference of opinion in regard to the amount that these salaries should be increased. The committee of the whole have to some extent reduced the salaries as reported of some of these State officers. But no one proposes to go back to the amounts:they now receive; no one desires it. Now, in regard to the suggestion that a man will do just enough to make a return for what he receives; that when a man takes upon himself the duties and responsibilities of a public office, if he finds that the salary of that office is not what he deems an equivalent for the services which it is necessary for him to perform, in order to discharge all the duties of that office, therefore he will do somewhat less than the law requires; that is, he will do just enough to make the pay and the labor correspond. I understood the gentle man from MIacomb (Mr. MUSSEY) to say that the State officers would have done more, if they could haveafforded it; if the salaries which they received had been a just compensation they would have performed all the duties required of them by law; but as the salaries have not been adequate, they have done as much as they could and make the offices paying offices. Mr. MUSSEY. I wish to correct the gentleman; I ask him to repeat my statement, to repeat what I did say. Mr'. M. C. WATKINS. Will the gentleman repeat what he said? perhaps I misunderstood him. Mr. MUSSEY. I did not say that they had neglected any duties which the law required of them, or that they had made their offices paying offices. I said they had spent their entire salaries in expenses; that they had rendered as much-service - as they could; that there were still things left undone, which they might and ought to have done, perhaps; but not that the law required them to be done. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. They had done all they could afford to do for the pay they received. Now, I do not un derstand that that is right. I under stand that when a man takes upon himself the responsibilities and duties of an office, he should discharge them. Take forinstance the members of the Legislature; I am inclined to think they have been as — poorly paid as our State officers or judges. Do we sup pose they would have done any better, if they had been any better paid? I doubt it very much. They came here to Lansing and spent their time at their own -expense; and what they received per diem would pay the expenses of some of them, perhaps; of others it would not.' Those who were very eco nomical might perhaps have carried a few dollars-home. But it is not under stood to be a paying office. Still those men came here and discharged their duties properly; just as well, I am in clined to'think, as if their salaries had been larger. I think it is the duty of our State officers to discharge their duties prop erly, to do all their duty. Although I admit that their salaries heretofore have not been large enough, I think the salaries reported by the committee are too large. I think no more than a proper reduction has been made in committee of the whole, and I hope the amendmentsof the committee of the whole will be concurred in. , Mr. RAFTER. Supposing myself to have been referred to by the gentle*man from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) in reference to going for the smallest amounts of salaries which might be supported by this Convention, I wish to , say a few words in explanation. I sup posed that I had sufficiently explained :my position, at the time I made that remark, so that gentlemen could not be mistaken as to what my views were. I stated that the reason why I should ~ go for the smallest sum suggested by , any member of this Convention, was L because it appeared to me to be the idea of thisk Convention to leave it , optional with a State officer whether , he would reside here or not, during his term of office. I said that I deemed it for the interest of the State, that all ~ the State officers should be obliged to reside here; that the people demanded it; and I now believe they do. As the i Convention were not disposed-to insert such an amendment in the article as reported by the committee, as will oblige those officers to reside here, I said that in consequence of that I was in favor of the smallest-sum suggested; not with the view of paying these officers less than they deserve -for their services, but because I believed that by not adopting the rule requiring those officers to reside here, we were not acting as the interest — of our State demanded. I do not believe in the propriety of a State officer coming here to the Capital occasionally, remaining here but a few days, perhaps not becoming conversant with the mode in which business was being transacted in his office, not overseeing it at all, but merely drawing his salary. For that reason I said I was opposed to the sal aries of these officers being raised, as I now am. I also said that if these of ficers were obliged to reside here du ring their terms of office, I would go as far, perhaps, as any member of this Convention in raising their salaries. The gentleman from Macomb (Mr. MUSSEY,) told us a few-days ago, that the most of these State officers spent forty or fifty days a year here. I be lieve the salaries of our State officers, under our present Constitution, range from eight hundred to a thousand dol lars a year. That would make their compensation, for the time they- are actually here, assuming the statement of the gentleman from Macomb to be correct, fifteen or twenty dollars per day. Now I do not believe that is so -much out of the way after all. Mem bers of the Legislature have been obliged in the past to come here for three dollars per day. Now, I do belieye that if these offi cers are obliged to reside here, and to attend to the business of their respec tive offices, as I think they should, their salaries should be raised; and the sums reported by the standing committee are not too high, in that case. But as it now stands, with the disposition of this Convention to allow these officers to remain at their homes, as they have done in the past, to the great detriment of the State at large, as I believe, I shall favor the lowest L sums which will be suggested or:sustained by the Convention, be they even I as low as the present salaries. Mr. FARMER. I am not prepared at this time to say whether I will sustain the action of the committee or not. What I want is information in L regard to the duties of those several officers, and how they are likely to ful, fill those duties. When this committee L on salaries were appointed, I supposed they would get this information, i through their chairman, (Mr. MUSSEY,) 8 r s August 13, 1867. DEBA-TES,- - — AND. 1PRO -G- EED-I-NGS. 799 800 COSTITUTIOAL COVETIO. Tuesday, With his familiarity with the public affairs of this State, I supposed he could give us the details that were necessary for us to form an intelligent opinion upon the subject. Bat he has not done so. I contend that there are no facts before the Convention at this time, upon which members can form an intelligent opinion, whether these several officers should receive the salaries reported by the committee or not. When that information comes before the Convention, then I, for one, will be ready to form an opinion and to act. But with the information we now have, I am not prepared to form such an opinion. I think there is no dissenting voice, either in this Convention or in this State, probably, in regard to the assertion that we are willing to pay our several officers a proper compensation for their services. I apprehend that there is no man who is not willing to pay a proper compensation for those services. But before we can form an opinion as to what is proper compensation, we want to know what those services are expected to be, and how they are likely to be performed. We want to know whether it is proper, whether it is advisable, that the business of these several offices shall be done through deputies, whether the offices are to be mere honorary posi tions for our State officers, and the labors to be performed by clerks or deputies, instead of being overseen and directed by the officers whose duty it is, I contend, to directly superintend these matters. We do not expect these officers to perform the clerical duties of their respective offices, but we do expect they will be present and super intend the details of their several offi ces. When the standing committee, through its chairman, or any one of its members, gives us this information, we will be able to act intelligently on this subject. Mr. HUSTON. I shall vote to sustain the amendments made in commit tee of the whole, for the reason that if the old system of allowing the State offices to leave the charge of their officers to their clerks, is to be carried on, I think the salaries as amended by the committee of the whole are high enough. But if there can be a provision incorporated in the Constitution requiring certain State officers to reside here, and take the immediate charge of their offices, then I am willing to vote for the salaries originally reported by the committee, or I would be willing to make the salaries higher than reported by the committee. I do not rise at this time for the purpose of making any extended remarks upon this question; but simply to say that when the proper time comes, ] shall ask permission to offer again the substitute I offered in committee ol the whole, changed in some respects I propose to change it in one respect so as to make the salaries for the judges of the Supreme Court and the judges es of the circuit the same, three thousand dollars a year each. I propose to change it in other respects by stri king out of the first part of the substitute, containing the requirement for the State officers to reside at the State Capital, the Attorney General and the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and only require the Governor, the State Treasurer,theCommissioner of the State Land Office, the Secretary of State, and the Auditor General to reside at the Capital. It strikes me that the duties of those officers are such that they ought to be present and attend to their several departments in person. The Auditor General and the Commissioner of the State Land, Office especially have constant applications at their offices by parties to do business, who would be glad to see the head of the office; but it is always in charge of the clerk or deputy. I have been there frequently since this Convention has been in session, and I find that invariably the case. Perhaps it is not necessary that the Attorney General and the Superintendent of Public Instruction should reside here at the Capital. But I say if the officers I have enumerated; for in stance, the Governor, the Secretary of State, the State Treasurer, the Auditor General, and the Commissioner of the State Land Office, are required to re side here at Lansing, and take the im mediate charge of their offices, and not leave them in the hands of their clerks, I am willing to be as liberal and gen erous towards them, in fixing their salaries, as any other member of this Convention will be. I do not propose to be penurious about this matter. I am willing, and I think it is the duty of this Convention, in fixing these sal aries, to fix them at an adequate com pensation for the services rendered. Some gentlemen have taken the po sition here that it is necessary to fix these salaries high in order to get a certain class of talent. I believe that is all moonshine; I do not think there is any force in that argument at all. I believe whether the salary of the Gov ernor be fixed at one thousand dollars or at five thousand dollars, it would make no difference as to the ability of the Governor we would get. I believe the true question for us to settle is this: what is right, fair and just to be allowed? What is an adequate com pensation for the services rendered? y The question as to what class of ability we should get should not enter into the argument at all. It is simply a f question of justice and of right. It strikes me there is a manifest dif, ference as to whether these officers are s to reside here, or at their homes as in the past, in reference to what the - amount of salary ought to be. If they are to reside here and devote their - whole time to taking charge of their offices, they certainly should be paid more than if they remain at home, as at the present time, earning more money in their own private business ; than their salaries amount to. I say there ought to be a great margin be tween the two cases. If this Convention think it best and proper to require the officers I have enumerated here, to reside at the Capital for the interests of the State, then we certainly ought to make a difference in their salaries. If they determine that it is not best to require that, that their whole time shall not be taken in the performance of- the duties of their offices, then certainly we ought not to fix their salaries so high as we would, if we required them to reside here. It strikes me that there is a great differ ence in the two propositions; whether they are to take the immediate charge of their offices and reside here, and su perintend in person all the details of those offices, or whether they are to be occasional visitors at tlo Capital. That is what will influence my vote upon the amendments reported from the committee of the whole. I think those amendments are right if the old system is to be continued. If these officers are to be required to live here, and take the immediate charge of those offices, then the amourits fixed by the committee of the whole are too low. So far as the salaries of the circuit judges are concerned, that question is not before the Convention at this time, and I will make no remarks in refer ence to it. I only make these remarks to show why I shall vote as I propose to do.. Mr. CHAPIN. I have once before expressed my views partially on this sub ject, and do not wish to take up much of the time of the Convention now. But I cannot concur in the opinion of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. FARMER,) that the duties of these offi cers are merely honorary; Ithink they are of a very important character. Mr. FARMIER. I do not wish to be understood as having said that their duties were merely honorary. Mr. CHAPIN. Well, I do not con cur in the opinion that their services are merely honorary. I believe both their duties and their services are of a very important character. I believe CONSTITUTIONAL CONV'PNTION. Soo Tuesday, August 13, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDG 801 all these officers have duties to discharge and services to render, which they can only discharge and render in person; duties and services which it is impossible for them to perform through deputies or clerks, but which they must personally perform. I believe that all the responsibilities of their respective offices rest upon them. Now, while I am willing to vote for such a compensation as will properly pay them for the performance of these services and duties, I do not at the same time wish to give them extravagant salaries or pay. Whether the compensation fixed by the committee of the whole is proper and adequate, or whether that reported by the committee on salaries is more so, I am somewhat at a loss to say. I believe we do not pay some of these officers enough. I believe the Superintendent of Public Instruction should receive more compensation than that fixed by the committee of the whole. I believe his services are of the utmost importance to the State; that upon the proper discharge of his duties depends to a great extent our whole system of primary school education in this State, for its efficiency and proper working. I think that officer should be so compensated as to enable him to devote his whole time to the discharge of the duties of his office. While I am not willing to give extravagant salaries, I am willing to give fair and just compensation to all these officers, such compensation as will place the officers of the State beyond the temptation to steal, and above the liability to starve. I believe the people of, the State would justify us in adopting such a standard in regard to the salaries of our officers. Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire the Convention to bear with me in saying a few words upon this subject, and in making one or two suggestions. I have not thus far considered it my duty to say anything on the subject. I thought that the comemitee on salaries had taken a medium between extremes, and had probably come as near to what we might agree to here among ourselves as they could have done by any report they might have made. With one single exception, I would have been glad to have voted for the article as originally reported, although it does not express my views on the subject. I cannot vote to concur in the action of the committee of the whole, especially in reducing the salaries of two prominent officers, to wit: the Secretary of the State and the Commissioner of the State Land Office. I regard the duties of those offices so important that they will require the services of good me~a. Ad I do not expeot Syie Calf Don't~~~~~. always be troubled as we have been in the past, by finding those officers away from their offices, and clerks employed to perform the duties while the officers are at home Their salaries heretofore have simply been enough to justify their coming here occasionally, to discharge certain duties that their clerks could not do. I suppose if we fix their salaries as we ought to do, the Legislature will prescribe the time that these officers should be in their offices. The adoption of a provision by the Convention that these officers shall reside here, will amount to nothing; for they can have their residences here, and then be away for the most of the time. The Legislature can fix that matter. It is with that view that I vote for increased salaries. I am confident the people have long enough sustained this mode of doing business through clerks entirely. I desire to say another thing particularly, although it is not now under consideration, concerning the salary which is here proposed for the Superintendent of Public Instruction. I was surprised when I saw the amount reported in this article. The State of Michigan, taking the lead in educational matters away above perhaps any and all other States in'the Union, with a man the most indomitable in his exertions at the head of its educational interests as Superintendent of Public Instruction, who can earn more money in any college in the State-the State of Michigan asks this man to perform these services for two thousand dollars a year. The mnan who was your previous superintendent, who was probably no better fitted for the place than this one, is to-day receiving four thousand dollars a year in another State. You cannot keep that class of men in your State, because they can get better compensation abroad. I am for paying them enough to get them to remain here. They are useful men. This man you now employ earns more money than two thousand a year; he is constantly on the go, is ever watchful of the interests of the State, and should be paid more than is here proposed. I do not want high salaries; I do not want niggardly salaries; I want fair salaries. Give your Superintendent of Public Instruction such a salary that you will not be ashamed of it when you hear the subject spoken of abroad or at home. I want it to be at least twenty-five hundred dollars a year. I want it to be as high as the salary of our circuit judges; his expenses are more, for he must be going constantly. Let us be fair. The PRESIDENT. The first amendment of the committee of the whole is to redWe the ~al~ry of the Scretary of State from two thousand dollars, as reported by the committee on salaries, to fifteen hundred dollars. The question is upon concurring in that amendment. The question was; taken and the amendment was not concurred in, upon a division, ayes 19, noes 40. The PRESIDENT. The next amendment of the committee of the whole is to reduce the salary of the State Treasurer from twenty-five hundred dollars, as reported by the committee on salaries, to two thousand dollars. The question is upon concurring in that amendment. Mr. MUSSEY. I will merely state that the report in 1851 shows that in 1850 the amount of money passing through the office of the State Treasurer was $772,223 76. By the last report the amount passing through that office is shown to be, I think, over $2,300,000. Besides all that, the State Treasurer is a member of each of the State boards; there are five of them, ond he is a member of- them all; that is to say, the board of swamp lands, the board of control, the board of auditors, and of the others; I presume that members are familiar with them. I do not specify in regard to these things, because I suppose every member is familiar with the different boards and their duties; at least they have a general knowledge of them. Mr. GIDDINGS. Are there not some benefits to be derived by the Treasurer outside of his salary, by reason of which we might reduce this amount somewhat, and still be fair? Mr. MUSSEY. I questioned the Treasurer on that point very closely., I belive it has been generally understood in the past that the Treasurer has received at least some indirect advantage from the office. But a law passed last winter seems to have cut that off entirely. Then there is the provision we now propose to put in the Constitution, which prevents his using a dollar of the money of the State for any private purpose. Under that provision of the Constitution, and also under the law passed last winter, it is made a felony for him to use any of the money of the State. If the Convention will bear with me a moment, I will state the account the treasurer himself gives of the present system. That system is this: in tie first place he is authorized to loanearplus morney as he may think ben, and he does it. But at the commencement of every month he is required to makea report in dollars and cents of the standing of his department, and to show where all the money is; if it is loulaedf X whom And for what percents August 13, 1867. DE & ES PROCEEDINGS 801 - O2 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Tuesday, age. And then whatever is not shown to be in banks on interest, he must produce the money itself, and have it counted. The treasurer says it is not taken at his count, but every month it is invariably counted, dollar by dollar. If that system is carried out rigidly it is hardly possible for him to secure any great benefit from the money of the State, for he cannot use it for more than a portion of the month. If he makes a false report in regard to where the money is, or the interest which he receives, it is a very easy matter to detect it; some of the parties would be able to say whether he made a false statement or not. It can hardly be believed, it seems to me, that any individual would take the chances of detection in this matter, for the paltry sum he would receive for the use of the money, because it is so easily detected. Being a monthly account, he could not use it much, for he must produce it every month. Yet I confess there seems to me to be a little discrepancy in paying him twenty-five hundred dollars a year, and the rest only two thousand. It can only be justified by the additional responsibilities resting upon him. As to the labor, I do not think he should have more than anybody else. But if the Convention says that he should receive more, because of the responsibility resting upon him, and the large amount of bonds he must give, I shall think it all right. Mr. BLACKMAN. According to the present law, and the provisions of this Constitution, would the treasurer be at liberty to make deposits in banks without requiring interest of them upon the money deposited.? Mr. MUSSEY. If the gentleman from Van Buren (Mr. BLAcMNs,) wishes me to answer that question, I will say that I should hardly be willing to give an opinion upon the law of last winter in regard to that matter, without referring to it more definitely. My impression, however, is that he would be at liberty, if he deposited no great amount, to let it lay there without interest. I think the question would be whether he would be acting in accordance with the provisions of the law; I think he would be. Mr. BL/ACKMAN. If he should happen to be a banker himself, and deposited it in the bank mu which he was interested, might he not get an advantage from it in that way? Mr. MUSSEY. If- he saw fit to de posit the money in his own bank, if he was a banker, and not account for any interest, or hot pay any, in my judg ment it would be merely a misfeasanc, - I hardly think it could be dm!:~ed wet Ti l~s.0w ie~ him to loan the money for the benefit of the State. I believe the last treasurer was a banker, and usually used his bank as a bank of deposit. But it will be - seen that for the last year, he paid to the State ten thousand dollars for interest. I believe it has been the custom of treasurers, when they have been bankers themselves, or connected with banks, to loan money to them,. and the amount of interest they have received for the State has been entered upon the books, reporting the per centage, not the amount in gross. Mr. WOODHOUSE. Does not the law require that the depository shall be a regular bank of issue, and not a personal bank? Mr. MUSSEY. Yes, sir. Mr.. STOCKWELL. While I am in favor of an increase of the salaries of the State officers, I am not in favor of increasing them to the extent which the committee on salaries have reported. I believe that this matter of salaries is one that will be looked at with a great deal of suspicion by the people generally, when they see salaries raised so largely, doubling and trebling the amount paid heretofore. For instance, the salary of the Governor is raised from one thousand to three thousand dollars;-that of the State Treasurer from one thousand to twenty-five hundred; that of the Secretary of State from eight hundred to two thousand; that of the Attorney General from eight hundred to two thousand dollars, and so on with the rest. It does seem to me that we should not raise these salaries to that extent. I hope the amendments made by the committee of the whole will be concurred in, believing as I do that they have fixed these salaries as high as they should be, so far as they have made any amendments. We have, as I said before, doubled and trebled these salaries. We have increased the per diem compensation of the members of the Legislature, which is perhaps correct. And as the provision stands at present, we are to have two sessions of the Legislature where we had only one heretofore. I believe these matters will be looked at very closely by the people, and it will operate against the adoption of the Constitution we frame. I hope we will look well to these things, and come to the wise conclusion not to raise the salaries above what they should be., Mr. BILLS. I am sorry to differ with my colleague, (M r. STOCKWELL,) as I think we represent a liberal constituency. While I believe they Will scrutinize closely our action here, I believe they will approve of liberality ,~thb ^is? we E~oF to give $( our State officers, to those who render services to the State. Without making any speech on this subject, I will say this: I am prepared to sustain the report made by the committee on salaries, with perhaps only this difference: it would please me better that the judges of the circuit court should have a salary of three thousand dollars a year, for I think they deserve it, and should receive it. I believe the services they render to this State are worth three thousand dollars a year. It has been said upon this floor that the responsibilities and duties of the judges of the Supreme Court are 'tgreater than those of the judges of the circuit court. I can hardly take that view of the matter. I think the responsibilities resting upon the judges of the circuit court, and the duties they ,re required to perform, are really quite equal to those of the judges of the Supreme Court. There is one thing every member of this Convention will bear in mind, that upon the-judges of the circuit court devolves the high responsibility of trying men for every character of offense. The lives of persons to a considerable extent are put in their hands. They are called upon to act upon their individual responsibility in the discharge of all their duties as circuit judges. I submit to members of this Convention whether in fact the position of circuit judge -is not a position of more responsibility than that of a judge of the Supreme Court, requiring the performance of duties quite as grave and quite as responsible as the duties devolved upon the judges of the Supreme Court-? It is of course true that the judges of the Supreme Court are the judges of the court of final resort, and aupon their judgments rendered the law becomes established. Nevertheless, my own conviction is that, in the daily discharge of their duties upon the bench, the labor and responsibility which bear heavily upon the circuit'judges are greater than those which bear upon the judges of the Supreme Court. My own impression is that the salaries of the circuit judges should be three thousand dollars a year. With. that single amendment to the report of the standing committee, I should be willing to sustain it entire, believing that it does not propose an excessive remuneration for the services which we require of our Governor, our State officers, and the judges of -our courts. One thing is certain: the State cannot afford to -pay less than those serv~ices are worth. I submit that it-is not economy to employ cheap laborers, or to pay good laborers an inadequate Empe~wiQRL as -hF be. Sugested 802, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Tuesday, August 13, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDrXGS. :- — 0 that the treasurer may receive some emoluments, some benefit, from the fact that he has the -handling of the public money. While we make- it a felony and a misdemeanor for him to use that money for his own special benefit, I would be unwilling to take such considerations into account in fixing his salary. I think we should make his salary adequate for his compensation, and demand of him the faithful performance of his duties. It is an immensely large responsibility, an immensely large sum of money for which he is held accountable, and he is required to give bonds to a large amount. I confess myself unable to understand how it is that a person competent and able to faithfully perform the duties of that office should be expected to receive a less salary than that reported by the committee on salaries. With the single exception I have stated I should be willing to sustain the report of the committee entire. I will not oppose it as is. But it would please me better if the salaries of the circuit judges were raised to three thousand dollars a year. Mr. WILLIAMS. I desire to say one word. I regret that this Convention, while it has already passed upon and adopted a provision that the Legislature shall prohibit any public officer, having charge of public moneys, using or employing the same in any manner for their private use or benefit, should here, when the question of the amount of their salaries is up for determination, be disposed to take into consideration the benefits which they shall derive from the wrong use of the public money. It appears to me it does not look well, and is not perhaps a very fair expression of the views of this Convention. Mr. GIDDINGS. When I made that inquiry of the chairman of the committee on salaries, (Mr. MUSSEY,) I had not in mind the section referred to by my friend from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) by which we prohibit those officers from using the fundse of the State in their charge. Mr. CONGER. It seems to me that we have all of us heard, from every intelligent, honorable-minded man in the State, who has ever spoken upon the subject of salaries, a great desire that the salaries of our officers should be made in some measure adequate to the duties required of them. I have never heard from any man any other expression than that the present salaries of our public officers were mean, niggardly, unworthy of the - people of the State of Michigan, and a disgrace to the State. Now the universal expectation of the people, so far a's I know or have ever heard, wa not only that the salaries of our officers should be increased, but that they should be made to correspond with the amount of duties we require those officers to perform. .Here is a proposition from the committee of the whole to cut down the salary of the Treasurer of the State, who handles thousands and millions of money every year, with bonds such as few men would be able to give, and sureties such as few men would be able to get. There is a proposition to cut down his yearly salary, so as to make it equal in amount to the salary of a book-keeper in a store. There are many clerks in stores in Detroit who are receiving every year from fifteen hundred to two thousand dollars each. And it is proposed to make the salary of the Treasurer of the State of Michigan equal to that of a common clerk or book-keeper. Is that worthy of the people of Michigan? Is there any propriety in giving simply a salary of two thousand dollars a year to the Treasurer of this State, who has the responsibility of all this money, who is held accountable for the bad money that may come into his office, who is responsible for the full performance of all his duties, and is restricted, as he ought to be, to using'that money solely for the interest of the State? I agree with the gentleman from Lenawee who last spoke (Mr. BiLLS,) that, with the exception of the salaries of circuit judges, I am in favor of sustaining the report of the committee on salaries. I think they have discriminated properly where discrimination was desirable, as in the case of some of the officers whose duties and responsibilities are not as great as others. I have no objection to the salary of the Secretary of State being placed at two thousand dollars a year. But I think the responsibilities of the Treasurer are greater, and that his duties are greater. I think the same in regard to the Superintendent of public instruction. In regard to the Superintendent of public instruction, it is well known that by the law of this State he is required to spend and ought to spend his entire time, either in his office or in traveling about the State, attending to the educational interests of the State. i my opinion, his salary should be at least twenty-five hundred dollars a year, unless there is some provision that his traveling expenses shall be paid by the State; of that I am not advised. This section requires that these several officers shall receive no fees or perquisites whatever for the performance of their duties. Now, if the Superintendent of public instruction is engaged in attending teachers' institutes as he should be, and visiting the different counties of the State as far as he may, and his traveling expenses are not paid by the State, then I think it is the duty of this Convention to raise his salary to at least twenty-five hundred dollars a year. We all of us profess to be great friends of education, especially of our primary school system; and yet it is proposed to give the officer who may do more to promote the interests of education than any other man in the State a salary no greater than that received by a clerk in a store. I have no knowledge that his traveling expenses are paid by the State. I shall vote to raise his salary. And at the proper'time I shall vote most cheerfully to raise the salaries of our circuit judges. I submit to any gentleman who is familiar with the amount of duties and daily labor required of the judges of the Supreme Court and the judges of the circuit courts, that a judge of the circuit court is compelled to perform twice the number of days' labor. in every year in almost every circuit, that is performed by a judge of the Supreme Court. .y venerable friend over the way (Mr. COOLIDGE,) says, that the judge in his circuit has to be in the discharge of the duties of his office only about one-third of his time. It is fortunate for that circuit, and the countier composing it, that there is-no more litigation there. In circuits of the State where I am acquainted, I know there is an interim of but two or three days between the terms, except in the summer, when there is a vacation of four or five weeks. At all other times there is barely time for the judge to go from one county to another, between the terms of his court. The judges of the circuit court should have a salary of three thousand dollars a year. For the last ssventeen years, and especially for the last ten years, the salary of the judges of the circuit court has been a burning shame and disgrace to the people of this State. Their duties have been increased, everybody desires that their salary should be increased. In the eastern part of the State, the counties where they could do it, have voted additional compensation to our judges for traveling expenses; they have had to do it, in order to keep good men on the bench. As was remarked yesterday, one of our best and ablest judges was compelled finally to resign his office, in order to save the little remnant of property he had in the world. Much against the desire of the bar and of the people, Judge Green was compelled:to resign his office and go into . another business, or eloe loo lie t .0 . — - - lo e remaining portion of his property which he had accumulated during his life. If three thousand dollars a year is too great a compensation to pay those judges who have the sole original control of the liberty, property and interests of the people of this State, then we better come down to fifteen hundred dollars again, and take just whom we can catch for our judges. But if we desire that these judges shall have a suitable salary, to enable them to perform their duties well, then let us give them a salary commensurate with their duties. The judges of the Supreme Court meet at one place, or by the provisions of our Constitution they meet at only four places in the State, and they have their regular times of meeting. It is within my own knowledge that they can travel cheaper, and perform the duties of their office much cheaper, than the circuit judges,-who have three, four, five, and sometimes seven counties in a circuit. Some of them have to travel a distance of fifty, seventyfive and one hundred and fifty miles, between the different counties, in some of the new circuits in the State, to perform their duties. I shall be in favor of increasing the salary of the circuit judges to three thousand dollars a year, when the time comes to vote upon that question. I am in favor of giving to the Treasurer at least the salary originally reported in this article. And I would increase the salary reported for the Superintendent of public schools. He is the highest officer connected with the schools in this State. If any proposition is made to increase the common school fund, there is not a man in this Convention but would spring to meet it, and hail it with pleasure; he thinks himself under obligation to stand by that system of common schools under all circumstances. Yet the highest officer who has charge of that system, who should be the best man in the State for educational services, it is proposed shall receive a salary like that paid to a dry goods clerk in a store. Mr DANIELLS. I concur entirely with the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER,) and the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. BILLS,) who last spoke; but I cannot concur with the other gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. STOCKWELL,) who spoke on this subject this morning. The latter gentleman said he thought the people would be surprised if we increased the salaries of our State officers as much as this article proposes. He can ascertain, I think, something what the people would favor, by looking atwhat they pay their officers at home, where they have them entirely under their control. The principals of our union schools in this State get from fifteen hundred to twenty-five hundred dollars a year. I would like to ask that gentleman if the people think we can get a State Superintendent of schools for less money than the union schools in middling sized towns or cities, or even in large cities, can get their teachers for Mr. STOCKWELL. I made no remark in regard to the salary proposed for the Superintendent of public instruction. I am very well satisfied with that. Mr. DANIELLS. Well, the gentleman differs with me there; I am not satisfied with it, and I trust this Convention will never pass this article, with only two thousand dollars a year allowed to the Superintendent of public instruction, with no perquisites besides. I believe the people expect us to pay that officer a fair compensation; and I believe they are intelligent enough to know that two thousand dollars a year is not a fair compensation for him. I believe in the doctrine laid down in the good Book, where it says: "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is which withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty." I fully believe that. I believe that in this State, that course, if it does not tend to the poverty of the schools, will tend to the poverty of the servant who is to serve them. I hope the salary of the Superintendent of public instruction will be raised to at least twenty-five hundred dollars a'year. As to the judges, I will cheerfully vote to increase their salaries, for reasons stated by gentlemen who know more about them than I do. Mr. WOODHOUSE. The committoe on salaries were well aware that there would be a difference of opinion upon this subject. But we supposed that in this article we had taken the medium ground between extremes. Somne persons were desirous of higher salaries than we reported; others were in favor of the lowest salaries. For that reason we endeavored to adopt the medium ground. For instance, take the salary of the Governor, which we have reported at three thousand dollars a year. This Convention have determined in favor of annual sessions of the Legislature. The presence of the Governor is required, I believe, as a general thing during the session of the Legislature' at least, he spends his time here at the Capital during the session of the Legislature. Having the Legislature meet annually would increase the expenses of the Governor in that regard onehalf over what they have heretofore been during his term of office. For that reason we have reported in favor of increasing his salary more in proportion than the others. We have reported in favor of making the salary of the Secretary of State two thousand dollars a year. That was in view of his being a member of several State boards that are required to meet here. He is a member of the board of State auditors, who are obliged to meet here at least once a month. And I am informed by the State officers that should they meet oftener, it would be better for those having claims. But with their present salaries they cannot meet oftener. Some gentlemen find fault with the salaries reported for these State offi. cers, the Commissioner of the State Land office, the Secretary of State and others, saying that these officers spend but a small portion of their time at the Capital. With the salaries they receive at present, they. cannot spend more time here We have-reported in favor of increasing the-salaries of those two officers to two thousand dollars a year, and they have informed me that at least one-fourth of their time should be spent here. And if all their time is not spent here at the Capital, they have their traveling expenses to pay back and forth from their homes to this place. The salary of the State Treasurer we have reported at twenty-five hundred dollars a year, five hundred dollars more than the salaries of the other State officers; because he is a member of all these different State boards, of State auditors, of swamp lands, of the Sault canal, of the board of control, having to attend all their meetings. Then there are the responsibilities of his office, the large amount of bonds he has to give, and the liabilities of a short cash account, common to all such officers. I suppose it is known to gentlemen here, who are in the habit of paying out money, that the tendency is always to a short cash account instead of an excess. The salary of the Auditor General is reported at twenty-five hundred dollars a year. He is an officer who has ever spent the whole of his time in the discharge of his duties here, and will continue to do so, whether required by law or not to do so. "In relation to the Superintendent of public instruction, I would say that I think there is a provision in the present law for paying his expenses in attending teachers' institutes. That merely defrays his traveling expenses, and was the reason why we did not put his salary at twenty-five hundred dQllars. Some gentlemen have remarked that they thought the salary reported here .804 CONSTITUTIONAT,, CONV'F.,NTION. Tuesday, I Augst 86....*. |I_ for that officer is too low. I think so myself. But we desired to get on middle ground, in order to have our report adopted. We, therefore, placed his salary at two thousand dollars a year, knowing that his traveling expenses in attending these toeachers' institutes were paid from a fund raised for that express purpose. In relation to the salary of the judges of the circuit courts, there was a difference of opinion among the members of the committee. Some were in favor of three thousand dollars a year, some in favor of twenty-five hundred dollars a year; twenty-five hundred dollars a year was the salary finally adopted by the committee, as shown by their report. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I trust the amendment reported by the committee of the whole will not be adopted. I think the amount contained in the report of the committee on salaries for the Treasurer is sufficiently low, for his responsibilities are great. The State of Michigan cannot afford to be penurious. There is such a thing as being penny wise and pound foolish, the old saw says, and I believe it is true. If we wish to get competent men to fill the various State offices, we must pay sufficient salaries to induce them to accept those offices. I concur perfectly with the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER,) and the gentleman from Kalamazoo (Mr. GIDDINGS,) in regard to the Superintendent of public instruction. I think his salary should be increased over the amount reported here. We look to the Superintendent of public instruction to regulate the educational interests of our State. His duties are laborious; he is required to visit the various counties of the State, and to devote all his time to his calling. I think his salary should be at least twenty-five hundred dollars a year. And I cannot see the reason for the distinction made in this report between the salaries of the circuit judges and the salaries of the Supreme Court judges. The judges of the Supreme Court, in addition to their salaries, have the honor of the stations they occupy. The duties of the circuit judge are more onerous, more laborious, requiring more of their time, than the duties of the judges of the Supreme Court. I think that the circuit judges should receive the same salary that the judges of the Supreme Court receive. The salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court are placed low enough) and I am decidedly in favor of increasing the salaries of the circuit judges. I make these remarks now, because I do not wish to occupy the floor again during the consderatio; of ti subjeet. The question was upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole, reducing the salary of the State Treasurer from twenty-five hundred dollars a year, as reported by the committe on salaries, to two thousand dollars a year. The amendment of the committee of the whole was not concurred in. -The PRESIDENT. The next question is upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole, reducing the salary of the Commissioner-of the State land office from two thousand dollars a year, as reported by the committee on salaries to fifteen hundred dollars a year. The amendment of the committee of the whole was notconcurred in. The PRESIDENT. The next question is upon concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole, adding the following proviso to this article: "Provided That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the board of supervisors of any county from authorizing an additional compensation to be paid by# such county, to the circuit judge thereof." Mr. CONGER. On that question I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. CONGER. I hope this amendment will be concurred in, for this reason, if for no other: There are several counties in this State, where their fall terms of court come at such time of the year-and that is somewhat the case with our county-that persons: who are charged with crime and put in jail are compelled to remain there dur- ing the February term, unless a special term of the court can be held. The judge is under no obligation to hold any more than the regular terms of the court, and cannot very well do so. But he has heretofore held occasional special terms for the trial of criminal cases. And the expense to the county, if they should pay the judge one hundred dollars to come there and hold a special term, would be more than doubly saved, by having these matters disposed of during that fall, or at any other time, when there is a long vacation between terms. Our new regulation requires that not less than three terms of court shall be held in some counties each year. There are some counties where there are two terms a year held. I know there are many counties where the boards ofe supervisors have requested the judge to come and hold a special term for the trial of criminal cases, in order that it might be a saving of expense to the county; and they have been willing to pay the expense of holding a special term for that purpose. Athoughit has been done in many instances, there has always b"R he fear that by paying an extra compensation to the judge they would vitiate their tax. This is a matter for each county to judge of as it chooses. I apprehend there is no gentleman here who thinks the board of supervisors would impose any ad ditional expense upon the county for this purpose, unless it would be bene ficial to the county. To my own knowledge, there are many cases where the counties can pay for extra terms of court not authorized by law, and have it result in great benefit to the county. I can see nothing objectionable in this amendment. And if the board of supervisors should pay out money for that purpose, this provision would obviate all questions about the regularity of the tax and the raising of the money. Mr. WILLIAMS. I hope the amendment of the committee of the whole will not be concurred in, mainly for the reasons advanced by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) who has just taken his seat. My idea is that we should provide such a salary in this Constitution, such a compensation for the service rendered, that the people of each judicial district may expect to have the full time and service of the , circuit judge of the circuit. My idea is that no county should be permitted to hire or employ the circuit judge for any portion of the time for which the people elected him to serve in that circuit-no county should be permitted to employ him for that particular county. I do not want to see any such rule or discrimination established in this Constitution. But I do believe that the members of this Convention will come fairly and honorably up to the position of paying to our circuit judges such a salary aswill be an adequate compensa~ion for their services for the year. I believe we will all be fully satisfied, before we close this question, that a circuit judge is entitled to as much for his services, as any judge of the Supreme Court. I believe we will make no discrimination between the salaries of the circuit judges and the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court Or if we should make any discrimination, then I say that, both in justice and equity, we should pay more to the circuit judge for his services than we do to the judges of the Supreme Court. It seems to ime that such a propcsition as this reported from the come mittee of the whole, would make the circuit judge, for a portion of the time for which his services were hired for the entire circuit, the employ6 of a particular county. I want to see no such discrimination made here. Mrf. BILLS, I desire to mae a i I DEBATES AND PROCEPINGS. August 13, 1867. 805 I 806 C()NsTITIYTIoAL CONVETIO. Tueaay, single remark in regard to this amendment. I am entirely-uninformed-as to the design entertained for any provision of this kind. It is more with the view of eliciting some information in regard to the design of a proposition of this character, than anything else, that I now say anything. I feel reluctant to vote against this amendment, but I shall feel impelled to do so, mainly for the reason that I think it better to increase the salary of the circuit judges, and make it such that the judges can be justly expected to render all the service that shall be needed of them. If the gentleman who introduced this amendment will introduce one to increase the salaries of these circuit judges, I would very cheerfully support it, rather than adopt this amendment, and leave the matter to the supervisors of the several counties. I think it more desirable that such a salary should be given that wocan expect the judges to. perform all the duties that may be desired. Mr. CONGER. If I had thought this Convention would raise the salaries of the circuit judges to the amount it should be, I would not have offered this amendment. It was only upon the supposition that the Convention would leave them at twenty-five hundred dollars a year that I argued in favor of this proposition. If the proposition to increase the salaries should be made and not prevail, and it would be in order hereafter to offer this proposition if it is voted down now, I would now vote against this proposition myself. Mr. BILLS. Cannot the gentlemnn withdraw it, and retain the privilege of renewing it hereafter? The PRESIDENT. It is now an amendment reported from the committee of the whole, and, therefore, it is not in the power of any member to withdraw it. Mr. CONGER. If this proposition should now be adopted, would it be in order hereafter to move to strike it out, in case the other proposition should prevail? ~ The PRESIDENT. It might be stricken out by ucanimous consent. Mr. WILLiAMS. I will make the motion to pass over for the present the question concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole. The PRESIDENT. That can only be done by unanimous consent. Mr, BLIACKMAN. This amendment can be concurred in now, with the understanding that if the salaries of the circuit judges are raised, this amendment can be reconsidered and rejected. Mr. CONGER. I suppose we can reach it in that way. The PRESIDENT. If it is cen. curred in now, it can be reconsidered hereafter. Mr. CONGER. Then I would ask that this amendment be concurred in, and if the other proposition is adopted, I will move a reconsideration of this one. Mr. LUCE. I am opposed to concurring in the amendment at all; even if it is lost now, it can be reconsidered hereafter, if desirable. When this amendment was first offered, it did-not strike me as objectionable; but after considering the question over night, it strikes me now as being decidedly objectionable. I should have no objection to a provision of this kind applicable to a county which comprises the entire circuit. But it is decidedly objectionable to my mind, when applied to circuits which comprise four or five counties. I fear the judge might be induced to neglect some portion of his circuitt to the advantage of other portions, if he received an additional compensation from some of the counties. I object to a concurrence in the amendment of the committee of the whole. We can reach it by reconsideration as well after it is lost, as after it is adopted. Mr. FERRIS. For the information of the Convention, before the vote is taken.upon concurring in this amendment, I desire to give notice that I propose, immediately after; the vote is taken on this amendment, to move to strike out "I twenty-five hundred dollars," and to insert "three thousand dollars," as the annual salary of the judges of the circuit court. Mr. SHEFARER. I concur fully in the remarks made by the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS.) I think a great deal of the board of supervisors, but I think we have endowed them with business enough, without empowering them to raise or lower the salaries of the judges of our courts. I think we should fix liberal compensation for all services rendered the State. Let these officers of the government be independent of the board of supervisors. I have great confidence i the action of the board of supervisors, but I think they have now duties enough to perform. Let the judiciary be separate and apart from the board of supervisors of this State. Let the salaries of the judges be liberal, according to the services they perform, and let those salaries be fixed by the Constitution. Mr. HENDERSON. With reference to those two propositions, one of which we have now before us, and the other we have notice of, I have only this to say: I am opposed, for reasons already assigned, to concurring in this amend*ment of the committee of the whole, and I am also opposed to the amendment proposed to be offered, to increase the salaries of the circuit judges to three thousand dollars a year. It was stated by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) that the very fact that our judges of the circuit court received but fifteen hundred dollars a year, for the past seventeen years, had been a burning shame. I think that remark should be qualified somewhat. I think there was very little difficulty seen or felt on the part of the judges, and there was no complaint made, until the high prices consequent upon the late war. The salary might not have been adequate, perhaps; but very little was thought or said about it. Now living as we have been, for a few years past, with the prices of everything raised to the extreme, the tendency at this time will be to go to the extreme. In my own mind, I am governed in reference to this salary by what I have heard said on the part of the judges themseves, — and of those who are connected- with the profession, and in consequence of that connection are able to judge of this matter. As a general thing, twenty-five hundred dollars a year has been mentioned as a fair, liberal salary; not an extreme salary, but a liberal one. In coming to this conclusion, we are acting under the immediate experience and pressure} of high prices. The srguments which have been adduced here in favor of increasing the salaries of the circuit judges, have been in the main simply that the labors they perform are equal to, and in some cases far beyond, those performed-by the judges of the Supreme Court. If it is becauseof the disparity between the labors performed by the two classes of judges, let us then put the judges of the Supreme Court on a par with the judges of the circuit court, and make their salaries twenty-five hundred dollars a year. I believe that would give better satisfaction to the people; I believe twenty-five hundred dollars a year is enough. I am not in favor of reducing the salaries; but unless we adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) allowing the Legislature to regulate this matter, I think twenty-five hundred dollars is as high as I should go for the circuit judges. Mr. MORTON. I wish, for one, that I knew what was a reasonable salary for a circuit judge. In 1865, petitions came to the Legislature, from members of the bar, asking the Legislature, notwithstanding the constitutional prohibition to the contrary, to increase the salaries of the circuit judges to twenty-five hundred dollars a year, stating that that was a fair and CONSTITVTIONAL CONVTNTION. T-aesclay, 806 August 13, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 807 reasonable salary, and that a circuit judge should have that amount. We are told now that it should be three thousand dollars a year. Now, I know nothing, of course, of the duties of a circuit judge. But 3 am aware that there is quite a differ ence in the districts we propose to es tablish, and that perhaps a circuit judge in our district will earn three thousand dollars a year as easily as another judge in another district will earn two thousand dollars. On that account, I thought the amendment offered in committee of the whole by the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER) might be just and reasonable; so that in a circuit where the judge was destitute of anything to eat in his house, and was going about the streets bare-footed, the supervisors might be induced, if the public were not charita ble, to get up a contribution for him, or to vote him an addition to his salary, in order to keep him alive. So far as the State officers are con cerned, I do not suppose itwill make any difference whether we give one thousand or ten thousand dollars; their work will be done by clerks, and they will be liberally paid for it. I think it would be better to allow twenty-five hundred dollars a year to the circuit judges, from what I have heard, not only from some of them but -lso'from the attorneys, and then to reduce the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court to the same amomunt. I know positively that some of the Judges of the Supreme Court do not spend half their time in their official duties. I know that the circuit judges find some play-days, more than the clerks in the mercantile houses in Detroit, even ff those clerks do get fifteen hundred or two thousand dollars a year. I believe in being liberal, in paying enough; but I do not believe we should go beyond reason in this matter. I believe the time will come in three or four years when salaries will be more in proportion than they ark now, and we may then wish to reduce them instead of increase them. Mr. WITHEY. I said last night about all that I thought it necessary to say on this subject. I amn in favor of the amendment made by the committee of the whole, and now pending, as the best thing that seems to offer itself. If the Convention shall adopt this amendment of the committee of the whole; and the salaries of the circuit judges shall hereafter be increased to three thousand dollars a year, or to any sum above the present amount, it will be very easy to reconsider the action of the Convention in concurring in the amendment Of the committee of the whole, and dispose of it in another way. I am in favor of concurring in the amendment of the committee of the whole, because I am entirely satisfied that if the State will not pay to the circuit judges a greater salary than twenty-five hundred dollars a year, the counties should be at liberty to give them additional compensation, one or more counties, in any or all of the circuits of this State. I ask any gentleman in this Conven tion why the salaries of the circuit judges should not be equal to those of the judges of the Supreme Court? IR is the testimony of every lawyer in this ; Convention, so far as I lmow, at least of every one who has spoken upon this subject, that the responsibilities and labor of a circuit judge - are equal to those of a supreme judge; that the position of circuit judge requires as much learning, as much industry, as theposition of supreme judge. That is the testimeny of the profession; and who are better capable of judging upon this question, in reference to the capac ity and;the ability required for these two positions, of circuit judge and supreme-judge, than those who have the most to'do in those courts? Such being the testimony of the pro fession, and this Convention having seen fit to provide a fixed salary for the supreme judges, what reason on earth can be given by any member of this Convention why the salary of the su preme judges should not be reduced to twenty-five hundred dollars a year, or that of the circuit judges should not be raised to three thousand dollars a year? There is an inconsistency here, unless those gentlemen in this Convention, who are not of the legal fraternity, disbelieve and ignore the testimony given here by every member of the profession who has spoken upon this subject. There is beyond' any question a requirement upon the part of the circuit judge for as much ability and talent to hold a circuit court, as there is upon the judge g~ the Supreme Court for the discharge of his duties. No one who knows the facts, or is capable of judging of the matter, can deny or gainsay this-statement of the testimony given here. Now, in viewof this, why not authorize the counties-to give adaquate compensation to the circuit judges, if the State through the Constitution we are making does not provide adequate compensation? As I said yesterday, the judges of the circuit court are men who not only Learn their. salaries, but more than earn them. They are men abundantly qualified for their position; or if in any circuit in the State such is not the case, it is the fault of the people6who eleeted C. But so far as r my own observation and information extends, these positions are filled by f men- abundantly competent to dis F charge the duties required of them; men of experience at the bar, and many of them now of long experience on the bench. Now, will twenty-five hundred dol laas a year support a man properly in the position of circuit judg e, with a family, absent as h e is m uch a t h e time from his home, where, . if present he could l ook out for h is pecuniary matters, but being ab s e nt so much of his t ime he cannot do so? Will twenty-five hundred doi l ars a year be an adequat e compensa tion to him? We must take into con sideration all the circumstances sur rounding his position, w hat are the duties required of him, his absence from home, and the incidental addi tions to his expense account in conse quence of that very absence. We must remember, too, that a man in that po sition must necessarily have greater expenses than a man who, perhaps, is not required in his mode of living, in his style of dress, and in everything pertaining to his expenses, to live as other men in some other vocations of life could do. Then, again, the judge is upon the bench; he has a mere pittance allowed him by this article, of twenty-five huin dred dollars a year; he uses it up an nually, every cent of it, and must do so, at the present prices of living. What is to be done in the future? Hfe is not able to save up one single farth ing of his salary. That is the testimony of those competent to judge upon this question. i It does seem to me that it is better for us, if we will not provide more than twenty-five hundred dollars a year for these judges, to allow the counties to make up to them an adequate sum. They will be able to judge of this matter, and to judge cor rectly. I trust, therefore, that the Convention will concur in the amend-& ~ment of the committee of the whole; and then, if the salaries of these judges iare afterwards raised, we can recon — 5sider our action on thie matter. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. I desire to say a few words on the "mere pittance" that it is proposed to give to Our circuit judges. "A mere pittance," the gentleman calls it. Twenty-five -hundred dollars a yeaw is the "mere pittance" that we propose to give to our circuit judges; and we are asked to increase it, in order to enableithem to live comfortably-to raise their salary to three thousand dollars a year. That question is not directly before us now, but the discussion runs in that direotioni'.."' ~... -:-;'~".-)f t' I I 80 COSIUTOA COVNI- T uesday, The question before us is upon the proposition to allow the supervisors of each county to raise an additional sum to pay these circuit judges, so that if it is necessary to have an extra term of the court in any given county, they may call upon this overworked circuit judge, who receives a " mere pittance "a for his services, to go there and hold that extra term of court. Now how does it happen that this circuit judge has the leisure to hold that extra term of court? The fact is, if I understand it aright, these circuit judges, in performing their ordinary duties, are not employed more than half the time during the year, say six months, on an average. The gentleman from Berrien (Mr. COOLIDGE,) told us yesterday that the circuit judge in his district was not employed more than one-third of the time. I put it at one-half of tlle time; so that they are on hand ready to take an extra job, if they can get paid for it. And it is proposed to allow the supervisors to pay them for extra work. Now, if the duties of their office employ them only about half their time, there is nothing to prevent their attending to other business the rest of the time. In my view of this subject, and I have reflected upon it considerably, it does seem to me, that twentyfive hundred dollars a year is ample compensation for their services. I admit that their duties are as important, and take up as much of their time as, and perhaps more than those of the judges of the Supreme Court. But instead of raising their salaries to those proposed for the judges of the Supreme Court, we should reduce the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court to those proposed for the judges of the circuit court, that is twenty-five hundred dollars a year. Mr. DUNCAN. I was a member of the committee that reported this arti. cle on salaries. We discussed at some length this matter of salaries for the circuit judges, but finally concluded to fix them at twenty-five hundred dollars a year. It was urged that the salaries of the judges for certain circuits should be fixed at a higher rate; for instance, that the judge for the Upper Peninsula, which was the hardest circuit, should receive more than the rest. Now, the facts are that they elect as their judge a man in Detroit, and pay him extra one thousand dollars, making his salary amount to twenty-five hundred dollars. Now, if any man thinks it is worth his while to take the position of judge in the Upper Peninsula, and go back and forth from Detroit, for twenty-five hundred dollars a year, he certainly can afford to do so in the future for the Lme a mo unt0 They certainly have as good a judge there as there is in the State. I think if we can get a judge to go from Detroit up there for twenty-five hundred dollars a year, that salary is high enough for any of them. I have conversed with different lawyers in the State upon the subject, and their ideas range from two thousand to three thousand dollars a year, for the salary of the circuit judges; but when they come to settle down on a definite sum, they were satisfied with twenty-five hundred dollars a year. Mr. GIDDINGS. I would suggest that the gentleman who goes from Detroit to the Upper Peninsula holds but two terms a year; which is quite diffeent from many other circuits. And my colleague (Mr. DUNcEA) is aware that we drove our judge off the circuit in consequence of too much business; we came near laying him in his grave. Mr. DUNCAN. I suppose the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court are about right, at three thousand dollars a year. If we make any change at all, we should make' the salaries of the Supreme judges the same that we propose to give the circuit judges. Mr. McKERNAN. As this amendment particularly interests our people in the TUpper Peninsula, I desire to say that I hope the Convention will concur in the amendment of the committee of the whole. For the last twelve or fifteen years the people of the Upper Peninsula have been compelled to pay from a thousand to fifteen hundred dollars a year extra for their judges, in order to get competent men for that position. If this Convention will not allow a salary large enough to enable a judge to live comfortably, they should allow the counties to pay him something. The gentleman from Kalamazoo (Mr. DUNcAN) is not correct in his remarks concerning the Upper Peninsula. The Upper Peninsula is divided into two judicial circuits. One of their judges, Judge GOODWIN, is a resident of Detroit; the other, who has a circuit comprising four counties, resides in the Upper Peninsula. The people there have paid him from a thousand to twelve hundred dollars a'year, without any authority of law. It is known to members of this Convention, who have been members of the last Legislature, !that I got a bill passed by the House of Representatives, with a view to authorize these counties to raise money to pay their judges, but the bill was defeated in the Senate. Now, all that I desire is that this Convention will allow a sufficient salary for our circuit judges; or if they will not do thxt, then let the ounties An authority to pay them something in addition to their salaries. It costs a great deal to live in the Upper Peninsula; everything is high there. I suppose there is no lawyer there who does any business, who does not make from three to five thousand dollars a year; and he would laugh at you if you asked him to be circuit judge. We have to come down to the Lower Peninsula and import a man at a risk, until we have tried him. Our judge holds three terms of court annually in each of the counties of his circuit, or twelve terms a year. He informed me before I left that it cost him a thousand dollars a year for traveling expenses alone. I was on the committee on salaries, but I could hardly agree with the rest of the members of the committee. I was in favor of good salaries, in order to get good officers. I looked upon it as a practical business transaction. If you want a good man for any position, you must pay him well. I was in favor of giving higher salaries- to these officers than the committee reported. I thought the people - of this State would be perfectly willing to pay their servant, competent salaries, enough to live on. I believe the people are willing to pay good salaries; and then they will expect their officers to discharge their duties faithfully, and give general satisfaction. I hope the Convention will concur in the amendment of the committee of the whole; and then I hope we will raise the salaries of our circuit judges to at least three thousand dollars a year. Mr. STOUGHTON. When the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER) was presented in committee of the whole last evening, it struck me favorably. Upon further reflection, however, I have come to the conclusion that it would be better on the whole to place the salaries of the circuit judges at three thousand dollars a year, than to adopt that amend,ment; that it would be better to have uniformity throughout the State than to allow some of the judges to apply to boards of supervisors for an increase of compensation. I think that is our true policy. Now, in regard to the salaries of the circuit judges, it seems to me that is a question that recommends itself to our careful consideration. I believe that fifteen hundred dollars a year is not, and does not begin to be, an adequate compensation for the services of these judges; nor does it seem to me that twenty-five hundred dollars a year is a sufficient compensation. I think it should be at least three thousand dol 18rm ~ year. CONSTI'.UTJTIONAL CONVENTIQN. Tueisday, 808 DEBATES... AND) PROCEEDINGS. There are a few considerationsin connection with this matter, to which I would call the attention of this Convention. In the first place the circuit judges are precluded from doing any other kind of business. They are necessarily lawyers, men who can do business only at the bar. They are not like some other State officers, bankers, or men who can carry on some other kind of business. They are simply lawyers, and by statute are precluded from being engaged in any cases whatever. They must live on their salaries, if at all. Now, what is a reasonable compensation? I suppose that on the average, in most parts of the State, it will cost a man two thousand dollars a year to live, certainly not less than fifteen hundred dollars, especially if he has a family. If we pay a judge twenty-five hundred dollars a year, what will he have left, after paying' his necessary traveling expen ses? Take almost any of the circuits in the State, whiche are composed of four large counties at least, and of smaller counties there are more than four in a circuit. In each of those counties there ought to be at least ten weeks of court during the year; so that the judge will spend forty weeks of the year upon the bench. In addition to that, he has a large number of chan cery and other cases, which he takes with him to investigate at home. He must pay his own expenses; there are forty weeks that he is away from home. His board will be at least ten dollars a week, making for that item alone four hundred dollars, and then he must pay all his traveling expenses. Now what can he lay up out of a salary of twenty-five hundred dollars a year? Not a cent. We ask a man. to go upon the bench and spend there eight of the best years of his life. Can we ask him to do that without paying him sufficient to enable him to lay up something? Can we expect him to do it, if he is paid at s uch a rate that he cannot lay up one single dollar during those eight years? It is not reasonable to ask it of any man. We should pay him enough to enable him to lay up something while on the bench. The gentleman from Kent (Mr. M. C. WVATKn~s,) says that the judges of our circuits hold court for only about half the time during the year. If he will reflect for a.moment, he will see that it takes forty weeks of their time to hold the court in a circuit of four large counties. And the time they are re quired to sit upon the bench is scat tered through the whole year; and in the intervals they are traveling from place to place, or examining cases at ~oL WNo. 102. home. So -that im fact —the- whole of their time is taken up.- I am of the opinion that three -thousand -dollars a year is not one cent too much- to give to our circuit judges. Mr.- NORRIS. There is one consideration that occurs - to me,, which has not. been alluded to by members who have spoken upon this question this morning. - Members seem to be debating all the while the wants and necessities of the judges. I take it that is altogether the wrong standpoint. What -we want to ~consider is the question of the wants and necessities of the people. I take it for granted that Particularly in regard to circuit judges the people of this State desire the best ability that money can purchase. And for these, among other sufficient reasons; first, that out of one hundred cases tried and-disposedof in our circuit courts, probably not more than one case reaches a higher tribu naL So that the circuit court is em phatically and essentially the peoples' court; it is there-where most of their suits are finally determined and decided. Now, that these cases may be prop erly determined, and right and justice! be done, it is essential that the people should have the very best abilitywhich their money can get. It is a well set tled principle that in order to get good service performed, there must be paid good salaries. I take it that it is ad mitted that in four, five, six, and per haps eight circuits in this State you cannot get a first-class lawyer to give up his practice and take a seat upon the bench for three thousand dollars a year. In some of -the other circuits you can probably get the best ability in them for twenty-five hundred dol lars a year. Thus far in the Constitution, we have reduced the number of circuits from fourteen to ten. Ten- judges are to do all the business that has hitherto been done by fourteen, to whom we have paid the miserable pittance of fif teen hundred dollars a year. We can get men to do it, if we will give them a sufficient salary. During the life of the Constitution, if it be adopted, and it shall last for thirteen years, there will be no necessity to increase the num ber of circuits. If some of the cir cults are smaller than others, the judges of the Supreme Court can be assigned to circuit court duty, in some of the larger circuits. So that by this Constitution, we are really pro vding that the judicial business of this State shall be done by ten: judges, instead of fourteen as heretofore.:I simply ask the Convention to give-a liberal salary to those ten judges, iin order that the people may get the best talent for those positions. - There is no difference of — opinion in the profession, in regard to the relative importance of the duties of the judges of the Supreme Court, and the duties of the judges of the circuit court. The supreme judge sits upon the bench and recieves printed arguments from the council on the two sides of the question. He has no questions to determine upon the moment; no sudden matters are sprung upon him, no question of practice. But the circuit judge is not upon the bench an hour that he is not called upon to decide important questions upon the spur of the moment; and in deciding them right or wrong, one way or the other, he is liable to inflict an injury or confer a benefit on the people. I think three thousand dollars is as low a salary as should be fixed for the services of a judge of the circuit court. I would greatly prefer the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND) to fix the maximum salary, and then leave it to the Legis lature. But as that is not the deter mination of the Convention, I will submit, and go for the next best thing I can get. While this debate has been going on, I have turned to the Constitutions of other States, and examined the provisions contained in them on this-subject. In most of the State Constitutions it is provided that the judges of the courts shall receive a fixed salary, to be established by the Legislature, which shall not be increased or diminished during their term of office. New York, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon and Tennessee, all make such a provision. Delaware provides a minimum; it provides that the salary of a circuit judge shall be fixed by the Legislature at not less than so much. The old Constitution of Tllinois provides that a judge of the Supreme Court shall receive the liberal salary of twelve, hundred dollars a year, and a judge of the circuit court the liberal salary of one thousand dollars-a year. - Iowa provides a salary of two thousand dollars a year for her supreme judges, and sixteen hundred dollars a year for her circuit judges. That was by the Constitution of 1857, framed and adopted by Iowa previous to the war, and before the inflation of prices. Kansas provides. a minimum of not less than fifteen hundred dollars. Louisiana pays her chief justice seven thousand five hundred dollars, and her circuit judges seven thousand dollars, and allows them to appoint their own clerks. Maryland pays her supreme judges three thousand dollars, and her August.13, 1867 809 :10 COSIUTOA COVNIN.Ted circuit judges twenty-five hundred dollars. Mr. MORTON. WVas not that when slavery paid the judges? Mr. NORRIS. I think it was. Mr. MILLER. Freedlom ought to pay as much. Mr. NORRIS. Quite as much. Nevada pays six thousand dollars the highest and three thousand six hundred dollars the lowest, according to difference of service. Virginia pays three thousand dollars for her Supreme Court judges, and two thousand dollars for the judges of the circuit court, or superior court, as it is there called. Wisconsin fixes the minimum at fifteen hundred dollars. Very iew of the States have fixed the salaries of their judges in their Constitutions. And of those States which have fixed their salaries in their Constitutions, some of them have fixed smaller salaries, and some larger than we desire to fix. Those salaries, however, were established during the time of what we might call " the hard money" basis. But that time has gone,; not to return during thirteen years, the probable life of this Constitution, should it be adopted. It is certain that the present inflated condition of the currency must be kept up, and the present high prices of living continued. Now, in consideration of all these facts, I submit to this Convention that we should provide liberal compensa tion for the services to be performed for the people. Mr. CHAPIN. I do not believe the little time occupied: by gentlemen in expressing their views upon this subject, is lost by any means. I believe this is one of the most important subjects which has come before this Convention. I believe it is a matter of the utmost importance that the officers of the State, and the judicial officers of the State should be such men as are well calculated to discharge satisfactorily the duties imposed upon them. I believe that the question of compensation enters largely into the other questions of their ability, or the likelihood of the State to have men in those positions who are able to discharge their duties as they should be discharged. The question of compensation is certainly one which applies in all practical life, and is one of importance in carrying out all of the purposes of practical life. I do not seek to advocate the highest salaries that have been named here for the payment of our public officers. But I do wish that such compensation shall be fixed as will secure to the State competent men; not only competent men as State officers, but competent men as judicial officers. I believe it is :a mistaken policy to so fix the salaries of the officers as to procure the services of any other than competent men. I consider the salary of three thousand dollars a year, as the compensation of the judges of the circuit court, nothing more than a fair and proper compensation. I do not believe it is one dime too much for the services which those men are called upon to render; particularly when you take into account the fact that the men who occupy the bench as circuit judges must necessarily be first-class lawyers. You would not ask other men to fill that position, you cannot expect any of those men to fill it for a less compensation than three thousand dollars' a year. Men who are of that character, firstclass practitioners at the bar, will receive from their profession an income of from three thousand to six thousand dollars a year. Many of the gentlemen who now occupy the bench, in taking that position have left a business which paid them from four thousand to six thousand dollars a year, and have gone upon the bench and faithfully discharged the duties of circuit judges at a compensation heretofore of only fifteen hundred dollars a year. It strikes me that to ask those men to continue that service at so inadequate a compensation, is a policy suicidal to the best interests of the State. I believe that the constituency which I represent upon this floor-although they are a new county, and find it difficult, to some extent, to pay their taxes, and meet their pecuniary obligations, and although they are laboring under a great many difficulties that the inhabitants of older counties do not labor under-I believe they would blush with shame, if I should, by my vote, fix the compensation of circuit judges at less than three thousand dollars a year. I am willing to place myself squarely on the record as voting for that compensation, as not more than a proper and just compensation to men who discharge those important and arduous duties. All seem to be willing to give three -thousand dollars a year to the judges of the Supreme Court; no man complains that that is too much; all concede that it is a fair compensation. Yet, as was remarked by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) this Convention has been told by legal men, who are placed in a position where they can best decide upon questions of this kind, that the duties of the Supreme Court judges, compared with the duties of the circuit court jud'ges, are. far less laborious and arduous. We all know that fact; even gentlemen who are not professional men must know that fact. The Supreme Court have their fixed terms; they meet only a certain number of times during the year, and the cases prepared and argued before them are thoroughly prepared and thoroughly argued. The judges of the circuit court are holding their courts all over the State, they are away from home a great portion of the year. They decide not only civil and criminal cases, but very impor tant classes of criminal cases. They .decide those cases very often when they are only half argued, by young men illy prepared perhaps to argue the real points at issue. The circuit judges are required to have at instant command an amount of ready learn ing, in order to decide questions upon the spur of the moment, which the judges of the Supreme Court are not required to possess. Under all these circumstances, tak ing all these facts into account, I sub mit to the discretion of this Coniven tion, and to their sound judgment, whether three thousand dollars a year in the present circumstances of this State, is any too large a compensation for the judges of the circuit court? I really do not believe it is; I hardly think it an adequate compensation. It is certainly the lowest possible sum that I can consent to vote for. Mr. NORRIS. I desire to submit a few figures to the Convention. Four teen judges, the present number of circuit judges, at $1,500 a year, the present compensation, receive $21,000 a year. Ten judges at $2,500 a year, as proposed by the committee on salaries, would receive $25,000 a year, or $4,000 more than we pay for the same work new. Ten judges at $3,000 a year, the salary advocated by those of us in favor of paying more than the committee on salaries have recommended, would receive $30,000, or $9,000 more than we pay at present, or $5,000 more than the committee on salaries propose to pay. The differ ence about which all this discussion is had is but $5,000. If we spend the entire day in debating this question, that debate alone will be an expense to the State equal to one-eighth or one tenth of the-proposed increase. Mr. FARMER. I hope the amend ment of the committee of the whole will not be concurred in. I am wiling to take the testimony of legal gentle men on this floor in regard to the com parative amount of labor performed by the judges of the Supreme Court, and the judges of the circuit courts. I am willing to admit that the labors of the circuit court judges are more arduous than the labors of the judges of the Supreme Court. I rise at this time to give notice that at the proper time I will move an amendment to reduce the . salaries of the judges of the Supreme 810. CONSTITUTIONAL CON VENTION. Tuesday, Auus.~,16. DBTS ADPOED~S Court to twenty-five hundred dollars a year. Mr. RAFTER. I think the mem bers of this Convention are all agreed as to the ability required of those who are called upon to discharge the high and important duties of circuit judges. The only difference of opinion seems to be as to what should be the com pensation for the performance of those duties. Now, whatever compensation may be agreed upon by this Conven tion, I think should be fixed in the Constitution. I do not believe in the propriety of leaving the boards of supervisors to vary or change that compensation; or to hold out as it were by our Constitution the propriety of one or the other of the counties, in any of the circuits of this State, hiring a portion of the time or the services of the circuit judge, which properly belong to the whole circuit, for any particular county of the circuit. With that view, I shall oppose the amendment made in committee of the whole. I believe that three thousand dollars a year would not be too high a compensation for the services of circuit judges. I hope, therefore, that the Convention will not concur in the amendment of the committee of the whole, leaving it for the board of supervisors to regulate for the different circuits the compensation to be given to the circuit judges, but that this Convention will take action to make that compensation what it should be. I do not believe the amendment proposed by the committee of the whole is a wise and judicious one. It might work well in the county of Wayne perhaps. I should have no particular objection to the amendment, so far as the county of Wayne is concerned, because that county constitutes an entire judicial circuit. But I am opposed to it in cases where the circuit comprises several counties. Mr. BARBER. Is an amendment to the amendment of the committee of the whole in order at this time? The PRESIDENT. It is. Mr. BARBER. I move to amend the amendment by inserting after the word "county," where it first occurs, "where such county constitutes a judicial circuit," so that the amendment will read: SI Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the board of supervisors of any county, where such county constitutes a judicala' circuit, from authorizing an additional compensation to be paid by such county, to the circuit judge thereof" Mr. CONGER. I suppose it can hardly be expected, in the re-arrangement of the circuits, that there will be any one county, not even Wayne county, that will constitute a circuit by it self. Looking over the counties, and the number of circuits that are to be -formed of them, it will be apparent that the county of Wayne must have another county attached to it, in order to form a circuit. It has now a county attached to it for that purpose. Mr. NORRIS. It has two of them; Emmet and Cheboygan. Mr. CONGER. It has two of them. Now, whatever arrangement of circuits may be made, there can be no arrangement by which the county of Wayne would constitute a circuit by itself. While I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. BARBER,) I have prepared a substitute for the amendment of the committee of the whole which I will offer. It is as follows: " Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the Legislature from providing by law, that the county auditors, or board of supervisors of any county may authorize an additional compensation to be paid by such county to the circuit judge thereof." The PRESIDENT. The question will first be taken upon the amendment of the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. BARBER,) to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole. Mr. PRINGLE. I shall feel compelled to vote against the pending amendment, ag I do not want a condition. of things where the judge will feel under any obligation to this county or that county, or this man or that man, for getting an allowance through a board of supervisors; where he will be put in a position that he ought not to be put in, in reference to other men in other counties who did not make him any such allowance. I do not want any such state of things in the circuits composed of our ordinary counties. Hence I shall be compelled to vote against the amendment recommended by the committee of the whole. In regard to the question which has been discussed this morning, of raising salaries, I do not see anything unreasonable in paying any such amount as is proposed. The judge, if he be fit for the place, is a man who when a boy obtained a classical education, or a good education. He then spent five, ten, or fifteen years earning a bare living, and living cheaply at that, in practicing his profession and acquiring his standing in it. Even then it has not prepared him to be a judge. To be the best man in the district for the judge, he must ordinarily be the man who would have the best practice in the district, and that takes him longer. He has then attained a position where it is a sacrifice for him to accept the position of circuit judge at such a salary. But there is a sort of tradi tion among members of the bar, an. idea of which the people have availed themselves and may avail themselves, that judicial position is far above every other in dignity and rank. It is said that in the mind of every lawyer to be Chief Justice of the United States, is an immensely greater honor than to be President of the United States. And to be Chief Justice of the State of Michigan would be higher honor than the State could otherwise confer. This I speak of as the idea in the mind of the lawyer, distinguising himself through his profession, and that alone. Still, I wish to see the distinction kept uLp between the judges of the cir cuit court, and the judges of the Su preme Court. All is true that has been said in regard to the arduous and responsible duties of circuit judges; all is true perhaps as to the relative expenditure of time. But the judges of the Supreme Court, or court of last resort, saying authoritatively to the people of the entire State what the law is, doing this upon deliberation, upon argument, no matter how complete the briefs are, should be men of the best ability, the most thorough discipline, and the greatest experience that we can procure. Hence I would myself vote for a provision that no man should be eligible to that court unless he had served a term either in that court before, or as a circuit judge. We want that ripe experience which long practice on the bench, and at the bar as well, gives to a judge, in order that he may give the reasons, and the arguments, and the law to the people of the State. We need the ripest talent that can be procured for those positions. There should be, I think, in the matter of salaries, as in the matter of honor, a distinction made between the judges of the Supreme Court, and the judges of the circuit court. The circuit judge, if he performs his duty well, and makes his experience felt by the people of his district, and of the State, should look to promotion to the other court. That other court should be filled from the circuit benches. And with the promotion to that other and more honorable position should go a salary somewhat larger. If gentlemen will vote to raise the salary of the judges of the Supreme Court to thirty-five hundred dollars a year, I will vote to raise the salaries of the circuit judges to three thousand dollars a year. But I do not think the salaries should be placed upon a level; there ought to be a distinctiob between the two courts. Mr. HOLMES. If twenty-five hun Agustt,13) 1867. 1 DEBATES. AND PROCRRDINGS. 811 CONS'l'TITUTIONAL GONVENTION. dred a year is not an adequate compensation for a circuit judge, I hope this Convention will fix it at three thousand dollars, or any other sum that is necessary. But I enter my solemn protest against authorizing the different boards of supervisors of this State to fix any part of that compensation. The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. BARBER to the amendment of the committee of the whole, and it was not agreed to. The question then was upon the substitute offered by Mr. CONGER, for the amendment of the committee of the whole, which substitute was as follows: , P,'ovided, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the Leg islature from providing by law, that the county auditors, or board of supervisors of any county may authorize an additional cornm pensation to- be paid by such county to the circuit judge thereof." Mr. DANIELLS. I move to amend the amendment of the committee of the whole, by adding to it the words: " and from the decision of such board of supervisors there shall be no ap peal." [Laughter.] The amendment of Mr. DANTFTTS wasenot agreed to. The question again recurred upon the substitute offered by Mr. CoNGER. Mr. CONGER. This proposition of mine merely authorizes the Legislature to provide that the board of supervi sors may do this thing. The -amend ment of the committee of the whole at once authorizes the board of super visors to do it. Mr. STOUGHTON. I would sug gest to the gentlemen from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGeR,) to withdraw his substi tute for the time being, and allow us to take a vote on the amendment of the gentlemen from Kent, (Ir. FERRIS, ) to raise the salaries of circuit judges to three thousand dollars a year. Mr. CONGER. I understand that the amendment of the gentleman from Kent (Mr. FERRIS,) cannot be acted upon until the amendment of the com mittee of the whole is disposed of. Mr. STOUGHTON. I want to vote for the one, but I may vote differently on the other if I am obliged to vote. Mr. CONGER. I will withdraw my substitute for the amendment of the committee of the whole. The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon concurring in the amend ment of the committee of the whole, upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered. Mr. CON~GER. I withdraw the call for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDENT. That can be done by unanimous consent. - Noo objection being made, the order for the yeas and nays was rescinded. The question recurred upon the the amendment of the committee of the whole, to add to the section the following: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the board ot supervisors of any county Ifrom authorizing an additional compensation, to' be paid -by such county to the circuit judge thereof." Mr. BLACKMAN. Inasmuch as this amendment is not what is desired by the mover of it, I hope we will not concur in-it. If the salaries of the circuit judges shall not be raised, the gentleman can offer his substitute as an amendment to this section. The question was then taken, and the amendment of the committee of the whole was not concurred in. The PRESIDENT. All the amendments of the committee of the whole having been disposed of, amendments to the body of the article are now in order. - M". FERRIS. I now offer the amendment of;which- I gave notice some time since; to strike out "I twenty five hundred dollars," and insert "ethree thousand dollars," as the an nual salary of the judges of the circuit court. Mr. LUCE. I do not -propose to occupy any length of time in talking about this question of salaries, for it has been pretty thoroughly discussed. I am decidedly opposed to the adop tion of this amendment. I believe that probably for the last three or four years twenty-five-.hundred dollars a year would have been a low salary for a circuit judge.- But for the years pre vious to that I apprehend that salary would have been an adequate one. Indeed, in my experience in the Leg islature, I have never heard of any attorney, lawyer or judge asking for a compensation for a circuit judge- to exceed twenty-five hundred dollars a year. — I know of no State - in our immediate vicinity that pays its circuit judges over twenty five hundred dollars a year, where the Legislature have the authority to fix the. compensation. That is the compensation -;.in Indiana and Ohio, and while we live in a time of constant receding of prices for every thing that is consumed in the support and maintenance of a family, the pro ducts of the field, and of the mill, I do not believe we should at this time increase the compensation of our cir cuit judges beyond twenty-five hun dred dollars a year. Another thing that induces me to believe this, is the fact that, ever since the Supreme Court has been established by law, the Legislature have-had the control of the compensa tion of the judges of -that court; and they have fixed it at twenty-five hundred dollars a year. I have never heard of an application, directly or indirectly, for an increase of the compensation fixed by law. If that has been an adequate compensation during the high prices of the last few years, I believe it 1is an adequate compensation now, both for the. judges of the Supreme Court, and the judges o'f the circuit court. I have been willing to vote for an increase of compensation to the judges of the Supreme Court, over that of the judges of the circuit court, because it is the custom in this and other States to do so, boo4axe of the increased learning, ability, and experience required of them. I believe, in regard to the cir cuit judges,, that so far as my own district is concerned, twenty-five hundred dollars a year will be a compensation satisfactory to the best lawyer in that c'lrcuit. I cannot call to mind one who I think would decline the office, on ac count of the inadequacyof a s-alary of twenty-five hundred dollars a year." It has been frequently spoken of here as though the prices of the last few years were to be the established prices for the next thirteen years. The gentleman from Washtenaw (Mr. NORRIS) has predicted, with a great deal of confidence that such would be the case. Now, I have selected from — the Prices Current, of the city-of- De troit, the prices of some of the leading articles - two years and: a half ago, and the prices of the same articles to-day. I find that most of those articles have receded in price at least one-half, many of them much more. Two years and ahalfago wheat was selling at $2.00 and $2.'0 -per bushel; it is the same to-day. Corn was then selling at $1.16 and $1.25 per bushel; now it is selling at 90 and 91 cents per bushel: Wool then was 75 to 80 cents per pound; now it is 40 and 43 cents per pound. Beef cattle were then selling for $6.00 and $6.50 per cwt.; now they are selling for $5.50 and $6.00. Live hogs were then selling for $11.00 and $12.00 per cwt.; now they are selling for $6.00 and $6.50. Butter was then selling for 45 and 50 cents per pound; now it is selling for 18 and 20 cents. Standard sheetings were then 60 and 65 cents per yard; now they are 18 cents. Sprague's prints were then selling for 41 and 42 cents per yard; now they are selling for 15~ cents per yard. I have read only the prices of a few articles, showing the constant downward tendency of the prices of articles that enter into the cost of the support and maintenance of -a family. I believe that, taking all things into consideration, the salaries have been fixed as judiciously by th'e committee s I ii, 81.2, .. I "I - 1867. I."'-.. —,AN --— e'. I.. on salaries as we can get -them., I hope'the amendment of -the gentleman: from IKent,'-(Mr. FRRIs;) will-not- pro'vail. Mr. FERRIS.: The -importance -of my amendment-is conceded by all: I ask that the question upon it may-be taken by yeas and nays.. Mr. MILLER. I hope the amend' ment will prevail. I hardly think — it is proper for us to inquire into the price of pork, potatoes or broadcloth, -in-settling this question of salaries.- You go, to an individual, who by his profession is earning five, six, seven or eight'thousand dollars a year, and ask him' to take a seat upon the bench of yourcircuit-cour't. You do not propose to him that he shall be satisfie(iwith what simply constitutes a living. You want his services; -you want his talents.When he consents that- you shallhave his services and his talents, you would feel ashamed of yourselves'if you were to ask -him- simply to estimate how much he can live upon. He goes as a judge upon your bench, with — all the prestige connected with his name -and standing in his profession, and' you ask' him to go there for a salary that shall indicate as clearly as anything- can,< what you regard his services are worth I should not- have said a word-on this subject, did it not seem to me that we are not doing as we- should, when we show so much regard for the alimentary part of this question; -we should go higher. While these judges have so much service to' perform, while so much talent'is required, of them, if they earn so much by their profession, we should certainly treat them with consideration in the salaries which we offer them. Mr.- SJTEARER. I go for this amendment from the fact -that in my estimation three thousand dollars- a year is none- too much. I amra farm er; I believe there are thousands:of farmers in this State who, if they were capable, would not- leave their farms and take this place for three thousand dollars a year. Let the judge com mence from his youth to study legal lore; let him devote his best time and energies and mind, to the detriment of his physical constitution; let -him- es tablish himself as a lawyer, and- let him acquire that ability which is neces sars for the position of a judge, C:and then serve his time on the bench, and it looks wrong in the end to deprive him of this mere pittance for perform ing faithfully his duties- as a judge. I hold that so far as the price-of provisions are concerned, itf is merely nominal. Although when we come to estimate that, I wills ask- what is the rent of a house and all that is necessary to make it comfortable for a family? It will.- amount'to at -leasta -thousand- dollars a year. - The traveling expenses of -ag judge'will be another-, thousand: dollairs:'- And then there is all'the time. he spends in court, and out of court, too, in preparing his decisions for: the benefit of the people of the State, of all classes- farmers, — mechanics, profes sional -men,. and all I hold that' he: should: be fully paid- for all that.- I :-hold that as a farmer when I pay good prices for labor, I get better profits: -thlan I do to jew the — laboring man down. I hold that- in the —end, after a judge has- worn-out his life in mentalstudy, with his physical constitution wasted away, when he- is going sdown-'to the grave, he should have something to leave for the -support of his:-family.- I am willing; as a- small-taxpayer in this; State to' give -the circuit; judge three thousand dollars aiyear., Mr. DANIELLS.- I am a farmer, and- not a lawyer. I suppose that in — tha-t-respect I am- something similar to, the..gentleman fromro Branch,. (Mr.' LUcE.)' But -.he and.-I come to.vev ~diffent conclusions in regard to this matter;- that is, if I understand- the. s- ubject- aright,. Do-' we:hire -a judge to raise pork: and&-wheat, and peas, and wool? If we do,.then- the'prices:of those-articles should govern the price we should pay a judge. But if we are to hire a judge to insure us- law, and-.justice, and equity, then the:prices-wet can get the best —of those- articles for is -what we should look to. - -I do not suppose the high or low price of wool has anything to do with the abilities of a'a judge; I do noti suppose-we hire a judge for any such-purpose. I did not hear the gen tleman -from Branch.- (Mr. LucE,) say anything about-oats;. yet: the price of oats may have some effect -on- his- sal ary, if he travels- much. e- etwant -:to get-the-best ability we can to insure -equity and justice, and correct adjudi cation-of -the laws,- for the benefit-of -the people. — For thatpurpose I think we should pay pretty good salaries,. i I have'been in the -habit of -hiring labor all my lifetime,.ever since- I have been -in business. It has always been said by my neighbors that-I have paid ^the highest prices.- But that has-been my' habit; pay liberal salaries, - and demand -good and prompt servc Ic t M. r. HOLT. I move to amend by adding after the words just adopted these words: "but not during the term of office for which such officers were respectively elected." The clause will then read: "It shall be competent for the Legislature to increase or diminish the salaries herein provided, but not during the term of office for which such officers were respectively elected." Mr. STOUGHTON. Mr. President, we have provided in the Constitution what the salaries of these officers shall be. Now, it seems to me simply ab surd for us to say that the Legislature may increase or diminish those salaries without any limitation. If this pro vision be inserted in the Constitution, the power of the Legislature may at any time supersede the provisions of this article with reference to salaries. ] I fact, it would be eqvivalent to hav- ing no constitutional provision at all with regard to salaries. I propose, as i an amendment to the amendment, to add to the words already adopted, in stead of those proposed by the gen- c tleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT) the following: " by a vote of two- ] thirds of the members elected to each House." Mr. HOLT. I modify. my amend- ment so as to include the amendment t of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON.) The clause will read if my amendment be adopted, "It shall bd competent for the Legislature to in- i crease or diminish the salaries herein provided by a two-thirds vote of the members elect to each House, but not during the term for which such offi- a cers were respectively elected." Mr. McCLELLAND. Mr. President, g the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. n STOUGHTON,) may consider a proposition of the kind which I have offered, h c"absurd." That, however, seems to me rather a strong word to use. If ru the gentleman had examined the con- fi stitutions of other States, as I have sn done, I think he would not have ap- t( plied such a term to this provision. sn Now, sir, I would ask the gentleman to from St. Joseph what is the difference r~ between leaving this subject of salaries it entirely to the Legislature, as is done a: in most of the States, or putting r it in the form in which I have framed ot this provision? I have voted with the t1 gentleman for the different salaries m enumerated here, with the excep- o] tion of two or three. I voted against tk those salaries for the simple reason that w the Convention had determined not to ci require the State officers to reside here. a~ I have been under the impression that e] they should reside here, or at all events n that they should give most of their at- a] tention to the business of their respec- t} tive depxtment~ here at.gnsina'gf't With this view, I was ready at any time to vote for giving an ample salary to each of these officers. But when I found that the Convention had deter'mined not to require these officers to reside here, or to give their constant attendance to their official business, I voted for smaller compensation, for the simple reason that Iknow, partially from my own observation, and also from the information of those in whom I place implicit confidence, that these officers do not now give their entire attention, nor any considerable part of their attention, to the business of their departments here. When I voted for the compensation of the judges, I did it with a belief that the compensation should be such as to induce men of the first rank in the profession to take these judicial positions; and if inferior men should get upon the bench, I would give the Leg slature power to reduce their compensation, so as to oust them from office. "hat is one reason. I will state another. Suppose that we should experience such a crisis as occurred prior to L850-and there appears to be strong ndications that such a thing may beI would desire that the Legislature should, in such a contingency, have he power to grade these salaries in roportion to the salaries of all other fflcers in the Stato not public officers, ut private officersofficers of bank.. ng institutions, manufacturing estabishments, insurance companies, and other officers. My object would be to place these officers, public and private, as nearly as possible on an equality. Hence, I think it was improper for the entleman from St. Joseph to denomiate this an "absurd" proposition. Mr. MUSSEY. I think that. perhaps the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. MCCr,T.ir,AND) is a little too sensitive in egard to the remarl, of the gentleman rom St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON.) It eems to me a little inconsistent, not o say absurd, to provide for fixing alaries, and then afterward delegate o the Legislature the entire power of making those salaries more or less, as t may choose. I presume that this is 11 the gentleman from St. Joseph leant to say. This is the view I took f the matter when the motion of he gentleman from Wayne was lade. But at all events, I am pposed to leaving tlhe question in ais position. I would prefer that we should either provde that these ,vil officers shall receive such salaries s the Legislature may prescribe, or lse that we should fix the salaries permanently in the Constitution; and I pprehend that the State officers and he judges would prefer to have their s,liries fied,'d: defed in the Gor August -13, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 817 818v G-SIU~OA C s ONENTI, stitution, even though their compensation might not be so high as they would desire, rather than that the question should be left in uncertainty and their compensation be subject to the caprice of the Legislature. But, sir, I object to the amendment on another ground. I apprehend,that there is not much danger that the Legislature will reduce salaries. That body is not ordinarily very much inclined in that direction. The Legislature, however, under pressure of circumstances such as we have had for the last few years, may be induced to increase salaries Now, so far as I am concerned, if we are to designate amounts of salary at all in the Constitution, I prefer to fix those amounts definitely and permanently. The amendment of the gentleman from Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT,) seems to me very objectionable. It provides that the salariesshall not be changed during the term for which any of these officers were elected. How would this provision operate? The Legislature may, in its wisdom, see fit to change the salary of the judges of the Supreme Court, reducing the salary, we will suppose, from $3,000 to $2,500. But that reduction could not take effect during the term of any of the incumbents. The effect, therefore, of this provision would be that the newly-elected judge would receive a salary of $2,500, while his associates would receive $3,000. There would be a similar discrepancy of salary if the compensation should be increased. Hence, I think any provision of this sort would be very objectionasble. The amendment of the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. McCLELLAND) did not meet my approbation; I voted against it; but the Convention has seen fit to adopt it, and, of course, I have nothing to say against the decision. Bnt I think this amendment makes the section still more objectionable; and I hope it will not prevail. It certainly ought not to prevail. Mr. UTLEY. If it be in order, I wish to move to strike out this entire section. Mr. GIDDINGS. I hope we shall have an opportunity to make our amendments before such a proposition is entertained. The PRESIDENT. As a matter of conrse, if a motion is made to strike out the section, amendments designed to perfect the section will first be in order. Mr. STOUGHTON. Mr. President, in the remarks which I made in relation to the motion which, I now learn was made by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLXLLAND,) I certainly inteded m -diovurtey tow,aTr hat gentleman, whom I desire to treat at all times with the greatest respect. All that I intended to intimate was, that, after we have specified particularly in this section, what these salaries shall be, it involves a little inconsistency, to say the least, to declare that the Legislature may at any time increase or di minish these salaries. This was all that I intended to say; and I certainly meant no discourtesy toward the gen tleman from Wayne. Mr. GIDDINGS. I ask a division of the question on this amendment, so as to take the question first on inserting the words, " by a two-thirds vote of the members elect to each House." The PRESIDENT. A division being called for, the question will be first taken on inserting the words just sta ted by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS.)' M]r. LOVELL. I move to amend the amendment by striking out " two thirds," and inserting "a majority." The ai/nendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The question then recurred on the first division of Mr. HOLT'S amendment. Mr. HOLT. Mr. President, I think that some provision similar to that which I propose should be incorporated in this section. We have already pro vided, by the adoption of another amendment, that the salaries named in the section may be increased or diminished by the Legislature. Now, it seems to me that there should be some safeguard or restriction in regard to the increase or diminution of these salaries; otherwise there will be an in cessant wrangling in regard to a change of salaries. It seems to me impossible for us to fix salaries in the Constitution im such a way that they shall perma nently remain at the amounts desig nated, and still be such as we shall in the future desire to have them. It is to be presumed that this Constitution will continue in force a number of years, during which time the duties of these several officers may be, and probably will be, considerably changed. We know that in years past, various changes have been made in the duties L of these officers; and we have reason to expect that such changes will be L made hereafter. It was strongly urged at an earlier stage of our session E here, that the duties of the Audi tor General should be somewhat L changed; that sales of lands for taxes should be made in the several coun ties, thereby relieving the Auditor , General's office from the present du. ties in connection with this business. , If such a change should hereafter be L made, of course the duties of that office will be diminished very materi, ally; ad E such a cae, it acems to me, the salary of the officer should be reduced. The duties of other officers may be, and probably will be, increased. The duties of the Superintendent of Public Instruction will in all probability be increased as the State continues to advance in population. Hence it seems to me impossible for us to fix the amounts of these salaries in the Constitution in such a manner that they can remain permanently and be such as we shall desire to have them hereafter. Consequently, I am in favor of the provision adopted on the'motion of the gentleman from Wayne; but I think its operation should be somewhat restricted by the amendment which I have proposed. The question being taken on the first division of the amendment of Mr. HOLT, to add at the end of the section the words, "by a two-thirds vote of the members elect to each House," it was not agreed to; there being ayes 18, noes 40. The question then recurred on the second division of the -amendment to add at the end of the section the-words: "but not during the term of office for which such officers were respectively elected;" so as to make the last clause read: "It shall be competent for the Legislature to increase or diminish the salaries herein provided, but not during the term of office for which such officers were respectively elected." The second division of Mr. HOLT'S amendment was not agreed to. Mr. WINSOR. I move to reconsider the vote by which the Convention adopted the amendment of the gentleman from 1 ayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) by which the last clause of the section was made to read thus: "It shall be competent for the Legislature to increase or diminish the salaries herein provided." The PRESIDENT. Did the gentleman vote in the affirmative? Mr. WINSOR. I did. -Mr. CONGER. I hope, Mr. President, that this motion will prevail. So far as I am concerned-I do Pot know how it may be with other gentlemanI dislike to spend some time in carrying a proposition through the committee of the whole, or through the Convention, and then hand it over to its enemies, to be slaughtered at their pleasure. It may be good tactics for the opponents of a measure to get it in such a position. My friend from Wayne, in leading off in this effort this afternoon, has done well; and many of those who voted for fixing the salaries in the Constitution, have rushed on after him, so that we have undone the work of this morning I desire, however, that we shall now reconsider.the ProposiUou, and leave 9 t a 8 1 1 .t t t c t t t i CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Tuemday, 81-8 August I)EB'ATFI's ANt) PO()E'DtS. 19 the salaries as we have fixed them. This morning I asked the Convention to empower the L-egislature to author ize a county to give the circuit judge a little additional salary, if it should be deemed necessary; but that proposition was objected to, because, it'was said, it would give too much power to the Legislature. Yet the very gentlemen who argued most strongly that they wanted the salary of the circuit judge a fixed thing, not subject to change by the Legislature or by the countiesand among those the ever-present and ever-watchful gentleman from Branch, (Mr. Lucr,)-have joined in accomplishing another purpose-the slaughter of this article. Still, sir, there is a shrewdness about this which might well be imitated by myself and some of my friends who voted for fixing salaries in the Constitution. I hope that: we shall stand by our work somewhere, or give it up entirely and go home. This is one of those cases where, if I knew the Latin quoted by my friend from Clinton, (Mr. DANIELLS,) the other day, about being taught by an enemy, I should desire to apply it in the case of myself and my friends. Mr. SAWYER. Mr. President, I have sat here during this morning, and thus far this afternoon, and have heard the discussions on this subject. I wish to judge of this matter in a serious light; and, though I desire to occupy as little time as possible, that the Convention may proceed with its business, I will say that, were I dealing with this subject as one under my own control, I should not want to bind my hands in such a manner tliat I could not make a bargain at a future time for procuring the services of those whom I might need, at as cheap a rate as possible, consistent with the honorable and faithful performance of those services. I deem it very proper that the Legislature of this State shall be enabled in the future to modify the action which we may take in regard to salaries, if, in consequence of any change of circumstances, it should be necessary, and to allow just such salaries as may fully compensate the officers of our State for their services. Five or ten or a dozen years hence, one dollar may be worth as much as three dollars are now worth; and hence, the salaries specified in this article may be practically much greater than they are to-day, and may be at that time vastly more than will be necessary to procure the services of competent men. Hence, I consider it necessary for the interest of the State, and not calculated to do injustice to any one, that the Legislature should have some control of this subtjee Mr. WINSOR. Mr. President, I have L made this motion to reconsider in good faith. As a member of the com mittee on salaries, I think the amend ment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) does away with the force and effect of our labors. If we desire to leave salaries to be regulated by the Legislature, let us say so in plain words. Let us not accomplish the purpose by a long section of this kind, pretending at the outset to fix salaries, and then closing by a declaration that the Legislature shall have power to nullify or reverse all our action. If we desire that the Legislature shall have control of this subject, let us say so in brief and unmistakable lan guage. Mr. CONGER. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and the motion to reconider the vote by which the amendment of Mr. MCCLELLAND had been adopted, was agreed to; there being yeas 44, nays 32, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Conger, Daniells, Divine, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, Holmes, Howard, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, McKernan, Miles, Murray, Mussey, Ninde, Pringle, Rafter, Richmond, Sheldon, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, White, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, Wright, and Yeomans-44. NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Brown, Coolidge Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Henderson, Holt, Huston, Lamb, Lawrence, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Miller, Morton, Musgrave, Norris, Purcell, Sawyer, Shearer, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, Willard, and Winans-32. The PRESIDENT. The motion to reconsider having been agreed to, the question now recurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wayne, ( M r. MCC/ELLAND,) to make the last clause of the section read as follows: "It shall be competent for the Legislature to increase or diminish the salaries herein provided." Mr. CONGER. I call for the yeas and nays on this question. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and the amendment of Mr. MCCLELLAND was not agreed to; there being yeas 36, nays 42, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Coolidge, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Duncan, Duncombe, Hazen, Henderson, Holt, Huston, Lamb, Lawrence, Lovell, Luc, McClelland, McConnell, Miller, Morton, Musgrave, Norris, Purcell, Rafter, Sawyer, Shearer, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, Willard, and Winans,-36. Niys- Messrs, Alexander, Andrus,Barber, Bills, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Conger, Daniells, Divine, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, Holmes, Howard, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, McKernan, Miles, Murray, Mussey, Ninde, Pringle, Richmond, Sheldon, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson,> Turner, Tyler, Utley, White, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, Wright, and Yeomans -42. FEES AND PERQUISITES OF STATE OFFICERS. Mr. BILLS. I move to amend the section, by striking out the words, they shall receive no fees or perquisites whatever for the performance of any duties connected with their offices;" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "They shall not be entitled to any fees or perquisites for the performance of the duties of their respective offices, but all perquisites received shall be paid into the State Treasury." Mr. President, the clause as it now stands provides simply, as it was probably the intention of the committee that it should provide, that the feex received shall not inure to the benefit of the officers. I desire by this amendment to provide that such fees as shall be received by these officers in the discharge of their official duties, shall be paid into the treasury of the State. Mr. DANIELLS. I should be glad if the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BmELs,) would tell us what the perquis ites of a judge will be. I believe that a judge has the right to take the acknowledgment of a deed, for which he would be entitled to twenty-five cents; and I do not know but that he has a right to perform the marriage ceremony. Mr. GIDDINGS. If there are any perquisites attached to the office of judge, I would like to know what they are. Mr. DANIELLS. It seems to me rather a picayune business to insert a provision of this kind. Mr. MUSSEY. Mr. President, I hope that this amendment will prevail. There seems to be a little squirming about it; and gentlemen would have us think that it is a matter of very small consequence. But — it is well known that much has been said, and a good deal of feeling has been excited in regard to the perquisites of these State officers, or the fees which have been received for statements in regard to tax-titles and matters of that kind. I do not wish to disguise the fact that in drawing this part of the section my understanding was that it would preclude these officers from receiving any of these fees. But on further consideration of the matter, I prefer that the clause should be modified in the manner proposed by this amendment, so that neither these officers, nor any of the clerks in the various departments, shall receive these fees and perquisites, but that all moneys received for the labor of these public officers ~in any way, shall be paid directly into the State treasury, rather than that these offices should receive the fees and then pay them over to the DEBATIS'A PlkOCP,-tDIN(IS. IAugust 13.1-867. 819 820 OOSTITUTIOAL COVETIO Tuesday, treasury. These fees amount to quite a considerable item. In the Auditor General's office, I apprehend that they are annually larger than the salary which that officer has been receiving for the last fifteen years. I desire that these fees shall go where I think they properly belong. These public officers and theirclerkaare employed to attend to the public business for the State and whatever is earned in those offices should, I think, go into the State treas ury. I hope the amendment will pre vail. The amendment was adopted. SALARY OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLI INSTRUCTION. Mr. GIDDINGS. Mr. President, now desire to present an amendmen which I have already suggested. It i the only change which I have much desired to have made. I move to amend the section by inserting after the word thousand," the words " five hundred,' so as to make the salary of the Super intendent of Public Instruction $2,500 I think that this increase is proper; i is only giving this officer a compensa tion somewhat proportionate to th services which he renders. Mr. THENDERSON. Mr. President during the informal discussion of thi proposition this morning, it was stated that the Superintendent of Public In struction does not now receive any oth er compensation than his salary. have since heard it stated that he is allowed his expenses-that in connec tion with every teachers' institute tha he holds throughout the State, a hun dred dollars is allowed him for his ex penses. Now, if his expenses are paid him, I do not think it right to increas his salary. I think the argument al hinges on this one point. If no ar rangement is made for paying his ex penses, then I think we should increasE his salary; but I think the fact is tha he receives an allowance for his expen ses. Mr. WILLIAMS. I would inquire of the gentleman whether, if this arti cle be adopted in its present form, any perquisites or traveling expenses can be paid this officer any more than any other officer. The present law may provide for allowing him his expenses but the effect of this constitutional provision would be to abrogate any such provision of law. Mr. HENDERSON. I understand that the law now allows this officer one hundred dollars for his expenses in connection with each teachers' institute. Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not know whether such is the law or not; but at any rate I apprehend that a law of that kind would be unconstitutional, under this article, if adopted in its present form. Mr. GIDDINGS. The mere fact that a man may take one hundred dollars, outside of the provisions of this Constitution, has no pertinence as an argument on this question; for any other officer may do the same. I base this proposition entirely on the fact that the salary named in this section is to be the entire compensation of this officer. He ought not to have any other compensation; and I think that the people ought to know what he is to receive. The Superintendent has stated, I believe, that he does not receive anything for his expenses. I think he stated this when I saw him here in this hall, about the time of our convening; and the gentleman from Allegan (Mr. WILLIAMIIS) informs me that he also heard him say so. Mr. MUSSEY. Mr. President, I regret to occupy time upon this question, but still I feel it my duty to do what I can to present the facts in regard to this matter. In the first place, the present Constitution provides in regard to these officers that "they shall receive no fees or perquisites whatever for the performance of any duties connected with their offices;" and in the same article the salary of the Superintendent of Public Instruc tion is fixed at one thousand dollars a year. Now, under that provision, the Superintendent receives one thou sand dollars annually as his sala ry. There has, however, been an appropriation made by our Legis lature from year to year, providing for the expenses of teachers' institutes; and I believe the last Legislature pro vided that one hundred dollars should be appropriated for the expenses of such institutes, not to exceed eighteen in any one year. This matter of teachers' institutes is under the control of the Superintendent. He appropri ates that money for paying his expen ses and hiring his assistants. He is obliged to employ others to assist him in carrying on these institutes. He attends to this duty so far as he can with the appropriations which are made, without drawing upon his salary. Ordinarily, as he himself states, he endeavors to reserve enough out of these appropriations to pay his ex penses. This allowance for expenses would increase the entire amount of his present salary to about $1800. As I stated the other day, the Superinten. dent, under the pressure of business and on account of his time being so largely occupied, has felt at liberty to appoint for the last year only seven institutes, instead of eighteen-not because the latter number is not necessary, but from the fact- that, with the means allowed, he cannot employ the necessary assistants for any greater number than seven. He finds it difficult to obtain competent men to take charge of these institutes in his absence; and he does not feel disposed fo appropriate any part of his salary for this purpose. But it is not to be denied-and I do not wish to lead any one astray in regard to this matterthat the Superintendent does, as he has stated- to me definitely and distinctly, expect to receive himself so much of these sums of one hundred dollars as will pay his expenses in attending these institutes; that is all. Mr. HENDERSON. That is what I supposed; and it was for that reason that I raised the question. Mr. CONGER. Mr. President, I would inquire whether, by the amendment adopted on motion of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mkr. BmLS,) this section has not been so modified as to provide that no perquisites of that kind connected with this or any other office can hereafter be received by the incumbent. If money is set apart for the expenses of teachers' institutes, it seems to me that, under the clause as it has been adopted, the Superintendent would not be permitted to appropriate for his own expenses any part of that money. I ask that the clause as amended by the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee be read. The PRESIDENT. The clause as amended reads thus: "They shall not be entitled to any fees or perquisites for the performance of the duties of their respective offices, but all perqui sites received shall be paid into the State treasury." Mr. CONGER. Now, as I under stand, the provision of the law is that the Superintendent of public instruction shall hold so many teachers' insti tutes. Mr. MUSSEY. May hold. Mr. CONGER. May hold so many teachers' institutes; and there is a cer tain sum appropriated to pay the ex penses of these institutes. I asked this morning, when we had this subject under consideration, whether the' traveling expenses incurred by this officer in going over the State were paid by the State; and I-then under stood some one to say that the only expenses allowed him were for holding these teachers' institutes and for the traveling in connection therewith; that his expenses in traveling from county to county on other business connected with the educational interests of the State were not paid by the State in any way. Now, if this officer does hi~ duty, he should visit each county of the State at least once in each year, or once in every two years; CONSTITUTIOXAT, CON-VENTION. 820 Tuesday, i ---- M''; - ~ l! and with this traveling there is necessarily connected considerable expense. If the amendment adopted on motion of the gentleman from Len awee would, by its letter or its spirit, prevent this officer from applying for the payment of his expenses, the ap propriations made for the expenses of teachers' institutes, then I am in favor of increasing the amount of his salary. With this view, I shall favor the propo sition; and I call for the yeas and nays on the pending question. Mr. MUSSEY. I meant to have made an explanation upon this point. - I do not understand that the holding of these teachers' institutes is imperatively made a part of the duties of the State Superitendent. It is not directly and necessarily a part of his duties as Superintendent of Public Instruction under the Constitu tion, but is an extra or extraordinary duty. For instance, if he were made by law a member of the board of con trol, or of the canal board, or any other board, the duties imposed in this way would be extra duties, for;which he would be entitled, as I understand, tc extra compensation; and these duties in connection with teachers' institutes are in the same sense extra duties. Mr. CONGER. The gentleman will allow me to ask whether the law does not provide that these institutes shall be held under the direction of the Su perintendent of Public Instruction, de fining the officer by name? Mr. MUSSEY. When I say that these are extra duties, I mean that they are not a part of this officer's constitu tional duties. The law does provide that the Superintendent may hold these institutes; that they may be held un der his direction; but his duties in connection with these institutes have always been considered as additional duties, for which he was entitled to cx tra compensation; and the appropria tion referred to has been made with this view. Mr. GIDDINGS. I understand the gentleman from Macomb (M. MUSSEY,) to say that the Superintendent receives this money as extra compensation This, I understand, is not the fact He uses the money to employ lec turers, etc., simply providing that his traveling expenses shall first be taker out. So that there is no extra comn pensation, strictly speaking; but there is an extra amount of work imposed for which he receives the amount of 'the expenses actually incurred, while the balance of the appropriation goes to other purposes. -Mr. MUSSEY. He uses this money, then, to carry on teachers' institutes either in his own person or by the assistance of others. In regard to the allowance for trav eling expenses generally, I under stand that the traveling expenses of this officer in coming from his resi dence to this place, or in going from here to his place of residence, are never paid by the State; but if, in the dis charge of his duties as Superintendent of educational matters, he is required to go from the Capital to any particu lar point-for instance, to attend a meeting of the Board of Regents of the University-the State pays his expenses. This will illustrate the cases in which expenses are allowed. Mr. CONGER. I had supposed that this officer could not receive his travel ing expenses in that way, because if I recollect aright, the courts have de cided against the constitutionality of F any such allowance. The heirs of Judge Whipple brought a suit, I be lieve, to recover for traveling expenses ) in connection with the performance of his duties as judge, in traveling to and fro on his circuit. The Supreme Court in that case decided that under the constitutional provision there could be ) no allowance for traveling expenses; s that such an allowance would be un s constitutional. I do not know that I remember accurately the particulars 1 of the case; but if such be the ruling of the courts on this question, then we 1 should vote upon the salary of this of ficer with the understanding that he is -not to be allowed traveling expenses; and if the Superintendent must pay t his own traveling expenses, then I think his salary should be raised above - the amount now named in the article. If, on the contrary, the State pays the traveling expenses of this officer, I - have no objection to permitting the salary to remain at the amount named in the article. 1 Mr. FARMER. I desire to ask a -,question for information on this sub-ject. Do not the duties of Superin tendent of Public Instruction, as pre scribed by law, necessarily compel him e to travel through the State? Mr. CONGER. I suppose that they ) do; at any rate, as I said before, he Bought to be required to'visit every ;. county in the State at least once in two years. s Mr. BILLS. I am disposed to favor this amendment to increase the salary -'of the Superintendent of Public In9 struction. We need not here discuss , the question as to whether this officer f has or has not received from the State e anything in addition to the salary s which has been fixed in the Constitution up to the present time. One thing is , certain, that when the new Constitution , shall become effective, it will control s the amount of his salary; and it will not be competent for him to receive anything beyond the amount which may be fixed in the Constitution. There are reasons which very strongly incline me to think that, if the salary of the Superintendent be fixed at two thousand dollars, then, as he is required in the discharge of his duties to travel almost continuously throughout the State, his traveling expenses should be paid. If he is obliged to draw upon his salary for the payment of his traveling expenses, his inclination would be to travel as little as possible; and thus there would be a temptation to neglect the duties properly devolving upon him. Now, it must be apparent to every member of this Convention, that if the Superintendent of Public Instruction is to be in the highest degree serviceable to the State, it is-important that he should be' almost continually traveling about in different parts of the State. We have in this State, fifty or sixty organized counties; so that this officer can, in the course of the year, spend only about one week in each county, even if he devotes all his time in traveling from county to county. I desire to call attention to the further fact, that in order to make this officer in the highest degree serviceable to the State, it has been deemed proper by the Legislature to provide-and I think it has been very properly provided — that the Superintendent should hold teachers' institutes in different parts of the State. From my knowledge of these institutes, I deem them very valuable. I think that the services rendered and the money expended in connection with these institutes, have been highly advantageous to the educational interests of the State. If we allow that officer a salary of two thousand dollars, it is only about forty dollars to each county, supposing there are fifty counties in the State. Now, sir, if the Superintendent is a live man, an earnest, active, thorough, go-ahead man, having a suitable appreciation of his business, and performing his duties efficiently, what county would begrudge him the small pittance of forty dollars a year for the important services which he renders? Many gentlemen in different parts of the State would be willing to pay that amount out of their own pockets, rather than lose the services of this officer.. Now, as it appears to be the determination of the Convention to fix salaries in the Constitution, without any allowance for fees or perquisites outside of' the salary, it seems to me very desirable, indeed necessary, if the Superintendent of Public Instruction is to be required to travel about the State in the discharge of his duties, that August 13, 1867* 1).tBAT-ES ANI) PROCETDIGS. 821 822 COSTITUTIOAL ()ONVETIO. Tuesday, he should be allowed a salary of more than two thousand dollars. One thousand dollars will not pay his travelling expenses, and other expenses incident to the discharge of his duties; but supposing that one thousand dollars would cover those expenses, a salary of two thousand dollars would leave him the wholly inadequate sum of one thousand dollars. If we desire to secure the best services of this officer, we should pay him. such a salary that he may feel at liberty to be almost continuously upon the wing-traveling through the different towns and counties, giving to educational matters that attention which they require. In order that he may do this, let us give him such a salary as we should desire to receive if we were in such a position, with such duties to perform. $2,500 is a small salary for this officer, if he is obliged to pay his own traveling expenses. Mir. THOMPSON. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. BILLS,) whether or not we are to understand that the Legislature appropriates money year by year to pay the traveling expenses of the Superintendent of Public Instruction? Mr. COOLIDGE. If the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. BILLS,) will allow me, I will read the provision which I find in our Compiled Laws upon this subject.- I do not know that it has been materially changed since its enactment. The provision on page 797 of the Compiled Laws, is as follows: "SECTION 1. The people of the State of Michigan enact, That whenever reasonable assurance shall be given to the Superintendent of Public Instruction that a number not less than fifty, or in counties containing a population of less than twelve thousand inhabitants, whenever twenty-five teachers of common schools shall desire to assemble for the purpose of forming a teacher's institute, and to remain in session for a period of not less than ten working days, said Superintendent is authorized to appoint a time and place for holding such institute, to make suitable arrangements therefor, and to give due notice thereof. " SECTION 2. For the purpose of detraying the expenses of rooms, fires, lights, attendance or other necessary charges, and for procuring teachers and lecturers for said institute, the Auditor General shall, upon the certificate of the Superintendent of Public Instruction that he has made arrangement for holding such institute, draw his warrant upon the State Treasurer for such sum as said Superintendent shall deem necessary for conducting such institute, which sum shall not exceed two hundred dollars for any one institute, and shall be paid out of the general fiund. "SECTION 3. Said Superintendent, in case ot inability personally to conduct any institute, or to make the necessary arrangements for holding the same, is authorized to appoint some suitable person or persons, Ior that purpose: Provided, That not more than eighteen hundred dollars shall be drawn from the treasury in any one year to meet the provisons of this act." Mr. DANIFJLS. I would like to inform the gentleman that in 1861 the Legislature altered that provision, substituting " five days" for "ten days," and "one hundred dollars" for "two hundred dollars." Mr. President, I desire to say that I shall vote for this proposed increase of salary for reasons different from any of those I which have heard stated. I concur in the remarks of the gentleman from Lenawee, (MIr. BILLS.) I believe that this State can pay the Superintendent of Public Instruction as much as our towns and our second class cities pay the principals of union schools. East Saginaw pays the principal of its union school $2500; Saginaw City pays the principal of its union school $2000. Now, cannot the State afford to pay to the Superintendent as much as one of these little towns pays a teacher? Can the State expect to get an officer of the first talent, who will be willing to dischiarge the duties of Superintendent, without any extra allowance-for the necessary expenses connected with the discharge of his duties, unless we are willing to pay at least as much as is received by the principal of a union school? We are all in favor of advancing the interests of education-of extending educational facilities; and it seems to me that we should be willing to give a liberal salary t6 the officer who stands at the head of our educational system. Mr. HOLT. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words in favor of this amendment. There is one classof duties performed by the Superintendent of public instruction to which no reference has yet been made; I mean the duty of holding teachers' conventions or local educational meetings. These meetings or conventions are largely on the increase, particularly since the recent law providing for county superintendents; and in all probability the number of those meetings will continue to increase. No appropriation of any kind is made for these meetings; no portion of the expenses connected with them is paid by the State, either in the way of' traveling expenses, or in any other way. I am informed that very little is drawn from the State treasury by the Superintendent for traveling expenses. I hope that this amendment increasing the salary of this officer to twenty-five-hundred dollars will be adopted. I should myself be in favor of fixing the salary at three thousand dollars, if I thought the proposition could be carried. Mr. LUCE. Oh, I guess it could be carried. Mr. GIDDINGS. I hope that the Convention is now satisfied that under this article as it has been amended, no one of these officers can ever draw from the treasury one penny for traveling expenses. This will undoubtedly be the effect of the amendment adopted a short time since on the motion of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS.) We must act on the understanding that the whole compensation of this officer is to be included in his salary. Mr. MUSSEY. I would like to ask the gentleman, whether he means to give that as his opinion as a lawyer? Mr. GIDDINGS. I do; and I would like to ask the gentleman his opinion as to whether, under the law read by the gentleman from Berrien, (Hr. COOLIDGE,) there is any provision which allows the State Superintendent to take one penny out of the treasury for his personal expenses. It provides simply thatthe money is to be expended by him. Mr. MUSSEY. I wish the Convention to act intelligently in regard to this matter, whether we decide that the Superintenden-t —shall -have $2,000 or $2,500 as his salary. In regard to this allowance for expenses, I apprehend that it has nothing to do with the salary whatever. Wherever the business of the State requires the Superintendent to go in the discharge of his duties, I think the State is bound to pay his traveling expenses; and such expenses I believe have been allowed in his case, as in the case of all other State officers. This is my impression; and I entertain it with a good deal of confidence. Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to ask one question. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) alluded to a case in which the Supreme Court had made a decision upon the subject of allowing traveling expenses to judges. I understand that the same rule applies to all classes of our public officers. The court laid down the principle that traveling expenses could not constitutionally be allowed. Now, I do not know how there can be any provision for the payment of traveling expenses, when this Constitution makes no such provision, and when the courts have expressly declared that any such allowance is unconstitutional. Mr. MUSSEY. The very nature of the duties of the judges is to travel from county to county. On the contrary, the State officers are local officers. No appropriation is needed to pay their traveling expenses The matter is submitted to the bdard of auditors, who audit the claim, and allow what is deemed just. By looking over the reports of the board of auditors from year to year, the gentleman will find in every one of them an allowance for traveling expenses of this officer incurred in the discharge of his duties. CONSTITUTIONAT,, CONVENTION. tn — L-ue,qday, -822 _uus 13 187aEAE ~ RCEIG.. Mr. GIDDINGS. I am not raising any question as to whether the board of auditors has done right or wrong. But it strikes me that, under the provisions of the law read by the gen tleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) there is not one dollar allowed for the expenses of the Superintendent. Besides that, the Constitution, which is paramount to any statutory provision, has provided, according to the decision of the courts, that no allowance for traveling expenses shall be made to any of these State officers; and the clause which has been incorporated in this section on motion of the gentlman from Lenawee, (Mr. BMLs,) makes that pro vision still more explicit in the Consti tution which we are framing. ifr. MUSSEY. In regard to this point, I differ entirely with my friend from Kalamazoo, (Mfr. GIDDINGS,) al though I have considerable respect for his opinion as a lawyer. I do not un derstand that the constitutional pro vision to which the gentleman refers cuts off a single shilling of allowance for expenses. When the Constitution provides, for instance, thiat the State Treasurer shall receive a salary of $2,500 a year, and no perquisites of office, it does not follow that he is to pay his own expenses when he is away from home on the business of the State. For instance, when he leaves Lansing to go to New York, to pay the interest on our State indebtedness, coming due there, is it to be supposed that he is to go there at his own expense? He never has done so; and it is not to be supposed that he will do so hereafter. Mr. TURNER. I desire to inquire of the gentleman whether that is not a part of the duties of the office of State Treasurer-whether he does not know, when he takes the office, that it is a part of his duties. Mr. MUSSEY. Certainly; I admit that he knows it to be a part of his duties to attend to the payment of that -interest. Mr. TURNER. I hope the gentleman is right in his construction, that the State officers are entitled to this allowance for expenses. Certainly, judges will be entitled, by the same rule, to a similar allowance. [Laughtcr.] - Mr. MUJSSEY. If the gentleman has any claim of that kind, I hope he will present it, and have it audited, although, I believe the board of auditors is not now in session. [Laughter.] Yet, sir, although the State Treasurer knows, on taking his office, that it is a part of his duty to render this service- that he will be obliged to take this money from Lansing to New Yorqx to pay the interest on the State indebtedness-I tink it is not on the bill of fare that he should make this journey at his own expense. This journey to New York is, in a certain sense, outside of his official duties, outside of the regular duties of his office; and it is, in my opinion, just as legitimate for the board of auditors to allow him a proper sum for his expenses, as it would be to pay an express company for carrying the money there. Mr. GIDDINGS. Is it outside of the duties of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to travel about in the discharge of his duties? Mr. MUSSEY. In many instances, where he is required to leave his of ficee and go to a given place and attend to the business of the State, he gets nothing for his services; but the State is liable for the expenses incurred by him in traveling there; and it is so, not only with regard to the State Superin tendent, but with regard to all the other State officers. I do not wish to disguise the fact in regard to this matter. I say that, under our present Constitution, although it contains a clause prohibiting these State officers from receiving any fees or perquisites aside from their salaries, it has been the universal practice for these officers to receive an allowance in certain cases for their expenses. If the Convention desires that a different rule shall prevail under the Constitution which we are framing, I have no fault to find; but I wish the Convention to act understandingly. If I am wrong, I wish to be set right; and if I am right, I do not wish other gentlemen to be led astray. I know that the practice has been to allow expenses in these cases; and any gentleman, by referring to the documents, can find the items in the reports of the board of auditors. For instance, here I find in the volume which I hold in my hand, sixty-one dollars and some cents allowed last year to the Superintendent on one occasion. I apprehend that, in making these allowances, the board of auditors has not set the Constitution at defiance. Such allowances have been made for the last seventeen years; and no one has found any fault with them. The documents exhibiting such allowances have been published from time to time, and we have all read them. They have been a matter of newspaper criticism, and discussion before publc auliences. I feel confident thai %L der this artidle as it now stands, whether it fixes the salary of this officer at $2,000, $2,500, or $3,000, his expenses will be paid in the future, as they have been in the past. I have no objection to any amount. of salary which the Convention may choose to fix; but let no one be deceived in regard to this matter. -Mr. HENDERSON. When I first arose this afternoon, at the opening of this discussion, it was not my purpose to oppose an increase of the salary of this officer; but I thought that the re marks of the gentleman from Kalama zoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) and the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mfr. CONGErit,) made here this morning, would have a ten dency to mislead. To deny this allow ance for expenses would be directly opposed to the practice of the State under our present Constitution; and I do not look upon this practice as being at all in violation of the Constitution. This allowance for expenses is not re garded as a perquisite; and in my opinion it is not a perquisite. The PRESIDENT. On this ques tion, the yeas and nays have been de manded. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question w,s taken on the amendment of Mfr. GMDI,NGS, and it was adopted; there being yeas 42, nays 37, as follows: Y.As-Messr!. Aldrich, Andrus, Bills Bradley, Case, Chapin, Chapman,' Conger, Crocker, Daniells, Ferris,Germain, Giddings, Holt, Howard, Huston, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, McKernln, Miles, Norris, Pringle, Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Sutherland, Turner, Tyler, Van Valkenburgb, Walker, P. D. Warner, White, Willard, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Wood house, Wright, and the President-42. NAYs-Messrs. Alexander, Barber, Black man, Brown, Coolidge, Corbin, Desnoyers, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Kenney, Lamb, Lawrence, Luce, McClelland, McCon nell, Miller, Morton, Murray, Mussey, Mus grave, Ninde, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Stockwell, Thompson, Utley, M. C. Watkins, .Winans, and Yeomans-37. DUTIES OF STATE OFFICERS. Mr. CASE. I move to amend by adding to the article the following as a new section: "The Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Commissioner of the State Land Office, and Auditor General, shall superintend in person the duties of their respective offices." Mr. HENDERSON. I move to amend the amendment by inserting before the word "superintend," the words "reside at Lansing and;" so as to provide that these officers "shall reside at Lansing, and superintend in person the duties of their respective offices." Mr. GIDDINGS. I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Calhoun (Mr. HENDERSON) will not prevail. It is not of much importance to the State where these officers reside. Requiring them to reside in this city does not insure that they will attend personally to their official duties. If you insert a provision that these offi~cers shall personally attend to the duties of their offices, that is fair; but you can gain nothing by undertaking to fix where they shall reside. Mr. CASE. HMr. President, in draw I August 13,1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 823 824 CONSTITUTIONAL, CONVENTION. Tuesday, ing this section, I took into consideration the point just suggested by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDrNGs,) and although I had at first thought of framing this amendment in such a way as to-include sbme such words as the gentleman from Calhoun now proposes to add, I finally concluded that, if we could secure the personal supervision of the duties of the various offices by the men elected to fill those offices, it would be all that we ought to require. I believe it is the almost unanimous voice of this Convention that the State should have the full benefit of the services of the men who are elected to these various positions; and if we cannot'secure a provision imposing some such requirement, I am perfectly satisfied that this article will fail when it comes to the final vote. I have talked with a great many members upon this subject; and it seems to be the almost universal opinion that we should, by some clause in the Constitution, require that these officers shall personally superintend the duties of their respective offices. We have been in the habit of electing men to these positions and paying them salaries, while the duties of the offices have been discharged by other individuals. Now, this is not the way in which we do business for ourselves. When we employ a man we expect to have the benefit of his services; and it seems to me that, if we elect a man to a public position and pay him a salary, we ought, by some means, to secure his attention to the business of the office. I am decidedly opposed to paying a single dollar to any man merely because he has a certain official designation; but I am willing to vote any reasonable amount of salary to these officers, if we can secure their personal attention to the duties of their various positions. Mr. CONGER. I desire to ask the gentleman from Montcalm (Mr. CAst) whether he would not be willing also to require that the judges of the Supreme Court and the circuit court judges shall superintend personally the duties of their offices. I do not like to omit such a provision with regard to the judges, if it is to be applied to these other officers. Mr. CASE. If we had ever experienced any difficulty from the inattention of our judges to their official duties, it might be proper to make some such provision. But it is always understood that a man elected to the position of judge will attend to his duties in person. We certainly should not expect a judge of the Supreme Court or a circuit judge to appoint a deputy, and intrust to him the hold ing of court. Such a thing has never been practiced. We do know, however, that a great deal of inconvenience arises from the fact that our State officers are not in attendance here at the the Capital to superintend the duties of their respective offices. I certainly hope that some provision of this kind will be incorporated in the Constitution. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, I have no disposition to debate the proposition which I have offered. It has been stated on this floor, or at any rate it has been urged outside, in favor of raising these salaries, that the Legislature would peradventure require these officers to reside here, and superintend in person the duties of their respective positions. Hence, inasmuch as the amendment of the gentleman from Montcalm was offered, I thought my proposition a suitable addition to it. I care very little whether it be votediup or voted down. Mr. HENDERSON'S amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The question recurred on the amendment of Mr. CAsE. Mr. CASE called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and the amendment was adopted; there being yeas 56, nays 20, as follows: YE&s-Messrs. Aldrlch, Andrus, Blackman, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Conger, Daniells, Desnoyers, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings, Henderson, Holt, Huston, Lamb, Lawrence, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Miller, Mussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Norris, Pringle, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard Winans, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, Wright, and Yeomans-56. NAYs-Messrs. Alexander, Barber, Bills, Brown, Coolidge, Corbin, Crocker, Divine, Duncan,Duncombe, Germain, Hazen,Holmes, Howard, Kenney, McKernan, Murray, T. G. Smith, Walker, and the President-20. SALARY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SALARY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I believe, in the haste with which we have acted on this article, [laughter,] we have entirely overlooked the salary of one of these officers; I mean the Attorney General. [Laughter.] I am at aloss to decide whether this salary ought to be put up or put down; but I have finally concluded to move to strike out "two thousand" and insert "fifteen hunhdred." Mr. LOVELL. I move to amend the amendment, so as to make the salary $2,500. I think it should go up rather than down. Mr. LOVELL'S amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The amendment of Fir. ALDRicn was -not agreed to. LEGISLATIVE REGULATION OF SALARIES. Mir. MUSGRAVE. I move the following as a substitute for the section: '' The Governor, the Secretary of State, the State Treasurer, the Commissioner of the State Land Office, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Auditor General, the Attorney General, and the Judges of the several courts, shall at stated times receive forltheir services a compensation to be established by law, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which they shall have been elected." Mr. HUSTON. On.this amendment, I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. STOUGHTON. I desire to call attention to the inconvenience which miight arise from this provision, if it should be adopted. It is conceded that the salaries of our circuit judges are now much too low.. Many of the present judges have several years yet to serve; and if this provision be adopted, I cannot see how their salaries could be increased; for it expressly declares that the salary of none of the officers named-shall be increased or diminished during — the period for which they were elected. It appears to me that this amendment, if adopted, would lead to very great inconvenience, and would prevent an increase of salary in some cases in which it is very much desired by the public. Mr. COOLIDGE. Mr. President, I do not feel the force of the remarks of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr STOUGHTON.) If the provision be adopted, it will become the duty of the Legislature to fix the salaries of the officers named; and the clause to which the gentleman refers would not take effect until the salaries had been fixed by the Legislature. Mr. MUS-EY. There has been much complaint about the extravagant appropriations which have been made by the Legislature; and frequent allusion has been made to the appropriations of last winter. Now, there are undoubtedly members of this Conventien who feel that some of the salaries named in this article are higher than they ought to be; still I prefer to have the salaries fixed and permanent, rather than that they should be subject to be revised and changed by the Legislature from session to session. I think that the salaries as we have already fixed them ought certainly to be satisfactory to the incumbents of the respective offices; and they will perhaps be satisfactory to the people. I apprehend that they have been fixed at as low a rate as they ever would be, if regulated by the Legislature. Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this matter has been voted up and voted down. In substance, we have passed upon this very same question once or twice before Consequently, in ordei August~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......... DEBATE5 ~RCEI(+ I to prevent, if possible, any further changes, I shall vote against this substitute. Mr. PRINGLE. I shall not vote for the substitute, for two or three reasons. One is that the duties of these officers may very frequently bd changed, rendering a change in the amount of compensation very proper. To fix the amount of salary in the Constitutio'n would prevent any change, whatever might be the change in the duties of a particular office. Again, the times may change, and a dollar may be worth more or less than it now is. A salary of $2,500, payable in greenbacks, is now a little less than $1,800 in gold. Changes in this respect may constantly go on in one direction or another. I do not quite agree with one gentleman, who declared that the- present condition of things is going to last a dozen years at least. I do not believe it can last so long. I anticipate that we shall reach a gold basis before that time, and indeed, pretty soon. But, however this may be, it is proper thiat the Legislature should have power to make provision from time to time for changes of this sort, with the single restriction which is embraced in this substitute, that a change in the salary shall not operate during the term for which the incumbent may have been elected. It is not desirable that men should be at liberty to procure an office with a salary of $1,000 or $2,000, and then get it raised to $3,000 or $5,000. Nor is it right that when a man accepts an office at $3,000 or $5,000, his salaty should be reduced to $1,000 or less. Provision is made in the sub stitute against anything of this kind. In all other respects, I think, the Leg islature should be left at liberty to act upon the current verdict of the people as to what compensation ought to be paid. In this way, it seems to me, ample justice will be done to those who may hold our public offices, while the people will not be wronged. I think, under this system, we shal get along more satisfactorily than under fixed salaries, such as are provided in this article. I shall vote very cheerfully for the substitute, or for a motion to strike out the section altogether. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I regret to find myself under the neces sity of voting for this substitute; but I believe the salaries fixed in this article are such as will render it impossible for the article to pass its third reading. Hence'to vote for the article in its pres ent shape would be, as I believe, sim ply to defeat it. I shall therefore vote for the substitute. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Mr. President, we have spent some two or three days VoL 2-No. 104. ..;.-~.~.:. ~: ~ —:t~ _. X.....7.' -'.~ -..............~.' ~,_ ~ i~.'' ~.. 7~'~ L - ~Y'~- "'.. here in tinkering on this article, and I think we have now got it into such a shape that it expresses the convictions of - a majority of -the:members of the Convention upon this subject. In or der to- cut off-ffurther substitutes or amendments, I call for a division of the question on this substitute,.so that the question may be taken separately on striking out the section as it stands. The PRESIDENT. — The:Chair will state that, in his opinion, if the motion to strike out should not prevail, the effect would not be such as the -gentle man from Genesee (Mr. T. G. SMITH) supposes. A simple motion to strike out, if negatived, would have the effect to preclude further amendment; but where, on a substitute, the question is divided so as to be first taken on striking out, the effect of a negative vote upon the first division is-not the same as a vote-upon the simple motion to strike out. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Then I with draw my call for a division. I thought that, if we should take a vote separ ately on striking out, and the Conven tion should refuse to strike out, it would preclude the offering of any further substitute or amendment. Mr. HUSTON. I move to amend the substitute, by striking out the words " and the judges of the several courts;" so that the provision will apply only to the State officers. Mr. HUSTON'S amendment was -not agreed to; there being ayes 16, noes 35. Mr. BLACKMAN. I move to amend the substitute, by striking out at the end thereof these words: "which shall neither be increased or diminished during the period for which they shall have been elected." Mir. BLAqKAN'S amendment was not agreed to-there being ayes 24, noes 41. Mr. COOLIDGE. I move to amend the substitute by striking out the word "several," and inserting il lieu thereof the words "Supreme and circuit;" so that the phrase will read: "And the judges of the Supreme and circuit courts." I do not wish this provision to apply to justices of: the peace. The PRESIDENT. The motion of the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. COOLIDGE) is not in order. The Con vention having already refused to strike out the phrase "and the judges of the several courts," those words are not subject to amendment. Mr. MILLER. I move to amend the substitute by adding thereto the words, G" and which salaries shall be as determined by this article." [Laugh ter.] Mr. MUSSEY. I understand that it is a substitute which is now pending. The PR~ESIDENT. It is. Mr, MgUSSEY. I apprehend that the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. MILLER,) does not so understand. Mr. MILLER. I modify my amendment and move to amend the substitute so that it will read as follows: " The Governor shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars; Secretary of State fifteen hundred dollars; State Treasurer two thousand dollars; Commissioner of the State Land Office, fifteen.hundred dollars; Superintendent of Public Instruction, two thousand dollars; Auditor General, twentyfive hundred dollars; Attorney General, two thousand dollars; and the Judges of the Supreme and Circuit Courts, three thousand dollars each." The amendment of Mr. MILLER, as modified, was not agreed to. Mr. McCLELLA_ND. I move to amend the substitute by striking out the words "have been," before the word " elected,> and inmiserting in lieu thereof the word "be,"- so that the phrase will read,,during theperiod for which they shall be elected." The PRESIDENT. The Convention having refused to strike out the clause of which these words are a part, the motion of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) is not, in the opinion of the Chair, in order. The question was taken on the sub stitute of Mr. MUSGnAVE, and it was not agreed to; there being yeas 19, nays 51, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Coolidge, Corbin, Duncan, Henderson, Lamb, Lawrence, Luce, Morton, Murray, Musgrave, Ninde, Pringle, Stockwell, Thompson, Walker, M. C. Watkins, Willard, and Winans-19. NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Cha pin, Chapman, Conger, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Divine, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, McClelland, McKernan, Miller, Mussey, Purcell, Richmond, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Sutherland, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh,. P. D. Warner, White, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Wood house, Wright, and Yeomians-51. The PRESIDENT. There being no futher amendments to the body of the article, it will be referred to the com mittee on arrangement and phraseology for correction and engrossment, and will be ordered to a third reading. FINANCE AND TAXATION. Mr. LEACII. Although it may: not be strictly in order, yet, if there be no objection, I move that the Convention take from the table the article entitled "Finance and Taxation." There being no objection, the motion was agreed to. Mr. GIDDINGS. I move that the article on finance and taxation be laid on the table, in order thatwe may take up the article entitled "Judicial Department." We can pass the latter this evening; but we can hardly get through to-day with the other. The motion of Mr. GIDDrNGS was not agreed to. The Convention resumed the con DEBATES ANli PROCIDEDINGS p 825 August 1.3, 1867. 826 COTUTIONAL COETIO. Tuesday, sideration of the article entitled "Finance and Taxation." STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. Mr. LEACH. I desire to offer an amendment to section fourteen-to add to that section the following words: "after the year 1871, said board of equalization shall be constituted in such manner as the Legislature may direct." The PRESIDENT. This motion can be entertained only by unanimous consent. Mr. CONGER and others objected. Mr. LEACH. Mr. President, I move to recommit the article to the committee on finance and taxation, with instructions to insert the amendment I have just indicated. I wish to say a few words in regard to this proposition. It is well known to gentlemen of the Convention that there was very strong opposition to the adoption of this section relative to the constitution of the State board of equalization. I know that gentlemen who voted against this provision still feel, as they did at the time of its adoption, that the system here proposed is an experiment the operation of which is altogether uncertain; and it is regarded by a very large numbei of gentlemen upon this floor as an unsafe and unwise experiment. Yet we who opposed this provision do not ask that the section shall be stricken out. We simply ask the adoption of an amendment which may place it within the power of the Legislature, after this new system has been tried, to change the law, if a change should be found necessary. We are willieg that the trial shall be made; we are willing that this board of equalization shall be so organized as to consist of one member from each senatorial district. We simply desire that the Legislature may have power to remedy any inconvenience or embarrassment which may be found to result from this system. If it should prove satisfactory, the Legislature will of course permit it to continue. If it should prove unsatisfactory, there should be some method of escaping from its inconveniences and embarrassments, without resorting to a constitutional amendment. I cannot see what objection any gentleman can possibly have to placing this power in the hands of the Legislature. Mr. HUSTON. I move to amend the proposed instructions by striking out "one" and inserting ", six," so as to extend the operation of this system, at any rate until the year 1876. Mr. CONGER. If the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH,) should be modified by the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HUSTON,) I do not know that I should have any objection to the proposition. But I seriously object to a provision which will authorize the Legislature to change the organization of this board before the board has ever had a session. SEVERAL MEMBERS. Oh; no. Mr. CONGER. Yes, before it has ever had a session. Mr. LEACH. The gentleman from St. Clair will permit me to say that my amendment proposes that the Legislature shall have power to change the organization of this board, " after the year 1871." The first session of the board is to be in that year, and this change cannot be made until afterwards. Mr. CONGER. Very well; suppose that is so; still I ask, why should a proposition of this kind, which has met with the approval of a majority of the members of the Convention, be followed up by directing the Legislature to change the organization of this board, before there can be any opportunity at all to observe its workings? The board will probably meet in the fall-say October or November; and the Legislature will meet in the following January. A gentleman suggests to me that the board will meet in June. At any rate, the board will be organized but a few months before the meeting of the Legislature; and it is proposed to make a change before the workings of the system, whether beneficial or otherwise, can have been fairly exhibited, so that the people can determine whether they like the system or not. If there is any appropriateness at all in a provision of this sort, it should not allow the system to be changed until there has been a fair opportunity to observe its workings, whether beneficial or otherwise. I believe that the system proposed in this section is the best that can be adopted for the State. It certainly can do no harm to let the system run on for a year or two. It caunot be any worse in its operation than our present system. Besides, if it should prove so extremely injurious to have one man from each senatorial district to represent his particular portion of the State upon the board of equalization, it will be a very easy matter for the Legislature to refer the question to the people by submitting to them an amendment to the Constitution. There is no necessity for this proposed change, and especially no necessity for it before the system has had an opportunity to exhibit its workings. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HUSTON,) will allow at least one full term of five years for the working of the system, and one meeting of the board after that. I am willing that the Legislature shall have power to try a new system after 1876. Mr. MUSSEY. It is true, as the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) says, that this section was adopted by the Convention; but if I recollect correctly, it was carried by a majority of but one vote. I remember that there was a strong opposition to the present board; but I believe not a single argument or objection urged against that board applied to the constitutional provision creating it. The Legislature, under that provision, was at liberty to create such a board as was actually establised, or such a board as is contemplated in this section. The provision of our present Constitution simply requires that the Legislature should provide for a board of equalization. I thought at the time of our former discussion, and I still think, that - the -argument against the organization of the present board had no proper application to the constitutional provision under which that board had been created, because the board derived none of its distinctive features from that provision; the Constitution did not define any of the duties of the board, or mark out any course which it was to follow. The Legislature, under that provision, was entirely at liberty to provide for just such a board as it might deem proper. Now, I think it unwise to create, by a provision of the Constitution, a board of the kind here contemplated, as a permanent thing, so that, whether it sh,ll work satisfactorily or not, the Legislature will have no control over it. As I before remarked, if this question were brought before me as a member of the Legislature, I should be willing to vote for an act creating, as an experiment, such a board as is contemplated by this section. I am even willing that we should try the experiment of a constitutional provision, if the Legislature be allowed the power to change within some reasonable time the organization of the board, if it should not work satisfactorily. If the objection of the gentleman from St. Clair to the amendment now proposed is that it will allow the Legislature to exercise this power of change at the session following the organization of this board, then I am willing that the power of the Legislature on this subject shall not begin until ten years after the adoption of the Constitution, by which time the operations of this board will be frlly understood, and there will be no doubt CONS'.ri'.VUTIONAL CON VENTION. 826 Tuead'tty) Auus 13 v87 DEAE At RCE~~ 2 on the question whether or not it is satisfactory to the people. If it should not prove satisfactory, then the people, through the Legislature, should have the power to change its organization. I know that so far as my constitu ents are concerned, this provision is an unpopular one. So far as any of them have spoken to me about it, they have without exception mentioned the adop tion of this section as a very strange pro ceeding on the part of the Convention; and particularly the supervisors-all the supervisors who have ever appeared before the State board from whom I have had any expression of opinion on the subject-think it a very strange provision to create in the Constitution a permanent board. I have no objec tion to permitting this board as pro posed here to be organized and to meet once. We can then have some knowledge of its workings. If it should work satisfactorily, the Legislature, I apprehend, would not disturb it; and if it should not prove efficient in its operations, then the Legislature should have power to reform its organization, infusing into it more vigor and efficiency. I do no not like the arbitrary provision contained in the section as it stands; and I am satisfied it will not be approved by the people. The question being taken on Mr. HUSTON's amendment, it was not agreed to; there being ayes 30, noes 31. The question then recurred on the motion of Mr. LEACH to re-commit with instructions. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, it is, I think, true, as has been remarked here, that the board proposed to be established in this section, will be wholly an experiment. The reasons assigned for this provision by those who have most strongly advocated it, have been that at the hands of the Legislature it has been impossible to procure any reorganization of the present board, and that they are afraid no such measure can hereafter be obtained through the action of the Legislature. They do not deny-for it cannot be denied-that under the present Constitution, the Legislature, for the last seventeen years, has had power to accomplish this same end. The reason the board has not been reorganized in the manner here contemplated, is that there has not appeared to be any considerable demand for such a measure. In some localities the necessity for such a measure may have been felt; and from those localities a demand for it may have been made; but there has not been any general call from the people for a measure of this kind. Now, if there is indeed a public call for such a provision, why cannot those who favor it expect to obtain the measure at the hands of the Legisla ture, representing the different locali ties, and of course the business inter ests of the State, as fully as we do here? If this measure should once be tried, it will, if it proves successful, of course be likely to be continued. Why should we adopt an arbitrary provision, the imperfect workings of which, if it should not be successful, cannot be remedied except by a constitutional amendment? This section was very objectionable to me when it was passed; and I still re gard it as highly objectionable. Mir. CONGER. Mr. President, so far as I am concerned, I have offered to support the amendment of the gen tleman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACaH,) if its mover will, consent to modify it so as to fix a time which will allow the workings of this sys tem to be fairly shown, before the Leg islature shall have power to change the organization of this board. If the Convention had agreed to extend the time to 1876, by which time there would have been at most only two ses sions of the board, I should have been perfectly willing to leave the board after that time to the action of the Leg islature. But to put this system at the mercy of the Legislature at its first session after the board shall have met, and before the results of its action can be known and appreciated throughout the State, is, it seems to me, an unfair proceeding. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Grand Traverse by striking out " one," and inserting "three;" so as to provide that this power on the part of the Legislature shall not inure until the year 1873. If gentlemen are disposed to consent to this modification, I shall have no objection to the amendment. Mr. LEACH. I am entirely willing that my amendment shall be modified in the manner proposed by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGERs.) I only desire that the Legislature may have power to change the constitution of this board before its second meeting, if a change should be found necessary. Mr. CONGER. I have no objection to that. All I desire is that a proper time be allowed for the workings of the board to be shown, before the Legislature shall act upon the subject. Mr. LEACH. I accept the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair as a modification of my proposition. Mr. LOBELL. I move to amend the proposed instructions of the gentleman from Grand Traverse by striking out the words "shall be constituted,"' and inserting in lieu thereof the words ".may be re-constituted." I desire that this question shall stand in such a position that there shall be no need of legislative action, if the pro vision contained in this section should be found to work satisfactorily. Mr. LEACH. Most certainly, if the Legislature does not change the or ganization of the board, it will remain as provided in the Constitution. Mr. LOVELL. I do not so under stand the terms of the gentleman's proposition. It would seem to require that the Legislature must act in any event. Mr. LEACH. I do not see how any {one can so understand it. The amendment of Mr. LOVELL was not agreed to. The motion of Mr. LEAcHr, as modi fled, was agreed to; and the article was recommitted to the committee on finance and taxation, with instructions to amend section fourteen by adding thereto the following words: "After the year 1873, said board of equalization shall be constituted in such manner as the Legislature may direct." Mr. LEACH, by unanimous consent, submitted, from the committee on finance and taxation, the following report: The committee on finance and taxation, to whom was recommitted the article entitled "Finance and Taxation," with specific instructions to amend the same, respectfully report that they have had the matter under consideration, and have directed me to report the article back to the Convention, amended in accordance with such instructions, and recommend that the article as thus amended do pass, and ask to be discharged trom the further consideration of the subject. D. C. LEACH, Chairman. The report was accepted and the committee discharged. The amendment reported from the committee on finance and taxation was concurred in. The article was then placed on the order of third reading, and ordered to be printed as amended. It is as follows: FINANCE AND TAXATION. SECTION 1. All specific State taxes shall be applied in paying the interest on the primary school, University and other educational funds, and the interest and principal of the State debt, in the order herein recited, until the extinguishment of the State debt, other than the amounts due to educational funds, when such specific taxes shall be added to and constitute a part of the primary school interest lund. SECTION 2. The Legislature shall provide for an annual tax, sufficient, with other resources, to pay the estimated expenses of the State government, the interest of the State debt, and such deficiency as may occur in the resources. SECTION 3. The Legislature shall provide by law a sinking fund to be applied solely to the payment and extinguishment of the principal of the State debt, other than the amounts due to educational funds, which sinking fund shall be continued until the extinguishment of such State debt; and every law hereafter enacted by the Legislature, creating a debt or authorizing a loan, shall provide a sinking iund for the payment of the same. SECTIoN 4. The unfunded debt shall not be Au ust 13, 1867. DE TES AND PROCEEDINGS. 827 Tuesday; 82 COSTITUTIOAL coV]TIO. funded or redeemed at a value exceeding that he established by law in the year one thousand c eight hundred and forty-eight. ju SECTION 5. The State may contract debts to fie meet deficits in revenue. Such debts shall an not in the.aggregate at any time exceed fifty of thousand dollars. The moneys so raised shall be applied to the purposes for which they were obtained, or to the payment of the debts t so contracted. w SECTION 6. The State may contract debts to repel invasiton, suppress insurrection, or defend the State in time of war. The money, arising from the contracting of such debts shall be applied to the purposes for wWich it t was.raised, or to pay such debts. SECTION 7. No money shall be paid out of the treasury, except in pursuance of appropri- a ations made by law. a SECTION 8. The credit of the State shall not be granted to, or in aid of, any person, asso ciation or corporation. SEcTION 9. No scrip, certificate, or other ev idence of State indebtedness shall be issued, t except for the redemption of stock previously Issued, or for such debts as are expressly au- r thorized in this Constitution. SECTION 10. The State shall not subscribe to, or be interested in, the stock of any corn nany, association or corporation. SECTION 11. The State shall not be a party to, or interested in, any work of internal im provement, except the ship canal at the Sault Ste. Marie., nor engage in carying on any such work, otherwise than in the expenditure of grants to the State, of land or other prop-. erty. SECTION 12. The Legislature shall provide a uniform rule of taxation, except on prop erty and corporations paying specific taxes. Taxes shall be levied on such property as shall be prescribed by law. SEcTION 13. All assessments hereafter au thorized shall be on property at its cash value. . SECTION 14. The Legislature shall provide for an equalization of assessments on all tax able property, except that paying specific taxes, to be made in the year eighteen hun dred and seventy-one, and every4ifth year thereafter, by a State Board of Equalization, to consist of one member fr6m each Senatorial district, to be elected as shall be prescribed by law. After the yeareighteen hundred and seventy-three, said Board ot Equalization shall be constituted in such manner as the Legislature may direct. SECTION 15. Every law which imposes, con tinues or revives a tax, shall distinctly state the tax, and the object to which it is to be ap plied; and it shall not be sufficient to refer to any other law to fix such tax or object. SECTION 16. A full account of the State in debtedness, and an accurate statement of receipts and expenditures of the public moneys, shall be attached to, and published with, the laws passed at every regular session of the Legislature. SECTION 17. The State shall not assume any indebtedness of a county, township or city. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Mr. WITHEY. I move to proceed to the consideration of the article entitled "Judicial Department." The motion was agreed to; and the Convention resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Judicial Department," which had been ordered to a third reading. EXAMINATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR. Mr. TURNER. I move the article be recommitted with instructions to insert- the following as a new section: SECTION -. In order to entitle any person to practice as an attorney and counselor at law, or solicitor and counselor in chancery, e shall be examined in the Supreme or circit courts, in the presence of the judge or jdges thereof, and said court shall be satisld that he possesses sufficient legal-learning ad ability to discharge the duties of such oce. Mr. President, my object in offering his section is to obviate a difficulty which at the present time has become erious. We have a statute-I do not now-how its passage was procuredwhich permits young men who attend he law school of the University for wo terms and receive a diploma, to be dmitted to the bar, without any examination by the courts. The consequence is that our State-is being flooded vith youngmenprofessingtobelawyers, who are entirely incompetent to pracice in that profession. I have known myself some very disastrous results happening from this system. Young men of this character are employed by persons who, as the young met have been admitted to the bar, sup pose, as they have the right to sup pose, that they are competent to dis charge the duties of an attorney, bu find too late, that such is not the fact The object of the provision I now offer is that these graduates of th University law school shall pass suc] an examination as other students wh do not attend that institution ar required to- pass. Students wh study in the law offices, and who d not attend the lectures of the law schoo are required to pass an examination i open court; and the court must be sat isfied of their abilities to discharge th duties of attorneys and counselors-at law. I desire that the same rule sha apply to these young men who receiv a diploma from- the law school of th University. Mr. WILLARD. Mr. President, th provision now proposed may be a ve wise one; but it seems-to me that it more properly a subject for legislatic than for incorporation in the organic la of the State. I suppose that those wh framed the law which is now upon ou statute-book considered this subjec and thought that it would be a prop provision. If it be found not to wo: well —and I am unable to speak of i workings-it will be within the pro ince of the Legislature to adopt suc other provisions as may be necessary I do not feel prepared, as a member * this Convention, to join in establishin any such rule as is here proposed. I believe that a matter of this character relating simply to the practice in th courts, is one as purely legislative al as little a subject for constitution provision as any question which h been presented here. I hope we sh not insert this provision in the orgai law. Mr. TURNER Mr. President, as the appropriateness of this provision as a matter of legislation, I have no doubt; and I had no expectation but that the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WIL LARD,) for whom I have the highest re spect, would, as a regent of the Uni versity, object to the adoption of this section. But I think the sooner these young men who attend the law school are required to pass an examination in the same manner as other students of law, the better it will be for them; and I am sure it will be better for the peo ple of the State. I hope that my motion will prevail. Mr. PRINGLE. For a different reason from that suggested by the gen tleman from Calhoun, (Mr. WILLARD,) I am opposed to this motion. My judgment is that there are quite as many difficulties experienced by reason of the practice prevailing in some of our circuit courts in reference to the - examination of students, as from the -provision of law of Which the gentleman from Shiawassee, (-Mir.- TURNE,) conm plains. I believe we ought to put in force again the old rule re quiring - law students to be exameined before the Supreme Court, h that it may be there ascertained whether they are fit for - admission or enot. The examinations in our circuit o courts are very often so hastily and o imperfectly made, and with such vary 1 ing disposition on the part of the n judges, that a good many young men t no better qualified to practice law than e those who graduate at the law school, t- are turned loose upon the community, to what I regard as its very great dete riment. But if this- evil shalll ever become of sufficient importance, the Legislature will doubtless correct it by ea proper statute. I think we may ry properly leave this question to the is Legislature. Mn r.WILLIAMIS. Mr. President, I LW hope that the instructions proposed by ho the gentleman from Shiawassee (Mr. ur TuNER) will not be adopted. There ct. may be some force in the proposition per that all applicants for admission to the rk bar should be examined in open court. its Still it is not generally the practice in ov- other States. The State of New York ch has its law school, which confers upon ry. the students the same privileges which of are enjoyed here by the graduates of ng the University law school. Years ago, I the law departments of the universier, ties and the law colleges of that State she were authorized, upon an examination, ed to give such a certificate as would adaal mit the student to practice in the ms courts of that State. I do not know ~all that there has since been any departure nic from that rule. This is purely a matter of legislation, and I think no provision to on this subject should be embodied in c0 NS ".UJLONAT.1 CONVENTION. 828 ....... 1,16. ~~~.pi POED G.' -, the Constitution. It occurs to me also that, if the judges of the Supreme Court, two of whom are professors in our University, are not competent- to determine by an examination there whether young men are qual-ified to practice law, they would not be competent to determine the same question coming before them when sitting-on the bench. I hope no such provision as is now proposed will be adopted. Hr. GIDDINGS. When- the gentleman from Allegan (Mr. WILIAMs) urges that several of the judges of -the Supreme Court are professors -in the law school of the University, and are therefore to be presumed competentto determine on examination the qualifications of students; I think- the suggestion fully answered by the statement- of the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. TzURNER,) and other gentlemen, that the University does in fact send out (and I presume many of us know the fact) men entirely unfitted to enter upon the practice of the legal profession without additional prepara tion and study. This may not be the fact universally, but it is the fact to some extent. I am sorry that such is the fact. I regret that we have a provis ion of law under which these young men are permitted to come into' the courts without a proper ex amination. One objection to this system is that it creates a dis tinction between these graduates of the law school, and young men who perhaps are not able to attend the University, but are obliged to study -.in law offices. A young man attending; two courses of lectures at the law: school receives a diploma which enti tles him to admission, although he may not have expended in study:one-half. or one-quarter of the time which is given by other young men-who study the profession in law offices. Mr. WILLIAMS. Do not the grad uates of the law school pass an exam ination? MHr. GIDDINGS. They do passcan examination before their teachers, who are anxious, of course, to have- the scholars sent out as properly qualified, when they cannot be kept any longer. The professors would, I presume, re gard it as unwise, after a student had passed through two courses of lectures, to say that he was not qualified: to be a lawyer. Hence, to -preserve their proper credit as teachers, they turn off these students into the world, whether qualified or not. I do not know whether the Constitution is the proper place for a provision of this hind;- but I believe there should certainly be a provision of law by which: all~ young men may be admitted to the barupon the-same ground precisely-all stand-ing on an equality and tested only by their real ability and learning. Mr,. COOLIDGE. Mr. President, I see no very serious objection to a provision of this -kind, on the ground that it is legislative in its character. I think that some such provision should be adopted. I have not one word to say about the character or ability of the students: who graduate at the law school of the University; but I apprehend it is perfectly clear that young men sheuld be- admitted in our courts upon one —-- of. two different grounds: either the doors should be thrown wide open and all men be admitted to prac tice in the courts without examination, to stand or fall upon their own merits; or we should —require an examination in our courts to entitle a person to be admitted to-the bar. If any body in the Stato -is to determine whether a young man — s calculated to practice in our -courts, then that body should be the. courts themselves,-either the Su preme Court or the circuit court. I do not like the present rule at all. It appears to me perfectly plain that, ff -there-is to be required for admission to the bar an examination into the appli cant's qualifications, then the courts should be authorized to conduct that examination. Persons admitted as at torneys become members of the court; and upon every-reasonable principle, the court. should have the power to determine who'possess the proper qualifications to become members of those —courts. Such a provision as this is necessary-for the protection of the court itself.' Upon this ground, I sup — port the motion of the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. TURNEr.) Mr. SAWYER.- Mr. President, I am- well aware that the section now proposed to be incorporated in this article is -perhaps necessary in one sense: of the word; but I believe it is not necessary in the sense which would be-implied by the remarks of gentle men' who have discussed this subject. Most of-the students who attend the law -lectures: of the University have, before going to that institution, spent considerable time in some law office. The Courses of lectures which they hear at the University are superior -generatly to the instruction which they would receive in any ordinary law -office. In attending those lectures, they hear important. questions of law discussed. They also have access to an excellent law library. They hare also moot courts, and all the paraphernalia for-gaining -instruction in the practice of thelaw, that can be had by any stu dent.:in any law office. Still, however, I apprehend'all this does not qualify them by any: means to be lawyer.; and I have drawn up a provision which I would like to have attached to this section, and which I now offer as- an amendment, providing that students at law shall procure a certificate of -some practicing attorney that said,tudents have studied under their instruction for seven years, before they shall- be admitted to examination. I think this - term of study is none too long. I think that, without study in a law office for at least seven years, no one is competent to practice in any court of record, and to undertake any common suit without instructions from another attorney. Bl-t, sir, to say that the University does not afford to law students the same facilities for acquiring a knowledge of the profession that will be found in any ordinary law office of the State is, I think, a misapprehension. Most of the students of that institution -are examined before their professors almost daily. Then at the close of their course they are usually taken before the court in Ann Arbor, where they undergo an examination in the presence of the court. I have -seen these students ex amined in court, when the Attorney General and other eminent lawyers were present, and when questions were put to them promiscuously; and on such an examination an honorable di ploma is given. Still I do-not think anything of this kind at all sufficient; and I believe it highly important that we should insist upon not less than seven years' study in a law office. Mr. TURNER. I should have no particular objection to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lena wee, (Mr. SAWYER,) if I had any expec tation that it would be adopted; but I have no expectation of that kind. I think, however, that the gentleman is mistaken-so far as' my knowledge ex tends he cemainly is-when he says that the students attending the law school are generally young men who have studied in the office of some attorney-before going there. Mr. SAWYER. I derive my in formation from the professors of the law school; and from my own personal knowledge, I have reason to believe that there are few of these students who, before entering the law school, have not studied in some law office. Mr. TURNER.. I have been told by young men that they were advised by the professors to come to that institu tion before they began to study-at all. MIr. SAWYER. They can do so. Mr. TURNER. One of my objec tions to the present system is the same as that advanced by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GinDINGs,) that some young men are not able, on account of -I Au-ur,t 13, 1867'. ,-.A,,. ZL.LX AND PROCE'],)INGS. 829e CONSTITUTIONAL CONVEiNrION. the expense, to attend the law schoo but they can go into a law office, wher they are perhaps able to pay their wa as they go along. These young men are required to pass a rigid examina tion before admission; while thos whose parents or friends can furnish them with means to spend two term at the University, can be admitted without any examination. The remarks made by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) WOUl( seem to imply that the examination made by our circuit courts, is often veryloose. I hope that he confines his remarks to the courts of his own circuit. We do not have any such ex aminations in our circuit courts. We insist that young men shall be qualified before they are admitted to the bar. Mr. PRINGLE. I do not doubt that in the Shiawassee circuit the ex aminations are properly conducted but to my own knowledge, there are some other circuits-I will not be so personal as to mention the fourth judi cial circuit-there are some circuits where young men not qualified to prac tice are admitted. Mr. SAWYER. So far as regards the examination before the courts, I do not know how it may be in this State; but in other States, the examination comes as near being a farce as anything can. The candidates for admission are usually taken into open court to be sworn; but so far as regards the ex amination, that is usually conducted in a private room, where it is customary to provide a good supper and some thing else to cheer; and the matter goes off very smoothly. Mr. GIDDINGS. That rule does not prevail in any portion of the State of Michigan. Mr. SAWYER. I have already stated that I do not know how the fact may be in the State of Michigan. But, as I have suggested, the best evidence of professional qualification would be a certificate from some good attorney that the applicant for admission has studied under him for seven years. A short examination of an hour or so, upon some particular questions, is a very imperfect test offa young man's qualifications to be admitted to the bar. Such an examination must be very superficial. It occupies but an hour= or an hour and a half; and yet it is pretended that by such examinations a man's qualifications can be determined. Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I believe that there is good reason for the action of this Convention in the direction proposed by the gentleman from Shiawassee. Members of the bar who have had any experience in this State, know that, at every term of 1 court, applications for admission a e made by students who, although the y have been turned out from Ann Arb n with diplomas, are entirely incompeten - to discharge the duties devolving up e an attorney. However studious the h may have been at the Universit s they lack that practical knowledge d the profession which is necessary t make a man a successful lawyer an n enable him to protect properly th d rights of clients. A student may n to Ann Arbor, may practice in th n moot-court there, may enjoy all th s advantages furnished at the law schoo a and still may be deficient in practica - knowledge. I know that before the gentlema from Shiawassee, (Mr. TURNER,) sittin as circuit judge, I came with one c t two other students from a law scho - in the State of New York, whic ; stands as high as the University la school of the State of Michigan; and I was obliged to pass a long examin - ation, although I had spent nearl 3 three years in an attorney's office - The very same day a studen who had never studied in an office a single day, came into cour with his sheepskin, issued by th ; law school at Ann Arbor, and withou L examination was admitted. I say tha such a system is wrong. Many gentle men here know, as I know, that young men who never turned their attention to the study of law until they went to the University at Ann Arbor to attend lectures for two courses,are admitted or the presentation of diplomas, althougb knowing as little about the practice ol the law, (whatever may be their theo retical knowledge,) as if they had never attended lectures at all. Now, sir, the reason which will in duce me to vote for this proposition is this: parties have a right to suppose that when an individual is a member of the bar, he understands his profes sion, and can properly attend to business which may be put in his hands that they may safely entrust their business to him. They have a right to expect that any suit of which he may take charge will be attended to by a finished workman, or at least one sufficiently conversant with the duties of his profession to secure the rights of his client. But very often these expectations prove fallacious. It frequently happens that parties residing out of the State, gain from a law register, or in some other way, information of the names of the attorneys; and they have a right to suppose that persons who are licensed to practice in our courts are competent to attend to legal business. Now, without saying a single word against the utility of the law lectures of the Univers , ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - re ity, or against the course of study purey sued there, I ask gentleman, in the or light of the experience we have had, nt whether it is right to allow a man to n appear in court as an attorney, when ey he could not successfully pass an ex y, amination in open court. The rights of of parties are often jeoparded by such to persons appearing as practitioners. d As has been remarked here, a he young man may go to Ann Arbor so sufficiently supplied with money to he spend there two terms, and may come eback with his diploma. He presents 1, himself in court with that document; al the diploma is handed to the court; the law under which graduates of the law m school are entitled to admission is read, gor; as the court may perhaps be famil r iar with its provisions, it is deemed uno necessary to read it; and this young h man is admitted as a matter of course, w without any examination. On the other dhand, a young man who has not been - able to attend the — law school, but y who has studied in an office for two e. or three years, must go through ta lengthy examination. The lat ter course is the more honorable; and I apprehend that the gentleman efrom Lenawee, (Mr. SAWYER,) when he t saw students of the University going t before the Supreme Court for examin-ation, would have found, if he had g made inquiry, that those students chose to ignore entirely their right to o present themselves in court and de mand admission on their diplomas; they preferred to go into open court and pass an. examination. I have fknown such instances in this State, where students, having a diploma, would not take advantage of that diploma and thus obtain admission, but would come into court and pass s an examination. If there were no law on this r subject, I should be willing to leave the - matter to the Legislature. But there - is already a law authorizing a student ; who has been so fortunate as to receive a diploma at the law school, to be ad mitted on motion; and inasmuch as such a law now exists, I think we ought to remedy the evil by requiring every . person who desires to appear in court as a practitioner of law, to pass an ex amination, either before a circuit court or the Supreme Court. I regard this , as a very serious question, and one E demanding our attention. Mr. BILLS. It appears a somewhat novel idea that in our Constitution we should propose to provide the method by which law students shall be examined, or to determine what body of persons shall take upon themselves the business of examination. Now, sir, I do not propose to discuss at all the question whether the students gradu 830 Augus 15 187 DEAE AN P-GEINS 3 ating at the law department of the University, are qualified to practice in the courts; or whether they should be required to present a certificate of a long period of study; or whether any certificate of study should be required. I only propose to examine the proprie ty of putting in the Constitution a pro vision on this subject. If this is a proper subject-matter to be embraced in our Constitution, then I submit the inquiry whether it is not equally important that we should pro vide in our Constitution how, and be fore what body of examiners, medical students shall be examined prior to ad mission to the practice of medicine. lWhy not provide the tribunal that shall examine teachers for our union schools and our primary schools? Why-not provide the method of exam iniation for professors of our universi ties and our normal schools? The in quiry simply is, whether this is a proper subject-matter for this Convention to act upon. Is it a mat ter we should properly embrace in the Constitution? Do we desire to fix it as a fundamental principle of our or ganic law that, in some particular method and in no other method, the examination of law students shall be conducted? If such a provision is proper for insertion in our Constitu tion, then it seems to me quite as im portant to the welfare of the commu nity that we should make a provision as,to the examination of medical stu dents nay, more important; for the welfare of the community depends more largely upon the professional skill of our medical practitioners, than upon the professional skill of our law yers. Mr. TURNER. I would suggest to the gentleman that probably it will be time enough to consider that question when we get through with this article on the judicial department. We should not, of course, desire to insert in this article anything relating to the medical department. Mr. BILLS. In reply to the gentleman I will say that I do not desire any provision of this character to be adopted, either now or hereafter. I am simply showing that neither of these subjects-should properly appear in our Constitution. If the gentleman from Shiawassee, (Mr. TURNER,) and myself, were members of the Legislature, and it were proposed to provide a proper tribunal for the examination of law students, I should, I think, vote to dispose of that matter by requiring that law students, wherever they may have been educated, should not be admitted to practice except upon thorough examination before the judges of our courts-perhaps the judges of the Su preme Court. I would not refuse to have them examined before the circuit judges, but I would best be satisfied to have an examination take place before the Supreme Court. But I would not agree with the gentleman from Lena wee (Mr. SAWYER) that a student should be required to produce a certificate that he had studied law for a certain period. Many members of this Convention will recollect that, formerly it was necessary that a person, before being admitted to an examination by the court, should produce a certificate that he had stud ied law for three years in a law office under the instruction of some practic ing attorney. Subsequently that re quirement was abandoned; and the student was simply required to pass a satisfactory examination, no specified term of study being insisted upon. The latter was deemed a better pro vision, because the competency of the applicant depended upon the knowl edge which he might possess; and the certificate that he had studied a term of years, was really of no con sequence. If he has a certificate, and still is foumd incompetent, he should not be admitted; and if without a cer tificate, he should be found compe tent, there is no reason why he should be rejected. This, I apprehend, is the rule which should prevail in all exami nations. But, sir) I do not propose to discuss the character of the examining tribunal, nor the method of examina tion, but simply to submit that we do not desire to insert a provision of this kind in this Constitution. Mr. LOVELL. MVr. President, I can hardly agree with the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. BILLS.) WVe gentlemen of the bar are going to be great losers, unless we can get some such provision as this inserted in the Constitution. The fact is, our young men are going up to the University and coming back with diplomas which certify that they know something, and then they get admitted to the bar. I do not exactly agree with my colleague, (Mr. HowARD,) in his statement that a man admitted to the bar is supposed to know his business. Mr. HOWARD. I will concede that there are exceptions to the rule. [Laughter.] Mr. LOVELL. Yes, sir, my colleague and I are exceptions. [Laughter.] I say, sir, I do not apprehend that that rule has any force. Indeed, every member of this Convention knows that there is no such rule existing. Gentlemen of the bar, when they certify that a man has studied law and is of good character, etc., understand that there is a supper behind; and they do not understand that they are holding this man forth to the world as qualified to perform the duties of an attorney. They calculate that the public will find out whether he knows anything or not, and if satisfied of his ability, will employ him; that he will not be employed hap-hazard. But, as I was remarking, these young men go off to the University, have a good time, and gettheir knowl — edge there, instead of serving in our offices as they should do; and then they come into court, present their di plomas and are admitted. They do not give us a supper at all. [Laugh ter.] It is not right. The young men who study in our offices, do copy ing for us, get a little knowledge of practice, and learn certain questions which we, when appointed on ex amining committees, will ask them in presence of the court, which they will faithfully answer, and which the court will, in honor and innocency, believe to be well and truly answered, hnd will therefore admit them to the bar. I say that the trouble behind this system of giving graduates of the law school diplomas which entitle them to admission, is that we are cheated out of the supper; and I insist that we should insert in the Constitution some such provision as that now proposed. I admit that it may be legislative; and I am fully conscious that there are no other legislative sections in this judicial article; but we want one legislative section there, and it ought to be for the benefit of the profession. Let us not pass an article which has not some legislation in it. To be sure, the Legislature might pass such a provision as this; but it may be that the Legislature will not think so much of the profession as this Convention does. We have the matter now in our own hands. Let us secure these suppers now, gentlemen of the bar I [Laughter.] The amendment of Mr. SAWYER waS not agreed to. The motion of Mr. TURNER to re-comnmit with instructions, was not agreed to. Mr. LAWRENCE. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and the Convention, (at fifteen minutes before six o'clock p. m.,) adjourned SIXTY-SEVENTH DAY.. WiEDNESDAY, August 14, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer by Rev. Mr. POTTER. The roll was called, and a quorum of members answered to their names. DEBATES A WD PROCElR,T)INGS. .831 August 13, 1867. 832 CONSTITUTIONALT CONlqVNION. Wednesday, PETITIONS. Mr. -LAMB presented the petition of Ellery - A. Brownell, Lorenzo Howard, George W. Pitcher and 52 others, citizens of the county of Lapeer, asking the retention of section 47, article IV, of the old Constitution, in the new one; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. Mr. TYLER presented the petition of M. P. Thurston and 39 others, men and women of Colon, St. Joseph county, for prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. ELECTIONS-AIENDMENT AND REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology,. submitted the following report: The committee on arrangement and phrase,logy, to whom was referred Article -, entitled I Elections," and Article -, entitled "Amendment and Revision of the Constitution," respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report the same back to the Convention, with the accompanying amendments, recommending that the amendments be concurrrd in, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. T. NINDE, Chairnan. The report was accepted, and the committee discharged. The articles were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed in the journaL ELECTIONS. The article entitled "Elections," as amended by the committee on arrangement and phraseology, is as follows, the amendments inserted by the committee being included within brackets: SECTIoN 1. In all elections, every person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in this State three months, and in the township or ward in which he oflers to vote ten days next preceding an election, belonging to either of the following classes, shall be an elector and entitled to vote: First. Every male citizen of the United States. Second.. Every male inhabitant Qf this State who shall have residedl in the United States two years and six months, and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, pursuant to the laws thereof, six months preceding an election. Third. Every male inhabitant residing in this State on the twenty-fourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirtyfive. SECTION 2. In time of war, insurrection or rebellion, the right to vote, [at such place and in such manner as shall be prescribed by law,] shall be enjoyed by all persons otherwise entitled thereto, who may be in the actual military or naval service of the United States, or of this State: Provided, Their votes shall be made to apply to the township or ward of which they are residents. SECTION 3. All elections shall be by ballot, except ot such township officers as may be authorized by law to be otherwise chosen. SECTrION 4. Every elector, in all cases except treason, felony, misdemeanor, or breach of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during his attendance at election, and in going to and returning from the same. SECTION 5. No elector shall be obliged to [attend court as a suitor or witness] on the day of election, [or to do military duty thereon except in time of] war or public danger. SECTION 6. NO elector shall be -deemed to have gained or lost [his] residence by reason ot [absence therefrom] in the service of the United States or of this State, nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this State or of the United States, or of the high seas, nor while a student at any seminary of learning, nor while at any alms-house or other asylum at public expense, nor while confined in any public prison. SECTION 7. Laws may be passed to preserve the purity of elections, and guard against the abuses of the elective franchise. SECTION 8. No soldier, seaman, nor marine in the army or navy of the United States shall be deemed a resident of this State, in consequence of being stationed in any military or naval place within the same.' SECTION 9. No idiot or insane person shall be entitled to the privileges of an elector. SECTION 10. Any inhabitant of this State who may be hereafier engaged in a duel, shall be disqualified from holding any office and from voting at any election. SECTION 11. The Legislature may authorize townships to hold their elections within- the corporate limits of adjoining cities. AMENDMIENT AND REVISION OF THE CONSTI TUTION. The article entitled "Amendment and Revision of the Constitution," as reported from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, is as follows: SECTION 1. Any amendmentor amendments to this Constitution, may be proposed-in the Senate or House of Representatives. If the same be agreed to by two-thirds of the members elect to each House, such amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals respectively, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and the same shall be. submitted to the electors at such time as the Legislature shall prescribe. And if a majority of the electors, qualified to vote for members of the Legislature, voting on the amendment or amendments proposed, shall ratify and approve such amendment or amendments, the same shall become a part of the Constitution. SECTION 2. At any time alter the first day of January, A. D. 1880, the Legislature may provide for a Convention to revise or amend the Constitution. The question of the revision or amendment shall be submitted to the electors qualified to vote for members of the Legislature, in such manner as may be- provided by law. And in-case a majority of-the electors voting at such election, on such question, shall decide in favor of a Convention for such purpose, the Legislature, at the next session thereafter, shall provide by law for' the election of delegates to such- Convention. All amendments shall take effect at the commencement of the year- after their adoption, except as otherwise provided by law, or by this Constitution. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. The PRESIDENT. The unfi'shed business is the third reading of articles; and on this order the Convention has now before it, the article entitled "Judicial Department." The article was read the third time. fr. NORRIS. I observe, that in the last clause of section fifteen of this article the word " given" occurs twice. I think that it should be omitted where it last occurs. The clause now reads as follows:-. "All-votesgiven to such judges for any officeother than judicial, given either by the Legislature or the people, shall be void." Mr.: MILES. I think that in the same clause the word "to" before the words " such judges," should be changed to,for," so that the clause will read, "all votes given for such judges," etc. Mr. WITHEFY. I do not see the propriety of the criticism made by the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NoRRis.) I think that the clause now reads: with definiteness and precision, and expresses the idea without any ambiguity. I do not think that the word "-given" should be stricken out in either case. Mr. NORRIS. I withdraw the sug gestion, though I do not agree with the view just expressed by the gentleman from Kent; (MIr. WITHEY.) I think that the clause as it now stands is not only bad grammar, but bad English, and tautology at that. Mr. CROCKER. I desire to ask the chairman of - the committee on ar rangement and phraseology, (Mr. NrODE,) whether it was not intended that the clause should read, " all votes given for such judges," instead of "all votes given to such judges." Mr. NINDE. By no means. What was intended was that votes should not be given to a judge for any other than a judicial office. I think that the clause is right as it stands. Mr. LOVELL. I think that sections nineteen and twenty ought to be trans posed, so that the section which is now numbered "twenty" would be numbered "nineteen." I do not know, however, but this change in the nu merical arrangement may be made by the committee on - arrangement and phraseology after the article is passed. It seems to be proper that section nineteen should be the closing section of the article, to correspond with the concluding sections of other articles. Mr. NINDE. That matter was taken into consideration. But it was thought, as section twenty is a provis ion entirely independent of all the other,provisions of the article, and not connected with them, it should properly stand at the close of the article. Hr. WITHEY. I wish to ask the chairman of the committee on arrange ment and phraseology, (Mr. NINDE,) why the language of section fifteen has been changed by the committee. The last clause in that section now reads: "All votes given to such judges for any office other than judicial, given either by the Legislature or the peo ple, shall be void." The original sec:tion was in this language: "All votes for such judges for any office other than 1; I. - 11 I. —. - 1. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. judicial, given either by the Legislature or the people, shall be void." I would like to know the reason for the change which has been made in this language. Mr. NINDE. I think that the committee on arrangement and phraseology made no change in that clause. Mr. WITHEY. Then there is a misprint in the section, as it now stands. I think that the section as originally passed by the Convention was in the proper form. I ask that by unanimous consent the language may be changed to conform to the action of the Convention; so that the clause will read, "M All votes for such judges for any office other than judicial, given either by the Legislature or the' people, shall be void." The PRESIDENT. The language of the clause will be changed as the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) suggests, if there be no objection. There was no objection. The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the adoption of the article. On this question, in accordance with the rule adopted by the Convention, the yeas and nays will be taken. The question was taken; and there were yeas 79, nays 0, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andruas, Barber, Bills, Birney, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Lamb, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, McKerDan, Miles, Miller, Morton, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Norris, Pringle, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, VanValkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winans, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Wright, Yeomans, and the President-79. NAYS-0. Mr. McCLELLAND, (not having voted when his name was called,) said at the conclusion of the roll call: r. President, I did not vote when my name was called; but protesting as I do against the system of electing judges, I now vote "aye." The PRESIDENT. A majority of all the members elect to the Convention having voted in favor thereof, the article entitled "Judicial Department" is adopted. The article as adopted is as follows: SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in. Supreme Court, in circuit courts, probate courts, justices of the peace, and in such other courts and tribunals as shall be authorized by law. SECTION 2. The Supreme court is continued subject to the provisions of this article. The Legislature shall provide for the election of one additional judge, so that the court shall consist of five members, and tor a classification of judges, so that one shall go out of oflice every two years. The judge having the shortest time to serve, shall be Chief Justice ~oh 2-No. 05. during the remainder of his term of office. The term of office of a judge of the Supreme Court shall be ten years. SECTION 3. The Supreme Court shall have a general superintending control over all other courts and tribunals, and also such ap. pellate jurisdiction as shall be provided by law; and to that end may issue writs of error, certiorari, mandamus, procedendo, prohibition and all other appropriate writs and process. It shall also have original jurisdiction in cases of mandamus, habeas corpus, proceedings in the nature of quo warranto, and proceedings by scire-facias to vacate letters patent. It shall have such jurisdiction of questions reserved, as shall be provided by law. Its jurisdiction in all cases not embraced in this article, shall be appellate only. SECTION 4. There shall be held at least four terms of the Supreme Court annually, one in each of the four judicial districts of the Lower Peninsula of the State, at such times and places as shall be provided bylaw. SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall, by general rules, establish, modify and amend its practice, and may also make all rules that may be necessary for the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It may appoint its own clerks and a reporter of its decisions. A concurrence of three judges of said court shall be necessary to a final decision. SECTION 6. The State shall be divided into five judicial districts, four of which shall consist of contiguous territory in the Lower Peninsula, the fifth shall embrace the Upper Peninsula and such portion of the Lower, contiguous thereto, as shall be designated. Each judicial district shall be subdivided into circuits of at least two in number. In each circuit there shall be elected by the electors thereof, one circuit judge, who shall be a resiident of the judicial district in which such circuit is lormed, who shall hold his office for the term of eight years. It shall be the duty of all the circuit judges to meet at least once in two years, to establish unitform rules of practice in the circuit courts, and to modify the same. SECTION 7. The Legislature may provide for the holding of law terms in the several judicial districts by the judges thereof, with whom may be associated a judge of the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction and powers of such law terms shall be such as may be granted by law. The Legislature may provide for holding a term or terms of the circuit court by a judge of the Supreme Court. SECTION 8. A circuit court shall be held at least twice in each year, in every county organized for judicial purposes, and at least three times in each year in counties containing ten thousand inhabitants. The judges of circuit courts in each judicial district, shall hold the terms thereof either within the circuit for which they are elected, or alternately within the judicial district, as they may elect, or as may be provided by law for either or all of such judicial districts. SECTION 9. The circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction in all matters civil and criminal, not excepted in this Constitution, and not prohibited by law, and such appellate jurisdiction from all inferior courts and tribunals as shall be provided by law, and supervisory control of the same. They shall also have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, injunction, quo warranto, certiorari, and other writs necessary to carry into effect their orders, judgments and decrees, and give them general control over inlerior courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions. SECTION 10. The Supreme, circuit and probate courts, shall be courts of record and shall each have a common seal. SECTION 11. The respective circuit courts held in each county, shall appoint one or more persons residing therein, who shall be vested with such judicial and ministerial powers as shall be prescribed by law. SECTION 12. Whenever a judge shall remove beyond the limits of the district in which he was elected, his office shall become vacant; and whenever a justice of the peace removes from the township in which he was elected, or be placed without the limits thereof by a change of boundaries, he shall be deemed to have vacated his offce. SECTION 13. Whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of judge of the Supreme, circuit or probate courts, it shall be filled by appointment of the Governor, which appointment shall continue until a successor to fill such vacancy is elected and qualified. When elected, such successor shall hold his office for the residue of the unexpired term. SECTIoN 14. The clerk of each county organized for judicial purposes, shall be clerk of the circuit court of such county. The judges of the circuit courts within their respective jurisdictions, may fill vacancies in the offices of county clerk and prosecuting attorney. SECTION 15. Each of the circuit and Supreme Court judges shall receive a salary payable quarterly. They shall be ineligible to any other than a judicial office, during their continuance therein. All votes for such judges, for any office other than judicial, given either by the Legislature or the people, shall be void. SECTION 16. In each organized county there shall be a court of probate. It shall have such probate jurisdiction, powers and duties as shall be prescribed by law. Other jurisdiction, civil and criminal, may also be conferred on any one or more courts of probate. Judges of probate shall hold their offices for a term of fobur years, and shall be elected by the electors of their respective counties or districts, as shall be provided by law. SECTION 17. There shall be not exceeding four justices of the peace in each organized township, who shall be elected by the electors of the township, and shall hold their office fobr four years, and until their successors are elected and qualified. A justice elected to fill a vacancy, shall hold his office Ifor the residue of the unexpired term. The Legislature may increase the number of justices in cities. SECTION 18. Justices of the peace shall have such civil and criminal jurisdiction, and perform such duties as shall be prescribed by law. SECTION 19. The style of all process shall be, "In the name of the people of the State of Michigan." SECTION 20. Two-thirds of the members elect to each House of the Legislature, may require the opinion of the Supreme Court upon important questions of constitutional law. The article was referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology for arrangement in numerical order. ORDER OF BUSINESS. M-r. LEACH. The article entitled "Finance and Taxation" is, I believe, on the order of third reading. It has not yet been printed and laid on our tables; but inasmuch as it is printed in the journal, I think we might as well go on with its consideration. The PRESIDENT. The Sectretary informs the Chair that the article on Finance and Taxation will not be printed, ready for third reading, before tomorrow. Mr. WALKER. Are there not articles which have been printed and are ready for third reading? The PRESIDENT. The Chair is not aware of any article which is printed ready for third reading. 833 August 14, 1867. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN MUNICIPAL. Mr. PRINGLE. As there is no other business before the Convention, I move that we take from the table the article entitled " Corporations other than Municipal." The motion was agreed to. GRANTING AND REPEALING OF CHARTERS. The PRESIDENT. The pendingi question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. FARMER,) to reconsider the vote by which the Convention adopted the amendment inserting after the word "enlarged," in section one, the words "amended or repealed," so as to make the second clause of the section read, "No special 'charter shall be granted, nor shall the franchises given thereby be enlarged, amended or repealed, without the assent of two-thirds of the members elect to each House." Mr. FARMER. Mr. President, I will briefly state my object in making this motion to reconsider. This article, after full consideration in committee of the whole and in Convention, was referred to the standing committee, with instructions to report an article embracing certain provisions. Under those instructions, the committee reported the article in the form in which it stood before this amendment was made. When the amendment was proposed, it was on a Saturday afternoon, the day being very warm, and members considerably fatigued from their labors. Besides that, the attendance was very small. Under those circumstances, the amendment passed, as it were, by default. There was no discussion of the question. I voted with the affirmative, in order to be enabled to move a reconsideration, that the question might come up when there should be a fuller attendance, so that the matter might be properly discussed. The principle contended for by those who voted for those instructions, was that special charters should be granted only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, and that they should not be enlarged except by a similar vote; but that they might be amended, otherwise than enlarged, by a majority vote. Those who voted for those instructions regarded the question as one between the rights of corporations and the rights of the people; and they considered that the rights of the people would be best protected by providing that a two-thirds vote should be requisite to grant or enlarge the franchises of special corporations, while at the same time those franchises might be diminished, or the act granting them totally repealed, by a majority vote; thus giving the people the ad vantage of the majority rule as against the corporation. With this brief statement, I am willing to submit the matter to the vote of the Convention. Mr. PRINGLE. For the information of some gentlemen with whom I have heretofore acted, who were not present at the time when this article was last before the Convention, I ought perhaps to state what took place at the time. An amendment was offered to insert the words 1"amended or repeal ed" after the word " enlarged," in the second clause of section one as report ed underinstructionsby the committee so as to make that clause read, "Nc special charter shall be granted, nor shall the franchises given thereby, be enlarged, amended or repealed, with out the assent of two-thirds of the members elect to each House." Tha amendment prevailed. Acting for the committee, or perhaps I should say act ing for myself, I only said in response to that motion, that personally I had no objections to it; that the Con vention, however, had instructed the committee to make the repot in the form in which it wa presented; that it was a question c but very small importance, because n banking, insurance, mining or tele graph company, no company trans acting business as common carriers and no religious society, could, accord ing to the first clause of the section be incorporated except under genera laws; and because I saw that the atplication of the rule as to speci charters was so limited, and the inter ests that could possibly be involve were so small, as compared with th larger interests of the State, that could not imagine these specia charters could ever be in an case beyond the control of th Legislature. Hence I felt in a measu indifferent with regard to the matte and I deferred somewhat to the opinic of those gentlemen who thought tha in such a case a charter ought not to l repealed or amended, except by a two thirds vote. I did not regard the ma ter as being important either way; and I so stated. At the same time, I mad my explanation definite-as definite a the statement which has been made l the gentleman-from Berrien (Mr. Fit MER)-that the instructions given i the committee contemplated the repot ing of the section as it stood, withou the amendment. I feel very indiffe ent so far as this matter is concerne I had proposed, and indeed promise, to offer a proposition applying to th amendment of such charters the sarm rule applied in regard to the grantir of them; and I should have offere such an amendment in accordance wit ~my promise, if it had not been offere ; by others, or if the instructions given to the committee had not superseded it. As the matter now stands, I think that most of the gentlemen of the Convention will agree with me that as [ all the business of the State of general concern-all that affects our larger in terests-will be provided for by-gen eral acts of incorporation, it is a mat ter of no great importance whether a ) majority or a two-thirds vote be re quired for the amendment or repeal of special charters. I too, like the gen - tleman from Berrien, (Mr. FARMER,) ; am willing to rest this question on a simple statement of the case. I only r desire that the Convention may vote e understandingly., - Mr. HENDERSON. Mr, President, e the question involved in this amend t ment is one that has elicited a good e deal of discussion on the part of the - different members of the Convenetion. Although I was considerablyin d terested in that discussion, I did not - participate in it. The- gentleman who e took perhaps, the most interest in it, t and engaged more fully in the debate s than any other member, is not now in f his seat. My recollection is, that when o this matter was originally under con - sideration, a very strong vote was given - in opposition to such an amendment s, as that which was re-offered the other - day by the gentleman from Washtenaw , (Mr. NORRIS;) and the Convention in al structed the committee to report the section as it will be found printed in a the journal of the proceedings of Au r- gust 1st. As has been already stated, d when this article came under conside eration the other day, the gentleman I from Washtenaw moved this amendal ment, the reconsideration of which is y now proposed; and without any cone siderable reflection on the part of the e Convention, the motion was adopted. r; It seems to me, that to do justice to in ourselves, it is necessary that we should at retain the section as reported in purbe suance of the instructions which were o- adopted after a long debate, and I t- think a fuller understanding of the ld subject than we can have at this time. de I hope that the motion to reconsider as will be adopted, and that we shall reby fuse to sustain the amendment. - ~Ir. FARMER. I call for the yeas to and nays on the motion to reconsider. Mt- 5~r. PRINGLE. I hope there will ut be no question about the adoption of r- the motion to reconsider. Let the yeas d. and nays be called on the amendment. d, The yeas and nays were not ordered. he The motion to reconsider was agreed ae to; there being ayes 40, noes 11. ~g The question then recurred on the Bd amendment of Mr. NORRIS, to insert th after the word:" enlarged," the words, ed "amended or repealed," so as to make p .. Wednesday 831:, August 14, 1867. DEBATES AD PROCEEDINGS. 835 the second clause of section one read as follows: "No special charter-shall be granted, nor shall the franchises given thereby be enlarged. amended or repealed without the assent of two-thirds of the members elect to each House." Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, I do not propose to go again over the general discussion which has already been had on this subject. I am weary, and I have no doubt the Convention is weary, of the debate upon this question. I simply rise to call the attention of the Convention to the possible operation of this section without the amendment. There may be granted by a two-thirds vote a special charter for a perfectly innocent object; it must be so, or it could not obtain a twothirds vote of the Legislature. But after that charter. has been granted, it may be amended by a bare majority vote, so as to become exceedingly harmful to the community. Mr. CONGER. Mr. President, I do not propose to go over the discussion on this subject, to which on a former occasion we devoted a day or two. At that time, this proposition of the gentleman from Washtenaw (Mr. NoRRis) had hardly a corporal's guard to support it in the Convention. Yet it appears that since that time, when a very small number of members were in attendance-fifty-one, I believe-this section has been changed by adopting the amendment of the gentleman from Washtenaw. The gentleman states that without this amendment, a special charter can be granted only by a two-thirds vote, while it may be amended by a majority vote. The gentleman does not state the proposition fairly. The clause as reported in pursuance of the instructions of the Convention, provides that "no special charter shall be granted, nor shall the franchises given thereby, be enlarged, without the assent of twothirds of the members elect to each House." Now, sir, any amendment enlarging the franchises of a cor poration-giving it additional pow ers- would require a two-thirds vote. But the gentleman would have the provision put in such a form that there could be no diminution of the powers — of any corporation operating under a special charter, without a twothirds vote. Mr. NORRIS. Will ~the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir. Mr. NORRIS. SI desire to ask the gentleman whether an amendment could not be made by a majority vote, so as to change the powers of a cor poration, turning them in a different direction, and diverting them to an other object, without enlarging the frnchise?a Mr. CONGER. The powers -of -a corporation might be changed so as to operate in a different direction; but this clause provides that, "the franchises"-that is, the special monopoly privileges of corporations-" shall not be enlarged except by a two-thirds vote'." The gentleman from Washtenaw would have this provision so changed that if too great privileges too extensive powers have been given by the Legislature to any corporation, those powers shall not be restricted or withdrawn except by a two-thirds vote; so that, however dangerous the provisions that may have crept into any charter, it shall be within the power of practically less than one-third the members of the Legislature to continue those powers. It appears to be desirable that in certain cases special charters should be granted. We have seen the necessity for such charters. But I would have those charters most strictly guarded by this rule: first, that special privileges shall not be given, unless twothirds of the members elect to each House shall deemn the granting of those privileges proper for the interests of the State; second, that those special privileges or franchises shall not be enlarged without a similar vote; and I would further provide that these special privileges should be subject to be diminished or withdrawn by a majority vote. The proposition of the gentleman from Washtenaw is that after a monopoly has once acquired an existence, a two-thirds vote of each House of the Legislature shall be necessary to restrict or diminish or withdraw the powers of that monopoly. Do gentlemen of this Convention desire to have such a rule applied to special corporations? It is well enough to require a two-thirds vote for the granting of privileges to special corporations, or the enlargement of privileges already granted; but it is not well, in my opinion, that less than one-third of the members of the Legislature should be able to prevent the people from ever resuming the powers which they may have granted, or modifying or restricting them. This subject was discussed fully on a former occasion; and I do not think it would be right for me to occupy further the time of the Convention by enlarging upon the question. I simply desired to call attention to the effect of the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. NoRRIs, and it was not agreed to; there being yeas 29, nays 46, as follows: YEAs-.Messr8. Blackman, tCorbin,1 rocker, Desnoyers, Duncan, Duncombe, Giddings, Harris, Holt, Huston, Leach, Longyear, Luce, McClelland, McKernan, Miller, Morton, Ninde, Norris, Pringle, Richmond, Shearer, T. G. Smith, Sutherland, Turner, Tyler, Walker, Winans and Withey-29. NAYs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Vaniells, Divine, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Hazen, - Henderson, Holmes, Howard, Kenney, Lamb, Lovell, McConnell, Miles, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Purcell, Sawyer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Stoughton, Thompson, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, M. C.- Watkins, White, Willard, Winsor, Williams, Wright, and Yeomans-46. INCORPORATION OF MANUFACTURING COM PANIES. .Mr. McCLELLAND. I move to amend section one by striking out after the word "telegraphing," in the first clause of section one, the word ".manufacturing," so as to make the clause read thus: "Organizations for the purpose of banking, insurance, mining, telegraphing, transacting business as common carriers, and religious societies shall be incorporated only under general laws." I hope that the Convention will give me the yeas and nays on this amendment. r. WITHEY. Mr. President, I am very anxious that this amendment should be adopted. I think that the development of the manufacturing interests of our State demands that we should not forbid the granting of special charters for manufacturing purposes. I think that the manufacturing interests of the State should be thus far favored. The adoption of this amendment would, it seems to me, be an invitation to capital from abroad to come into our State, and would also induce the aggregation of capital within the commonwealth for the development of our internal resources by means of manufacturing corporations. It seems to me that in such a policy lies our true interest. I hope that the amendment will be adopted. Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, for the reasons indicated by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) and expressed more fully by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) I should be in favor of this amendment, but for a single difficulty which operates upon my mind. I know something of the nature of these manufacturing corporations. I represent to an humble extent the interests involved in one of the largest woolen manufacturing companies in the State; and I know that not one dollar of capital can be procured in this State for investment in any branch of manufactures under any special charter which is liable to be amended or repealed by a majority vote of the Legislature.; Under such a condition, no corporation would ever . accept a special charter at the hand .DEBATES AND PROCEHDINGS. 835. August;14.-.1867. I 836 COTITUTIONAL COVETIO. weaneaay, of the Legislature, although it might be passed by a two-thirds vote. I hope therefore that the amendment will not be adopted. Mr. CONGER. I doubt the pro priety of embracing manufacturing corporations in the terms of this first clause, although they were included in it when the article was recommitted. I agree with those gentlemen who think that the Legislature should be at liberty to provide for manufactur ing corporations either by general laws or by special charters. I therefore favor the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne. I think that in this class of cases special provisions may be necessary for particular branches of manufactures; and these industrial corporations are not, so far as I know, dangerous to the community in any sense. - Mr. GIDDINGS. Mr. President, I am in favor of this amendment to strike out the word "manufacturing;" but I do not consider that this amendment will be of much avail, after the action which we have just taken on the amendment of the gentleman from Washtenaw, (ir. NORRIs.) Although that amendment has been rejected by a majority of the Convention, yet I think its rejection was a mistake. If we desire to induce the investment of capital in manufacturing operations, I believe it is bad policy for us, after requiring that special charters for this purpose or any other must be passed by a two-thirds vote, to allow those charters to be amended or repealed by a majority vote. Under such a provision, I believe we shall hardly induce capitalists to invest their means in manufacturing operations in our State. Mr. FARMER. Mr. President, I hope that this amendment will be adopted. I am satisfied that there may arise occasions when there will be applications for the incorporation of manufacturing companies for particular purposes-for one purpose in one portion of the State and for another purpose in another part of the State; so that general laws cannot be made applicable. I believe there will be a necessity in many cases for special charters for manufacturing purposes, and that charters of this kind will not be dangerous to the interests of the people. It is desirable that we should grant special facilities for the formation of manufacturing companies, that we may induce the investment of capital in this direction. The PRESIDENT. On this question the yeas and nays have been called for by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MOCLELLAND.) The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and the amendment of Mr. MCCLELLAND was adopted, there being yeas 66, nays 8, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Blackman, Brown, Case,Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Daniells, Desnoyers, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Holt, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Lamb, Leach, Longyear, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Morton, Mussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Pringle, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh. Walker, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winans, Withey, Williams, Wright, and Yeomans-66. NAYs-Messrs. Bills, Bradley, Crocker, Germain, Lovel!, Miller, Murray, and Winsor -8. RAILROAD CHARTERS. Mr. NORRIS. I move to amend, by inserting after the word "organizations," in section one, the words, "for railroads and," so that the first clause will read:'" Organizations for railroads, and for the purpose of banking, insurance, mining, telegraphing, transacting business as common carriers, and religious societies, shall be incorporated only under general laws." I make this motion for the purpose of calling attention to a possible, and I think probable construction which may arise under this provision; that is that a railroad is not an organization as a common carrier, until it goes into operation; in other words, that, under this section, special charters might be granted by the Legislature for the construction of railroads, the companies to operate under those special charters up to the time when the rolling stock should begin to move. I think that the better opinion among the larger portion of the legal profession, is thatrailroad companies are not common carriers until they begin to act as such. I know that all the railroad companies consider the question in this light. I simply throw out this suggestion for the consideration of the Convention. Mr. CONGER. If there is any question about this matter, this amendment had better be adopted; but it seems to rme-that an organization for transacting business as a common carrier is such before it commences business, while it is organizing to carry on that business. It is possible that the phraseology of the section may not be sufficient to cover the case, but it seems to me at present that it is. Mr. PRINGLE. Mr. President, the vi,ew which the committee took of this question was, that this language would include raihlroad companies, for the reason that, as ordinarily formed, they are organized for the express purpose of transacting business as common carriers. If they are organized for this purpose-and I can hardly imagine that under our general laws or special charters, they can be said to be organ ized for any other purpose-these words would, I suppose, receive in the courts such a liberal construction as would apply them to corporations of this kind. It is barely possible (I can conceive of such a case) that a railroad company might be formed, not to do business itself, but to be worked like a canal or a plank road, receiving tolls from those using it, and not working any r'olling stock itself-not transacting itself any business as a common carrier. It is possible that there might me such an exceptional case; but the fact being that in the wide world, up to the present time, there is no such railroad, either existing or contemplated, it was not regarded as necessary, in the judg-' ment of the committee, and certainly not in my judgment, that we should in this clause provide for such a class of railroads. I believe that I saw s- ome —-time ago in a newspaper I think it was the New York Tribune-a suggestion that there should be upon main lines a railroad track constructed, that commissioners should be appointed, and that then everybody should be allowed to put rolling stock upon the road and do business as common carriers in competition with each other, as is done on a canal. If anybody is proposing to do in this State any such beneficial thing as that, I am not aware of it. If any such thing is likely to be proposed hereafter, I am not aware of it. And if anybody will propose and execute such a project as that, I should be in favor of granting special privileges to such an enterprise. Mr. NORRIS. I have accomplised all that I desired, which was simply to call the attention of the committee to the {'cat under the meal." The gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) has disclosed it; and I am willing to leave the question to be acted upon by the Convention as it may please. If I had sought to make the amendment more definite, I should have made it read, "organizations for the construction of railroads;" but I simply desired to call attention to the possibility that this question may arise. Companies may be organized for the sole purpose of constructing railroads; and after those railroads are constructed, they can be leased to some other company to perform the duties of common carriers. I simply desire a vote on this proposition. If the language of the provision as it stands is deemed wise-as the gentleman from Jackson seems to regard it —I shall not insist upon the amendment. hr. PiRINGL_ I desire to say Wednesclay, 836 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.' DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. i only a word in view of the misconstruction which the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIS,) is disposed to put upon my remarks. I stated it as an almost impossible case certainly an improbable case-that any railroad organization should ever be formed for the purpose of transacting business other than as a common carrier. I know of no person, I have heard of no person, and I do not expect to hear of any person who contemplates any such project. Mr. NORRIS. I will ask the gentleman whether it is not getting to be quite common for one company to build a road and lease it to another company to run? Mr. PRINGLE. I do not know that it is common. I do not know of any such case, with a single exception, which is not fully such-the case of the Pennsylvania Central Railroad Company. In connection with that road, a company has been organized, doing a larger share of business than express companies do upon other roads; it has its own freight cars which are drawn by the engines of the railroad company. I believe there is in this way a corporation within a corporation-a company within a com pany-the interior organization being supposed to monopolize most of the profits. Mr. MUSSEY. I desire to ask the gentleman, (Mr. PRINGLE,) whether we have not a case of the kind in our own State? Mr. NORRIS. Two of them. Mr. PRINGLE. I am not aware of any such case in our State. Mr. MUSSEY. Is not the Grand Trunk such a case? That road, I be lieve, was built by one company, with the understanding that it was to be leased to another when built, and it has been leased, being now run by the Grand Trunk Company of Canada, al though built by an organization under the laws of this State. Mr. PRINGLE. There may be something in the point which the gen tleman makes. I suppose that the Michigan company is a different organ ization from that in Canada. But that case had not occurred to me; and I do not think the courts would be inclined to construe this section in such a way as to authorize any such thing. Cer tainly that was not the intention of the committee. If there is any doubt on that point, I certainly have no objec tion to the amendment proposed though I do not think there is any ne cessity for it. It certainly was not re garded by the committee as necessary to guard against any such thing. Mr. BLACKMAN. I move to amend the amendment, so as to make the clause read, "organizations for the r construction of railroads," etc. s Mr. NORRIS. I accept that as a s modification of my amendment. Mr. CONGER. Mr. President, I do not understand that one company can r take another company's charter and b run the road, without some provision s or authority of law. I believe it required a special law to authorize the t Grand Trunk company of Canada to s lease the road of the Chicago, Detroit c and Canada Grand Trunk Junction company. " The amendment of Mr. NORRIS as ( modified, was adopted. t INCORPORATION OF RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. Mr. RAFTER.'I move to amend section one by striking out the words ,and religious societies," and by in serting the word "and" after the word t' elegraphing," so that the first clause t will read: "Organizations for the construction of railroads, and for the purpose of banking, insurance, mining, telegraphing, and transacting business r as common carriers, shall be incorpo rated only under general laws." Mr. President, I offer this amend-t ment for the reason that when this subject was under consideration in committee of the whole, there was, ast I understood, a pretty general expres sion of sentiment in favor of allowing religious societies to be incorporated under special charters. Reasons were urged by several gentlemen in favor of this policy; and I did not hear any reasons advanced against it. Whenl the Convention recommitted the arti cle with instructions, the words "re ligious societies," were incorporated in this first clause, contrary to the argu ments which had been advanced on the floor of the Convention in favor of per mitting religious societies to be incor porated under special charters. Hence I have offered this amendment. The amendment was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question is on concurring in the amendments re ported by the standing committee to s section one. Those amendments, as amended, make the section now read ' as follows: SECTION 1. Organizations for the construc) tion of railroads and for the purpose of bank1 ing,insurance, mining, telegraphing, transact ing business as common carriers, and religious Y societies, shall be incorporated only under - general laws. No special charter shall be a granted, nor shall the franchises given thereby be enlarged without the assent of two thirds of the members elect to each House. Every act passed pursuant to this section I may be amended, altered or repealed by a majority vote of the members elect to each House. The amendments were concurred in. CHARTERS GRANTED PRIOR TO 1851. The PRESIDENT. The question is now on concurring in the amendments eported by the standing committee to ection six, which has been amended o as to read as follows: SECTION 6. The Legislature shall pass no aw altering or amending any act of incorpoation granted prior to January 1, 1851, without the assent of two-thirds of the memers elected to each House. No such act hall be renewed or extended. Mr. PRINGLE. I will simply say hat this section as it now stands, is substantially the same provision as is contained in the present Constitution, with the exception that the words "granted prior to January 1st, 1851," (the day when the present Constitution went into effect) are substituted for the words "heretofore granted." The amendments reported to section ix were concurred in. INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. The PRESIDENT. The next question is on concurring in the amendment of the standing committee, addng a new section, as follows: SECTION 8. The stockholders in any corporation shall be individually liable for all labor done in behalf of such corporation during the time of their being such stockholders, equaly and ratable to the extent of their respective shares in the stock of such corporation. LANDS HELD BY RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. Mr. WITHEY. I move to amend this article by adding thereto the following as a new section: "No ecclesiastical corporation or (Micer shall hereafter acquire or hold, any lands or interest in lands, or landed securities in this State, except corporations aggregate, incorporated under the laws of this State or of the Territory of Michigan. And the trustees and officers of all such corporations shall be citizens of the United States and of this State." Mr. STOUGHTON. I would like to ask the gentleman from Kent,, (Mr. WITHEY,) what object is sought to be accomplished by placing this provision in the Constitution, and whether such a provision would not seriously interfere with the church organizations of certain denominations in this State, which are at least entitled to respect and protection. Mr. WITHEY. My object, in offering this section, is to prevent the offi cers of ecclesiastical corporations from holding large amounts of real estate within this commonwealth in perpetu ity, as they may do without some such restriction. There is no State or country, so far as I know, where these religious corporations are per mitted to hold real estate in the man ner permitted by our law of last winter. The object of the amendment is simply that the corporation itself shall hold its own property; that one corporation shall not hold the property of another corporation; and that the representa tive of one corporation shall not hold the property of other corporations; so that-to come right out, square and straight-the bishop, or the s s s d e f e e 837 August 14,.-1867. 838 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVETIO Wedneday, clergyman,'or the priest, or an other ecclesiastical officer, shall no under the policy of this State, authorized to own property beloni ing to a church or religious so ciety; that the property shall not owned by any person in trust for suc society, but that each and every churc shall hold its own property; and the no person shall own or hold the pro erty for it. This is the rule which, believe, prevails everywhere outside ( our State. I do not know of a civilize country on the face of the globe, saw perhaps Spain-and I am not sure the even -Spain is an exception-whet property can be held as it may be hel under the law of our State as enacte at the last session of the Legislature. Every church and religious societ should hold its own property. Thi has until re'cently been the law and policy of this State; and the question is whether we ought not now upon principle to require that every church and society shall hold its own property so that no person, other than th church or society, can hold or own th property rightfully belonging to tha society or church. Now, we have, I believe, a genera statute in reference to trusts, declaring that where property is held by person with no trust expressed there is no resulting trust what ever; that the person holding the property with an implied or silen trust, owns it in fee and absolutely This is the substance of one provisio of our law in reference to trusts; an it had always been the law. But las winter an exception was made in refer ence to ecclesiastical societies. This is the reason I have offered the amend ment. I care nothing about this proposition beyond the mere principle which it in volves. It seems to me that we do not wish in this country to have estates perpetuated from officer to officer, the church, as a society, having no control over its own property. Take, for instance, the case of a church in Lansing-no matter whether it belongs to one denomination or another. Suppose that in the Presbyterian church these is an officer standing at the head of the church, and that the society should place the title to the property of the church in that one person, the property passing on the death of this person to his successor. It is obvious that in this case the church does not own the property, but that this person to whom it is entrusted actually owns it. I do not care in what church such a thing might exist, whether in the Methodist church, or the Episcopal church, or the Catholic church; I say Ly that it is against the policy of ourlaws t to allow property to be held in:tha e way. What I desire by this section iE - simply to compel each church and so - ciety to own and hold in fee its own e property, so that no person, be he h bishop, priest or layman, shall hold o h own property for that church or so ct iety. This is the principleembodied - in the section which I have offered. I Mr. SHEARER. The proposition of f the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHd EY,) is presented, I understand, from e the fact that, by the law passed at the t last session of the Legislature, all the e property of the Catholic churches in d this State was allowed to be given into d the hands of the bishops. Such legis lation is calculated to build up in our y commonwealth an organization somes thing like that of the Church of Engd land. By-and-by, when vast amounts n of property are thus accumulated in n the hands of one man or one church, h we shall have perhaps the wool-sacks , in our legislative bodies, State and e national, bishops sitting there and give ing direction to the government. In t Great Britain the bishops on their wool sacks sit in the House of Lords and control the government. We do not g wish to establish a principle of that a kind in this country. It is contrary to , the doctrines of Washington, Jefferson, - Madison, Monroe and all the political e fathers of our country. I hope that Lt the section proposed by the gentleman . from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) will be adopted. Mr. RAFTEIRS Mr. President, I t trust that this Convention is not going - to manifest so illiberal a spirit as to s undertake to interfere with any relig - ious denomination of this State. The object of this section is evidently to divert the property of one particular religious society of this State from the t channel in which it now is. It seems s to me altogether gratuitous upon the - part of this Convention to volunteer its interferance in behalf of a particular denomination, to regulate the manner in which its church property shall be -held. It appears to me proper that - the church property of each denomi nation should be held and controlled in accordance with the wishes of that denomination.'If it be the wish of L that particular society to have the ~ bishop or any other officer-of the so ciety hold the church property of that society, is there anything wrong in it? I think we are going too far when we volunteer our services, and undertake to direct the mode in which any de nomination shall hold its property. If the Episcopalian or the Presbyte rian, or the Methodist societies of this State see fit to have their property held by trustees, it is competent for them-to s do so. If the Catholics, or the Lutherans, t or any other denomination, see fit to s have their property held by a single in-dividual, whether the bishop or some other officer, I cannot see any propriety in the government undertaking to inr terfere. If certain denominations of this State desire to hold their property lin accordance with the act of last winter, I claim that it is injustice toward f them to attempt to deny them the right of doing so. The Methodist .societies, the Presbyterian societies, and other denominations, hold and control their property in accordance with their wishes and their principles of church government. The laws are so framed as to allow them to carry out their wishes. I see no improprie ty in permitting other denominations ,to hold their property in accordance with their wishes and their rules of church government. Besides, sir, the provision present ed here is not going-to accomplish the object sought. If the —canons-or laws of any religious denomination in this State are such that the property of that denomination is not allowed to be held by lay persons, the result of such a provision as this will be that the property, instead of being held in , trust by some ecclesiastical officer, will be held by that officer individually in his own right. Hence this provision -will fail to accomplish its object. I apprehend that no provision can be so framed as to prevent any man in this State from holding such property as may legally be conveyed to him. Gentlemen, in urging a proposition of this kind, are seeking to accomplish an object which, in the nature of things, cannot be accomplished. The adoption of such a proposition will simply be an evidence of the injustice and illiberality of this Convention. It will not compel any religious denomination to manage or hold its property in contravention of its wishes and its established rules. Mr. STOUGHTON. Mr. President, [I desire to make only a single remark on this amendment. We hold religious~ toleration to be one of the fundamental principles of our government. Following out this principle, we ought not to insert in the Constitution a provision which shall seriously interfere with what any denomination may consider its rights and privileges. Inreference to the Catholics,for instance, they have, according to my understanding, no trustees, no directors, no officers of such a nature, in their church. The bishop is at the head of the diocese, and he holds the property of the church. Now, if we prevent that church from holding its property in 838 CONS,-VI ON A T -4 CONVENTION. 'Wedn-esday, DEBAT S AND PROCGEl)I-NGS. this way-if we prevent'the bishop-or other ecclesiastical officer from holding the property for the church-there is no possible way, so far as I know, consistent with the organization of that church, in which it can hold its church property or its burial grounds. Now, sir, I would very cheerfully vote for a provision which would restrict the Catholic church, orany other church from holding property for any other purposes than those of public worship and burial grounds; but I am unwilling to place'in the Constitution a provision which shall operate against that church, so that it cannot hold, according to its own rules of church-government, its church property and its burial grounds. Mr. PRINGLE. Mr. President, my view of this matter concurs with that of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON.) I do not think that there is any particular danger of our having in this State those great church monopolies which are spoken of as existing in other countries. There would be, in my judgment, more danger-of such a thing under a provision of this kind than without it, for the reason that, as we have seen in the past, in the absence of any law. authorizing the bishop of the diocese to hold property fort-he congregation of the Catholic church, the property has actually been conveyed to him, and might have been held-by him and his heirs in their individual right. Now, with property held-in that way, great monopolies might be created. Large amounts of church property might be retained in a -few hands, and might even be diverted from the purposes for which they.were granted. I believe that the wishes'of the Catholics in regard to their manner of holding church property (of course this section is to be interpreted as being aimed at that denomination, and that alone,) are entitled to be respectfully considered by us. I am not a Catholic, and have no sympathy with their particular tenets; yet I can see that there is something like reason in their request, putting it, as:they do ordinarily, in this shape: "As it is, we convey our property to the bishop. If he dies, the property goes to his heirs, who may live in Europe, and of whom we know nothing, for whom we care nothing, who are not concerned with us at all. The heirs may dispose of this property in some way, so that it is diverted from us. We desire that this matter shall be regulated by law. We desire only such legislation as will enable us to accomplish our legitimate purposes with reference to our church organization, in the manner to which we have been accustomed, and Which has been the usage of our forefathers." : This is the way in which they talk, a-n it seems to me their position is very —reasonable, and that such a proposition might without danger be acceded to by our Legislature. For these reasons, I shall vote against the amendment-proposed by the gentleman from Kent. Mr. CROC'KER. Mr. President, I hope that this amendment will not be adopted. I think that we had better leave this subject entirely under the control of the Legislature. It certainly cannot-be sucessfully maintained that there is at this time any grievance resulting from the existing state of things; and if there is no grievance at the present time, I see no necessity for adopting a safeguard of this kind. The subject is unquestionably within the control of the Legislature, so that if any abuse should grow up, that body can intervene for the protection of the community, without any-such provision as-this. -Mr. WITHEY. lMar. President, I should not have said a word in reference to this provision, if the gentleman from St. Joseph (Mr. STOUGHTON) had not called upon me to explain my reason for introducing it. I have stated that reason. I have no argument to present on the subject. The question is one which I think is tolerably well understood; and I shall be entirely satisfied with whatever action the Convention-may take. I do not bring forward the proposition as one to which I am particularly wedded; but it seems to me to be sound in principle. The difficulties which other countries have experienced from laws similar to that now standing upon our statutebook are well known. Every man who has any knowledge of the history of the different nations where churches have possessed such powers as those granted by the law of last winter, knows the difficulties which have grown out of such a system. The question is whether we shall leave this matter open, so that similar difficulties may arise here in our State out of the proviosns now existing upon the statutebook. Mr. COOLIDGE. Mr. President, it has been urged in opposition to this amendment, that in the first place, the subject is one which may properly be left to the Legislature; and secondly, that even though the amendment were proper and-right, there is no necessity for its adoption at present. In reply to the first of these objections, I wish to read the act of last winter. It is short, and as gentlemen upon this floor may not be familiar with its provisions, it is important that it should be read. It is certainrly remarkable in its terms, and should be brought to the attention of every gentleman before he votes upon this question. "The People of the State-of Michigan enact That all gifts, grants, deeds, wills and other conveyances, wherein or whereby any lands, tenements or other property within this State have been given, devised or granted, or in any manner conveyed by any person or persons whatever, unto any person or persons, by the name, style or title of Roman Catholic or Catholic bishop of the diocese of Bardstown, Kentucky, or his successors, or to the.Roman Catholic bishop or Catholic bishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, and his successors in office, or to the Roman Catholic or Catholic bishop of Detroit, or administrator of Detroit, and his successors, or to the Roman Catholic or Catholic bishop of Saut Saint Marie, or to the Roman Catholic or Catholic bishop of Marquette, or his successors, or to any other person or persons, upon the trust expressed or implied, to take, hold and receive the same for the use and benefit of any religious congregation of Roman Catholics, or for the support, aid andr maintenance of any hospital, almshouse, seminary, church, parsonage, or for the burial grounds, or other religious or charitable purposes within this State; and all such gifts, grants, deeds, wills and other conveyances which may hereatter be made, shall be sufflcient and effectual in law to vest the legal title of, in and to said lands and tenements, in such grantee or devisee, in the-present bishops or administrators of-the Roman Catholic dioceses within the State-of Michigan, in their respective dioceses, and in the persons who after them may become Roman Catholic bishops of said dioceses, and in the successors of said Roman Catholic bishops forever, in trust, for the uses and purposes for which the said property is or may be hereafter acquired, granted or devised, and in no other person or persons whatever: Provided, That it shall be necessary in relation to all gifts, grants, deeds, wills," etc. I need not read further. Alr. STOUGHTON. Will the gentleman please read the last proviso? Mr. COOLIDGE. The last proviso is in these words: "And provided further, That nothing in this act shall be taken or construed to give, or grant to the said Roman Catholic bishops or administrators of the said dioceses of the State of Michigan, or their successors, the right to hold real estate in trust for any society except for charitable, religious and literary purposes, or for burial grounds, as provided for by this act." This is sweeping enough. Charitable and religious purposes" are very broad terms. Now, sir, I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY;) and I shall vote for it, for the reasons which the gentleman himself has stated; and, furthermore, because if there was no necessity for legislation upon this subject, then the Legislature has gone a step too far, and has passed a very strange and singular act. Mr. RAFTER. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question. Mr. COOLIDGE. Yes, sir. Mr. RAFTER. Does the gentleman desire to incorporate in the Constitution a provision which will prevent any religious denomination of this State from holding church property according to the canons or laws of that church? - August 14, 1867. 839 840~~~~~~~ - - TTTOALG~~I~.Wded Mr. COOLIDGE. In the firstplace, if the gentleman will tell me what the canons and laws of the different churches are, I will answer him most distinctly and freely. Mr. RAFTER. Does the gentleman suppose that there is in this State any church whose canons or laws are in violation of the laws of the State? Mr. COOLIDGE. No, sir; it is a law of the State which I am opposing; I am in favor of blotting out the law passed by our Legislature last winter, and preventing the Legislature in future from passing any such act. Now, I say, why has the Roman Catholic Church of this State, been singled out by the Legislature, and an act so strange in its provisions passed for the peculiar benefit of that denomination? The provision now proposed by the gentleman from Kent, is not invidious; it does not single out any particular ecclesiastical body of the State; but it is general in its provisions, and as I think, beneficial. I need only refer to the remarks of the gentleman from Kent to show what has been the experience of some other countries, where an ecclesiastical body has been permitted to control a large part of the real estate of the nation, and by this means has been enabled to control the entire political action of the country, year after year, so that there was no release except by revolution. There is no necessity for any such legal enactments as that passed by the Legislature at the last session. Such provisions I regard as eminently dangerous. They are opposed to the fundamental idea of our political institutions, and they ought to be suppressed. No man can say that my remarks, or those of the gentleman from Kent, or the provision which is now pending, are aimed at the Roman Catholic church. This provision is general in its terms, prohibiting any ecclesiastical body in the State from holding church property in a way antagonistic to sound policy, the object being to prevent that overwhelming influence which these religious bodies might gain, if such a thing were permitted. Mr. PRINGLE. I wish to make an explanation in regard to the law of last winter, in order to show its purpose. The statement made at the time of its passage was that, upon the first organization of the Catholic churches in the western country, the territory of Michigan was attached to a diocese organized atBardstown, Kentucky; that afterward it became connected with the diocese at Cincinnati, Ohio; that subsequently it was divided into two or three dioceses, the bishops being one at Detroit, one at Sault Ste. Marie, and another at Marquette; that t hi~ law of which they then asked the passage was almost word for word the same as one which had been passed by the State of Illinois to apply to similar cases in regard to these dioceses at Bardstown, Kentucky, and Cincinnati, Ohio. The legal title of some church property in this State was, before the passage of this law, and is now, unless the bishops in the other States have made the conveyance, held out of the State by the bishop at Bardstown and the bishop at Cincinnati. The law of last session was passed with a view to obviate this difficulty, and to sanction the conveyances which this denomination are constantly making, leaving out perhaps the words "in trust," so that an absolute legal title, divested of the trust, goes as a matter of course to the bishop. The object of the law was to make the holding of church property really a trust in law. I think the purpose of that act is right; I think the danger apprehended by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) and the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) does not exist. I do not apprehend that the case of revolution is at all likely to occur when that denomination is numerically, and in point of wealth, one of the weakest in the State. I have made this statement for the purpose of showing the explanation given at the time of the passage of the law. I then thought the reasons good, and I still think them good. I hope this proposed new section will not be adopted. Mr. COOLIDGE. I desire to ask the gentleman from Jackson whether it was not easy to have had the conveyance of this property made to the respective corporations, to have treated this matter precisely as it would have been treated in all other religious denominations in the State. Was there any necessity, in order to secure this property, that the conveyance should have been made to the bishop? Mr. PRINGLE. I suppose, Mr. President, that the Legislature might have passed a law saying that such conveyances should be made to certain trustees; but I look upon the law of last winter as a law of the same character in principle as those enactments which allow churches of this or that denomination to be organized according to the usages and canons of the particular church. For instance, in the Episcopal church, if I remember correctly, the conveyances are made to the rectors, wardens and vestrymen of the church. Yet the titles of rector, warden, and vestryman, are not known to the Presbyterian Church, or the Congregational church, or the Baptist church, or the Methodist church, or perhaps any other denomination. There are, I think, in this State, some fifteen denominations, having each a law adapted to its particular wishes, necessities and modes of transacting business. I regard the law of last session as one of similar character, for similar purposes, and attended with no greater dangers. Mr. SHEARER. Mr. President, I believe that the true doctrine is that on which our government in this country is founded, that all people should worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. So far as regards this law of last session, I do not understand that the members of the church in question, generally demanded its passage, but the leaders of that church had the law passed. Now, I do not see anything in the case stated by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) which required the passage of a special enactment such as the law of last winter. It seems to me that all reasonable and rightful purposes could have been accomplished under the general laws of our State. 1 believe, sir, that we should insert in our Constitution some such provision as that offered by the gentleman from Kent, to prevent just such legislation as has been referred to. I am willing thatthe Legislature should pass all laws necessary to protect any denomination in its rights of property and its rights of worship; but I believe that we should legislate as little as possible for the particular benefit of particular churches. If you will read the history of England, you.will find that soon after the decline of the feudal system, ecelesiastical influence began to work, so that in fact it soon became the ruling power in that government. Now, sir, we know that the worst wars that have ever raged in the world arose out of religious disputes, and the spirit of intolerance. This spirit, and the opposition to the great principles of liberty, have drenched the earth with blood. We do not wish to have, in the laws of Michigan, anything which shall be a stepping stone to the accumulation of large amounts of property in the hands of a single man-or a few men, against the interests of the people at large. In saying this, I have no antipathy to any religious denomination; but I wish to prevent such denominations from exercising an improper influence upon our government. I believe that if we do our duty, we shall incorporate in the Constitution a salutary provision such as that which is now proposed, precluding the Legislature hereafter from spending its time in the passage of legislation tending to rnix up the church and the State. I do 840 CONSTI'.V LITION A T4 CON V 1RIINTION.' Wednesday, August 14, 1867. 841 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. not believe we want any such thing as that. n Mr. BILLS. It seems to" me that the section proposed by the gentleman a from Kent, is a very wise provision. I can hardly understand how any one g should suppose that it is aimed at any body or class of persons or any partic- i ular religious denomination. It is v general in its provisions, and I think salutary in its purpose. It simply s proposes that religious organizations shall have control of their own prop- erty. It has been remarked by the..r gentleman from Jackson that in vari- ous organizations there are trustees or other similar officers to whom the property of those denominations is conveyed. That is a wise provision t does this proposition aim at anything else than that? Is it unreasonable that a society owning property should have% the control of it-that the members of the society should be allowed to exercise their own will, and express their own purpose, in regard to the manner in which that property shall be controlled? While we have been legislating here in regard to corporations, seeking to regulate by various methods the manner in which their property may be controlled, it has not been said that we were violating the spir it of religious toleration. This pro vision contemplates nothing of that kind. It does not interfere in the slightest particular with any religious tenet; it does not interfere with the religious faith of any person. It simply proposes a very salutary method by which all religious societies-not one religious society alone, but all re ligious organizations-may have the control of their own property. It pro poses that the trustees, or the persons in whom the property shall be vested, shall be eligible, and liable to removal, by the society owning the property. I do not propose to go over the history of the evils which have accrued in former times, and among other nations from a violation of the principle em bodied in this amendment. The prop osition appears to me wise and salu tary. I hope it will be adopted. Mr. PRINGLE. With the consent of the Convention, I wish to make one further suggestion. A great many be quests and donations are made for the benefit of religious charities-endow ing theological schools, etc.; and al though I do not recollect the precise language of this amendment, I fear that it would cut off everything of that kind. I ask that the amendment be read again; and I invite members to listen to it and decide whether it will not have a much more sweeping effect and go a great deal farther than can be ~oL 2-No. 106... ontemplated, I think, even by the' ao...........-....'..... move. The amendment of Mr. WITHEY was ge again read.....,.; -," Mr. RAFTER. We are told by the gentleman from Lenawee.(Mr...BmLs)" hat thisis a wise and salutary provis- ion; that it is not aimed at any.particular person, or class, or denomination. s Now, I am inclined to think that this tatement is not quite correct, because, re owing to the peculiar provisions of the P section, it would affect particular!y one b religious denomination, and no other. Gentlemen, in arguing: in favor of. this re amendment, refer to the law of last a winter relative to a particular denomi- g nation-very clearly ndicating: that go this amendment has been -introduced with particular reference to that de- t nomination; and the ery shape of the t section itself indicates -elearl' - my to mind this fact.. The amendment amounts to just this: c if there is a denomination in the State t which, on account of the peculiar laws or organization of that denomination, does not allow its property to be held by lay persons, then this amendment d will directly conflict with the method S of holding property adopted by that - denomination. a As I said before, I can see no impro- 1 priety in -allowing each religious de- nomination to hold and control its; property as it sees fit. The gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BmLS,) says that this amendment will simply give tot each religious society the right -to con- t trol its property in its own way; but in point of fact, it will deprive one par ticular society of the privilege of con — trolling its property in the manner it desires. This is the liberality of the t gentleman from Lenawee. Mir. COOLIDGE. Will the gentle- man allow me to ask him a question? Mr. RAFTER. Certainly. - Mr. COOLIDGE. By the organiza- X tion of the society to which the gentle man refers, can the body corporate control its property?: Mr. RAFTER. There is no corpo ration at all.. Mr. COOLIDGE. Accordingto the 1 doctrines, usages and laws of that church, have the members of the body or the society the power to control the pro'perty? 1 Mr. RAFTER. Those who are at the head of that body have the right to control the property. ]Mr. COOLIDGE. The gentleman, I believe, means the bishops? v Mr. RAFTER. Yes, sir, I do; and it is the desire of the body that the * bishops shall hold the property. - Mr. COOLIDGE. Have the mem bers of the body the right.to elect the bishops? - ~' Mr. RAFTER. They have not. Mr. COOLIDGE. I wish to ask the !nileman another question. Did he ot this morning move to strike out in he first section of this article the words religious societies"? Mr. RAFTER. I did. Mr. COOLIDGE. That is all I dere to know. Mr. RAFTER. I did so for this ason: that I supposed it was perfectly roper that religious societies-;should e incorporated under special laws. I ppose that there are cases in which ligious societies may, under a special at of incorporation, realize advantaes which they cannot enjoy under a eneral law. Now, sir, all that I have to say furher upon this proposition is that, if he Convention sees fit, in its liberality, o attempt to force upon any religious sciety of this State such a mode of ontrolling its property as is contrary o.the wishes of that denomination, hen I say such an effort is contrary to he spirit of American institutions. Mr. CHAPIN. It strikes me that we lo not wish to introduce into the Contitution any such dead weight as we hould place in it, if we were to adopt any provisions involving theoogical questions. Although there may be some reason for gentlemen's disapproval of the legislation of last winter n regard to the management of church property, yet this, I conceive, is a mater which will regulate itself, if left to he control of the Legislature-particularly after the question has been ventilated in this Convention, as it has been by the remarks of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) and the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. CooLInGE. It appears to me that the introduction )f such a provision as this into our Constitution would be unwise; and I must say that I am inclined to vote against it. Mr. ALDRICH. I call for the yeas and nays on this amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. FERRIS. Mr. President, I think we are engaged in a very small business when we undertake to meddle with the religious institutions of any denomination in this State. If one church prefers to hold its property by trustees or bishops, while another pre - fers to hold property in its corporate capacity, it is none of our business. 1 shall vote against this proposition. Mr. LOVELL. Mr. President, I shall vote for this amendment, with the distinct understanding that the churches all desire to hold their own property, and thatit is justpossible that, without aprovision of this.kind, some of them may get their property in such a position that they cannot hold it. The ten if _4 OSITTOA r.., dency in all civilized lands is toward the secularization of church prqperty, ,the principle being that the masses composing a religious society or church shall control the property, and not a few into whose hands it may happen to have fallen. Popular rights, I think, demand this measure, and I shall vote for it. Mr. DESNOYERS. Why should this Convention undertake to force upon any religious congregation of this State a measure of this kind, which they do not ask? In the Catholic church, the temporal matters of the church are controlled by the bishops; and if the members of the church are satisfied with that form of church government, it seems to me it is a matter affecting none but them selves. If this provision be inserted in this article, I shall vote against the article. Mr. DANIELLS. Mr. President, it seems to me that it is not a conclusive argument to say that, because a certain usage is sanctioned by a particular form of church government, therefore the Legislature should not interfere with it. There has been in one of'our territories a so-called "church," whose "religious organization" was interfered with by certain acts of Congress. I believe that the people who do not belong to the Catholic Church have some rights, and that it is proper we should have some regard for the manner in which the churches hold their property. Mr. DESNOYERS. I will ask the gentleman how the manner of holding church property in the Catholic (hurch can affect any person outside of that church. Mr. DANIELLS. It affects them in this way: it is the interest of all the people to secure a democratic form of government. The people of Utah objected to the legislation of Congress against polygamy, saying that the government was interfering with their religious belief; but Congress did not refrain from its legislation on that account. I hope that the amendment will be adopted. Mr. MORTON. Considering the fact that the Catholic congregations cannot hold their property by trustees, I think that no provision of this kind should be inserted in the Constitution. Certainly we need apprehend no particular danger from the absence of any such provision. We can trust the Legislature to take any measures on this subject which may be necessary for the protection of the community. A provision of this kind is not required in the Constitution for the protection of the rights and liberties of any porion of our citizens of any denomina tion. With the preponderance of sentiment in this State against the Catholic Church, there is no danger that this church will attain a position hazardous to the interests or the liberties of our citizens. I hope that this amendment will not be adopted. The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. WITHEY, and it was not agreed to; there being-yeas 28, nays 48, as follows: YEFs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Bills, Birney, Chapman, Coolidge, Daniells, Duncan, Elliott, Farmer, Germain, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Miller, Mussey, Root, Shearer, Sheldon, Thompson, VanValkenburgh, M. C. Watkins, White, Withey, Wright, and Yeomans-28. NAYs-Messrs. Barber, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapin, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers. Divine, Duncombe, Ferris, Glddings, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Huston, Lamb, Luce, Mc-lelland, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Morton, Murray, Musgrave, Ninde, Norris, Pringle, Rafter, Richmond, Sawyer, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Tyler, Utley, P. D. Warner, Willard, Winans, Winsor, Williams, and the President-48. CORPORATE RIGHTS OF ALIENS. Mr. PRINGLE. I move to amend by adding to the article the following as a new section: Aliens, resident or non-resident, shall be entitled equally with citizens, to be officers or stockholders in railroad and manufacturing corporations. Mr. President, I offer this amendment, because I think that the effect of such a provision will be, perhaps, to promote the development of our means of communication and our manufacturing interests. This question was discussed here some time agog upon a provision reported by the committee on corporations other than municipal, which was general in its terms, relating to all corporations. This amendment, while similar in principle, is restricted to railroad and manufacturing corporations. As I have heretofore remarked, this question has arisen in connection with the Detroit and Milwaukee railroad, which is owned principally by persons who are not citizens; and the officers of the company are not citizens. Our laws -allow those who are not citizens to be officers of such companies; yet several times propositions have been made in the Legislaturepropositions aimed specially, as was understood, at this particular company-to prohibit aliens from occupying the position of president or director of any railroad company. It is a fact that because these propositions have been made, because such a change in our laws has been agitated, the men who have actually invested capital in this State are alarmed about their investments. They believe that such legislation as has been proposed would be an infriDgement upon their rights. And certainly, comity and fair dealing would require that the persons interested in these corpo rations should manage their own prop erty as they may choose, subject to our legislation and subject to the authority of our courts. They ask. this privilege. Such a law as has been proposed has never yet been passed; I do not know that such a law will be passed; but the mere suggestion of it has been suffi cient to alarm these men, and the agi tation of such questions has been in large part the reason, (perhaps it has had more influence than anything else,) why the capital of other countries has not sought investment more extensive ly in this State. The men who hold to a large extent the surplus money of the world, have made an investment here; yet their control of that invest ment is threatened in the Legislature, session after session. Last winter, without any particular deliberation or any particular purpose, perhaps, on the part of the majority of that body, this matter went so far that on two occasions bills of this kind were passed through the House of Representatives, though they were, however, defeated in the Senate. Such proceedings alarm the capitalists who have made investments in our State. Because of such things, coupled with the story about the five million loan, (in reference to which some men fancy Michi gan repudiated her just debts,) together with other remarks made in foreign countries, perhaps without foundation, about the States of our republic, Michi gan has to-day much poorer credit than she would have, if she possessed a little better character for liberality in her legislative policy. Other nations adopt a more enlight ened policy. And on this point there is an illustration so pertinent to this discussion that, although I referred to it in the former debate, I may be per mitted to cite it again. The navigation laws of England are such that a number of citizens of the United States might go to Liverpool, form a navigatiom company, build ships, and sail them to the very ends of the world, transacting a general navigation business, managing that company as its stockholders or directors; and all this, too, without re siding in England. It is sufficient!, as the law-of England declares, that the corporation itself shall be subject to the law of the kingdom, liable to the operation of its writs of quo warranto and mandamus. In the same way, it is sufficient for any legitimate purpose of protection to ourselves, that the corporations formed in this State for the construction of railroads or the prose. CONSTI'.R IONAT, CONVENTION. ,,W, ednesday, 812 OF I Auus 14 187 DEAE - ROEDNS cution of manufacturing business should be as corporations citizens of the State subject to the writs issued by out courts, subject in every respect to the laws of the State, in the same manner as all its other citizens. This is sufficient in my judgment, for all legitimate purposes of restriction and control; and something like this should be the fixed policy of our State, if we would invite into our commonwealth from abroad that capital which we so much need for the development of our resources and the establishment of adequate means of communication. Mr. McKERNAN. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRrNGLE,) by inserting after the word "railroad," the word "mining;" so that the phrase will read, "railroad, mining and manufacturing corporations. Mr. PRINGLE. If there shall be no objection, (and if any member has any objection I hope he will state it,) I will accept that amendment. I myself have no objection to it. Mr. STOUGHTON. Mr. President, it has generally been considered the true policy of our State that at least a majority of the directors of these corporations should be citizens of the State, though this is a question upon which a difference of opinion may be entertained. My present opinion is that a certain number of the directors of these corporations should be residents of the State. There may be, (and I am inclined to think there is,) something in the suggestions of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE.) We ought undoubtedly to offer all possible facilities and inducements for investments of foreign capital in the development of the interests of this State; but whether it be our true policy to say that aliens shall have the same rights, as directors and officers of corporations, as citizens, is in my mind a question of some difficulty. I think that the Legislature ought at least to have the power to require that a certain number of the officers of these corporations, whether a majority or not, shall be residents and citizens of this State. Mr. PRINGLE. I call for the yeas and nays on this amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. McCLELLAND. I shall vote against this amendment, for the reason that I think it best to submit this whole question to the discretion of the Legislature. If, owing to the peculiar circumstances which may surround any corporation or corporations in this State, the Legislature should deem it necessary to require that all the directory should reside in the State, I think it best that the Legislature should peN 1 sess this power. I would not desire , that foreigners should have this right to be officers of our corporations, unrestricted by any legislative control. Mr. PRINGLE. I desire to say one word in response to the remarks of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) and the gentlemanfrom Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND.) I do not understand it to be the present policy of our State to require that any number of the directors of any of these companies shall be residents or citizens of this State. On the contrary, our laws at present'allow any person to occupy the position of director or president. I do not think that the people of our State wish any wrong toward those who have invested their money here. I think that what has been done by our Legislature heretofore, what has been regarded as important enough again and again to be the occasion of cable dispatches across the Atlantic, has been unthinkingly done, without a consideration Of its effect upon our credit and reputation abroad, where is found, if anywhere, the money which is to be brought into our State and invested in such corporations. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. I think it is not best to insert such a provision as this in the Constitution. There may arise cases in which it will be expedient and necessary for the Legislature to interfere in this matter; and I think the subject had better be left entirely to that body. Mr. McCLELLAND. There might be given to this section a construction which would preclude the Legislature from requiring the selection of residents and citizens as directors of a company. I understand the object of the gentleman from Jackson (Mr. PRINGLE) to be that, where all the capital of a corporation is owned abroad, the company may have power to elect directors, without regard to their citizenship or their residence. If this is the construction which the gentleman desires shall be put upon the section, I certainly am opposed to it; for I think the Legslature ought to be at liberty to say whether aliens or non-residents shall be directors of corporations within this State. If there should arise a contin gency such as has arisen heretofore, I think it would be well enough for the Legislature to have the power to re quire the officers of these companies to be residents of our State. Circum stances and contingencies may arise and the gentleman can easily conceive of such circumstances and contingen cies-which would make a requirement of this sort desirable as a matter of State policy. The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. PRINGLE, as modified by the acceptance of the amendment of Mr. McKERNAN, and it was not agreed to; there being yeas 18, nays 5, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bills, Blackman, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Divine, Duncan, Elliott, Hazen, Huston, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Murray, Pringle, Rafter, Willard, and Winans — 18. NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, AndruEr, Barber, Birney, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapman, Coolidge, Desnoyers, Duncombe, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Kenney, Lamb, Leach, Lon-year, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, Miller, Mussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Norris, Purcell, Richmond, Root, Sawyer, Shearer, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgb, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Wright, and Yeomans-54. INCORPORATION OF RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.; Mr. WILLARD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the Convention refused to strike out in the first clause of section one the words, " and religious societies." It has occured to me that; the Convention may not have fully considered this subject. I know that some years ago the Legislature of this State attempted to adopt a general law for the organization of religious societies; but most of the religious denominations in the State have found that law to be impracticable. It is well known that most of our religious societies are now organized under special acts, some electing trustees, some wardens, vestrymen, etc., with various terms of service. It occurs to me that it would be much better to allow these different religious societies to be organized under special acts. I know that it would be more agreeable to the views of many connected with those organizations; and I cannot see that there will be any danger in giving - the Legislature this authority. The motion to reconsider was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. No further amendments being offered to this article, it will be referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, for correction and engrossment, and will be ordered to a third reading. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Sir. LUCE. I move that the article entitled "Legislative Department," be taken from the table. There being no objection, the motion was agreed to; and the Convention resumed the consideration of the article entitled "Legislative Department." Mr. LUCE. I have made this motion for the purpose of placing this article in such a position that it can be passing along through its various stages. If no other gentleman desires to submit a motion upon the subject, I i i t t t c August 14, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCP,F,DINGS. 813 .. I..-, -1- I. i:..4..:,~ - GON~TITU'L II-"":,, I. I move that the article be ordered to a third reading. - - The motion was agreed to; and the article was ordered to a third readin'mg. Mr. FARMER. I move that the Convention now take a:recess.' The motion was agreed to; and the Convention, (at fifteen minutes before twelve:o'clock a&. m.,) took- a recess until half-past two o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at halfpast two o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. PRINGLE. I ask leave of absence, for an indefinite period, for Mr. LAwRENcE, who, I am informed, is sick at his boarding place. Leave was accordingly granted. ARTICLES ON THIRD READING. Mr. LUCE. I move that the Convention now proceed to the consideration of articles on the order of third reading. I observe that there are two or three of them on our files. The motion of Mr. LvcE was agreed to. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. The PRESIDENT. The first article on the order of third reading: is the article entitled' Miscellaneous Provisions. - -;: The article was then read the third time. The question was on the passage oJ the article. PRIVATE PROPERTY TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE. Mr. PRINGLE. I was not present last.week during the discussion which was had in Convention upon the amendment to this article reported from the committee of the whole. But I see, by reference to the jourual of our proceedings, that the amendments which were made by the committee of the whole to section four of this article were not concurred in by the Convention. That section as amended by the Convention is as follows: ,Private property shall not be taken for public use, or for private roads unless the necessity for such,taking, and the just compensation to be paid therefor, shall have first been ascertained and determined, and the compensation' therefor paid or tendered in such manner as shall be prescribed by law. Wh.enever private property shall be taken for any purpose withouit the limits o'f any incorporated city or village, except a public highway, the necessity for the taking thereof, and the amount of compensation to be paid.therefor, shall be first ascertained and determined by a jury of twelve freeholders, or three cormmissioners appointed by a court of record; and whenever such property shall be taken within the limits of any incorporated city or villaige,the necessity for such taking, and the amount of compensation to be paid therefor, shall be first ascertained and determined by a jury of twelve freeholders."..: - My objection to that section, and the reason which, —if it shall- stand in its present form, will prevent me from voting for the article, is because of :the last sentence of the section. My objection is, not that a jury of freeholders shall determine the amount of bompensation, but that "the necessity fog such taking" of private property is to be submitted to such jury, instead of being suibmitted to the corporate authority of the city or village, as it has usually been submitted, and as I -think i' —reason, propriety, and right, it always ought to be submitted, rather -than to a jury. The difference perhaps, is not- very great as between the ity and the country, in regard to taking private property for streets or highways. The principle is not very diffeient; city propty y is not more sacred than property in farming lands; the one is not more sacred than the other.-: Private rights are entitled to be respected in each case. And yet this section provides that three commissioners, -appointed by a court of record, shall determine as to the necessity, in -the case of a highway in the country. They may be men immediately interested in the matter; they may be men :who have strong prejudices one-way or the-other; they may be men who have a feeling in regard to the' matter of opening the particular road which is proposed to be opened. Mr. FARMER. In the case of a highway in the country, it does not provide for either a jury or threecommissioners to determine -the necessity for the taking of the private property; that-is the exception. Mr. PRINGLE. This section as it is pinted here, relates to taking private property for the use of railroads, etc.: But I'was saying that in the case of'a country road, the soil is just as sarcred.' Theeright of the:individual is just as much invaded; he has the right to the same ample protection that he has if his property be within the limits of a:city or a village.: -..-.: es, -perhaps,:I am mistaken in my statement. It is not left to these commissioners, or a jury; but it is left to the highway commnissioners, who may live-in a little corner of the town far distant from':the land to be taken, or they may boe theo::nly three persons in the whole township interested ingetting' that par. ticuair road open.- And-yet if there be any:' ase where the question of the necessity shOuld: be submitted to a jury, in :my judgment it would be one of these country roads. There are: sharper. contests aroused, there is more feeling excited frequently in regard to country roads, than in regard to improvements in cities and villages. But my objection relates not to this; I do not find fault with the way in which this was left, but with the inconsistent provision put beside it. The proposition requiring a jury to be called in our cities and villages, to determine the necessity for such taking, I consider an innovation upon the established precedents and customs of the people throughout all the country. There is a difficulty in cities and villages, generally and ordinarily, which - will prevent a fair decision of the question, as to the necessity of taking land for an improvement.- And it is because that difficulty generally exists in cities and villages, that I am anxious to see this provision left out of the instrument we are framing, that I am anxious this innovation shall not be adopted. The difficulty to which I refer is this: There are sectional differences in the city or village; one — side seems to hate the other; one —side dislikes to see improvements going on in the other side; one side cannot fairly treat the other, except as they may be brought together, and induced to act together, to some extent, in comparing views in the common council. It has been the case in my own city that, with party nominations at a time when party feeling ran high, a majority of the electors of the city have voted, without reference to their politics, for candidates for mayor and other officers, solely with regard to local questions. - In such a locality it is almost impossible for a jury to be summoned, unless it shall contain one or two persons who represent a portion of the town distant from that where the improvement is to be made. Under a wrong construction of the present Constitution, as I have always considered-it, by the advice of a gentleman who was acting as city attorney, some juries were called out in my own city, in cases where the common council were unanimous, where seveneighths of the tax-payers who were to be taxed had petitioned for the opening of certain streets. And yet to the number of one or two persons only, on five or six juries following one another, persons from distant localities in the city objected, on the ground of there being no necessity for the street over in that particular ward. The common council is elected to judge of such matters, and to take care of them. And yet you propose to call out a jury, and make that very matter of the expense of opening the streets, and the necessities of the publie, a question upon which they are to act.- And hence it is in this case that such gross injustice has been done to r -i .1 f% -- -OrN- -— L- -V -E- N — -T- -I 0 N- * -. - - -A-: —---— CON 814 — -Wed-neis a-y-,$-.. Augur~~~~~~~ 14 187 EAE - ~EDN~ 4 one- of the wards in my city, that it was compelled to come here last-winter to the Legislature, to secure an act by which it was authorized to tax itself to secure streets in that ward, although it had paid twelve or fifteen thousand dollars for streets in other parts of the city. These difficulties arising in -cities, make it a case, in my judgment, where if the principles were to prevail which prevail in circuit courts, of changing the venue of trials in certain cases, the venue would ordinarily be sent somewhere else; because the feelings of citizens are more or less involved in this question. The question of expense affects everybody; the question of rivalry affects many, more or less. This makes the city the very last place to get a fair jury to determine these questions. - - Here the hammer fell, the ten minutes allowed under the rule- having expired. Mr WILLIAMS. I would inquire what is the question before the Convention? Tho PRESIDENT. The question is upon the passage of the article entitled ,, Miscellaneous Provisions." Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not propose to take up any time in discussing this article, for it was sufficiently discussed when it was under consideration before. The Convention deliberately put in those words; but I am not myself at all particular in regard to them. It was supposed that this provision was a matter of protection, and simply of protection, to the inhabitants of cities and villages. I am not at all satisfied, myself, from the argument of the gentle man from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) that it is-not essentially a system of protec tion. and of protection alone. He tells us that party politics run high at times in cities; and that the people regardless of politics, will some times elect their mayors upon local questions. It appears to me that party politics may have an influence over private persons, and that the mayor and common council of a city should not be the ones to determine the necessity or; amount of compensa tion. I think we should throw this protection around the citizens of our cities and villages. I have no interest in this matter; but I simply submit tc the Convention whether it is not a matter purely of protection to -the in habitants of cities and-villages. - - Mr. MUSSEY. It will be recollect ed that when this article was under consideration on a former occasion, ] then made an objection to one clause "the necessity for such taking." That objection still rests in my m:nind..::It- i~ upon this ground that when the par. ties are agreed, the land is given, the highway opened, if you please, still it cannot be accepted by the authorities until there is a jury of twelve freeholders called out to decide as to the necessity of it. I should be in favor of the provision requiring a jury to decide upon the compensation to be paid. But I think it is unnecessary to have a jury to decide the question of the necessity. I know that with us we have never attempted to carry a street through any man's land when he did not desire to have it there. I believe I have .given some ten or fifteen acres for streets, and I have never in the world asked the authorities to lay out a street here or there. I have laid them out .myself and opened them, and the au thorities have accepted them after wards. Of course these remarks apply to streets laid out outside of a plat. Where a plat is made under provisions of law, and the plat is recorded, it may be different. But in regard to opening streets outside of the village plat, under this provision, a man may open streets through his land, donate them to the public, but the public cannot take them, hold them and use them as high ways until you have a jury of twelve men called out to decide in regard to their necessity. That is my objection to that clause. L Mr. PRINGLE. I move to recom mit this article to the committee on miscellaneous provisions, with instruc tions to amend section four by striking out the words, "the necessity for such 3 taking, and," after the words, ",and whenever such property shall be taken within the limits of any incorporated city or village." - The PRESIDENT. That motion cannot be entertained, except under a suspension of the rules. Mr. LOVELL. I hope we will not recommit this article. I cannot see any such lion im the way, as same gent tlemen seem to imagine stands here. 3 The Legislature can amend a city or village charter at any time. This arti. —cle does not say, nor does the present ~ Consitution say, that a jury shall be -drawn from the city or village where s the improvement is to be made; they r can just as well be drawn from neight boring towns. The fault is in the char) ter, not in the article proposed. We shave had this rule in the. city of - Flint; and I happen to know, from - my official relations to the city of Flint, that it works well. -; r As to the question of the necessity I for the taiking, our -courts.have ruled ,, in regard to village matters, that the t necessity of the improvement is to be s decided by the common council; but the necessity of taking the land, in order that the improvement may be made, is a question for a jury to decide. However that may be, a charter -can be amended, so that a jury can be had outside of the cities or villages where they are small, and a better jury can be had in that way. We will thus preserve the right to a jury in these matters, and so with any exceptional cases. Mr. PRINGLE. In support of my motion to recommit, I desire to make a remark or two. And first, in answer to the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. LOVELL.) He speaks of preserving a right. The provision of our present Constitution upon this subject, is as follows: "Private property shall not be taken for public improvements in cities and villages without the consent of the owner, unless the compensation therefor shall first be determined by a jury ot freeholders, and actually paid or secured in the manner prescribed by law." The innovation in, the article under consideration consists in putting in the words-" the necessity for such taking," as one of the things to be determined by the jury. It is this innovation that I would strike out. I would preserve the clause in the present Constitution substantially as it is. That is the law as construed at present; the other is an innovation. My judgment is that the common council should determine the question of the necessity for such talking, in view of the wants of the public, as they come from the neighboring county to trade in the town; in view of the wants of the people of the city, as they go from one portion of the town to the other; in view of the state of the public treasury of thp city, as it is in their hands to deal with; in view of the capacity of the people to pay taxes, as they represent all that people; in view of the prospective improvement, as they look upon it, viewed from all the standpoints in the city; as viewed'from the council room, by men elected for just such purposes. They can look to the interests of the city, its necessities and prosperities, and deter mine from that standpoint, in my judg ment, better and safer for the public and for all the citizens, than a jury call ed hap-hazard, as it will naturally be, from al partsof the town, sharing in all these old. feelings and resentments against individualsor localities; so that one, or two, or three out of twelve are unable, on account of previous bias not against theparticularimprovement or object, but against the particular lo cality which desires the improvement — are unable on account of that bias to come to a proper decision. They may object to it on the pretext that it is unnec essary. In the first ward, for instance, c u e c .i 0 c c c t -D'F4'RATJWS.l AND —,-PROCEV,.T)INGS. 8451" Au j4-v-l-867. CONSTILTUTION^Tr CONVE,iOTION. no objection to an amendment and if desirable I will consent to put in a provision that it shall be confined to streets and alleys, and that in that case the question of compensation shall be referred to a jury. That is all I want; that is all I care about. It is no question about railroads, or any such thing. I do not care what provisions you put in in regard to railroads, so that they are provisions of general law, to which all the people of the State will submit. But in regard to streets and alleys, I think it is essential that there should be some authority, other than interested and biased jurymen, to determine as to the necessities of the case. The PRESIDENT. If no objection is made the motion to recommit,will be entertained, without a suspension of the rules. No objection was made, and the motion was entertained. The question was upon the motion of Mr. PRIrpLE, that the article be recommitted to the committee on miscellaneous provisions, with instructions to amend section four by striking out the words, "the necessity for such taking, and," after the words, "and whenever such property shall be taken within the limits of any incorporated city or village." Mr. SAWYER. I would like to move to amend the instructions so as to strike out still more of the last sentence of the section. I move to strike out also the words, "except a public highway," after the words, "whenever private property shall be taken for any purpose without the limits of any incorporated city or village." Mr. STOUGHTON. If amendments to the instructions are in order, I move to amend by instructing the committee to insert the words " without the consent of the owner," in the first sentence of the section, after the words "for public roads." Also to strike out the entire last sentence of the section, which is as follows:'. "Whenever private property shall be taken bor any purpose without the limits of any incorporated city or village, except a public highway, the necessity for the taking thereof, and the amount of compensation to be paid therelbr, shall be first ascertained and determined by a jury of twelve lfeeholders, or three commissioners appointed by a court of record; and whenever such property shall be taken within the limits of any incorporated city or village, the necessity fIr such taking, and the amount of compensation to be paid therefor, shall be first ascertained and determined by a jury oi twelve freeholders." The section, if so amended, will then they look upon the lands in the third or fourth wards as only farming lands any way; that the houses there are only Irish hovels, and do not need any protection, or streets opened, or improvements made. They sneer at them, and find fault with them, for asking anything of the kind. And, according to my little experience, they do more than anything else to make these quarrels perpetual. Such juries will in their jury-room, do acts which perhaps will cost the city in the end more to pay the jury their fees than the street openings will cost. Mr. LOVELL. If the gentleman's motion prevails, and these words are stricken out, will it not give railroad companies, plank road companies, canal companies, etc., the right to take private property in the same way? Mr. PRINGLE. Well, I think they would be governed by the law in those cases. It is exactly the law as it now stands, and as is contemplated by our general railroad law. Mr. LOVELL. Does the gentleman mean that this language is the language of the law? Mr. PRINGLE. What I propose is substantially the language of the law. The common council of a city may consent that a railroad shall cross its streets. The old railroads, the Michigan Southern, and the Michigan Central, have the right to cross a city as they have the right to cross a farm. But under the general railroad law, the railroad must first obtain the consent of the common council. When the question of thenecessity in such cases is determined by the common council, the question of any damage that may accrue, as I understand, so far as it affects the city or village particularly, is determined by a jury; and that question alone is determined by a jury. But in making this motion, I have in my own mind only the case of the opening of streets and alleys, particularly streets, the improvement most frequently desired, a thing of absolute necessity for every part of the city, if it shall grow and improve, as many of our towns are improving and growing. Those are matters which are necessities, which cannot be dispensed with, consistently with the growth, improvement and progress of cities. But it is possible for interested persons of one locality, by going on juries for other localities of which they are jealous, to hold them back from improvement, by the standing out of a single man upon the jury. But I do not wish to take time in t h e discussion of this matter. I merely wish to call the attention of the Convention to this innovation. I have i That is an annunciation of a general principle, and is all that it is necessary to have on the subject in the Constitution. The rest of the section is only matter proper for legislation, which should be left entirely to the Legislature. The other part of this section which has been tacked on here in some way, is complex in its character, and calculated to lead to no good results. It provides for one method of procedure where the land taken for public use is in cities and villages; and for another method of procedure where it is outside of cities and villages; it provides for commissioners in the one case, and for juries in the other. I think if the amendments I have moved are made, this section will then be in perhaps the best form we can possibly get it. Mr. BLACKMAN. I would inquire if the last portion of this section can be amended or stricken out, it having been inserted by the Convention by way of amendment? The PRESIDENT. W —Vhen the gentleman from Jackson (Mr. PRINGLE,) made the motion to recommit with instructions, the Chair stated to the Convention that such a motion was not in order, without a suspension of the rules. After some debate, the Chair stated that if there was no objection the motion would be entertained, without a suspension of the rules. There was no objection, and consequently the Chair entertained the motion. It is now too late to make objections to it. Mr. BLACKMAN. I did not hear the Chair say the motion was not in order. The PRESID)ENT. The first question will be taken upon tne amendment to the instructions made by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. SAWYER.) Mr. McCLELLAND. I hope the chairman of the committee on miscellaneous provisions (Mgr. WILLIAMS,) will not oppose the proposition of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE.) I am informed that by the charter of the city of Detroit this question as to the necessity for such taking is left entirely to the common council. I did not know that before; but that is the fact in regard to our charter. And as there are a great many proceedings which have been commenced under that charter, and as they are sometimes continued from term to term this provision,/if this Constitutionis adopted at an early period, may very materially'interfere with those proceedings. The gentleman who gave me that information, who has been in the common council many years, and understands those things far more perfectly than I do, thinis it is absolutely I' 846 Wednesday, Augur 14, 1867. D1-BAT~S A~D PROCEEDI~G~ 847 necessary, particularly for the interests of our city, that this clause should be stricken out, and that this power should be given to the common council. I hope, therefore, the gentleman will not persist in his opposition to that amendment; I do not know anything about the other amendment. Mr. WILLIAMS. I think I stated before that I did not intend to oppose the proposition of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE.) It is a matter purely for the representatives'of cities here, to seek their interest in that regard. I had supposed it might be desirable to have this provision as a matter of protection to the citizens and denizens of cities. But it might not be; I am not at all tenac;ous about it. I apprehend if a man lays out his property in public highways or streets, he dedicates it to thA public, and the question of accepting the dedication is not one that requires a jury of twelve freeholders to decide the necessity of it. That has nothing to do with the question the gentleman from Macomb (Mr. MUSSEY) has suggested. Mr. MUSSEY. I think the gentleman, as a lawyer, will say it is necessary, under a provision of this kind, to decide the necessity of it, before the people can be assessed to work on that land. Mr. WVILLIAMS. The clause has reference to the taking of private property, not to taxing, in cities and villages. MIr. SAWYER. I have but a word or two to say to the Convention in regard to the- amendment I desire to have made. I will read the clause as it will stand, if amended as I propose, together with the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE:) "Whenever private property shall be taken for any purpose, without the limits of any incorporated, city or village, the necessity for the taking thereof, and the amount of compensation to be paid therebfor, shall be first ascertained and determined by a jury of twelve treeholders, or three commissioners appointed by a court of record; and whenever such property shall be taken within the limits of any incorporated city or village, the amount of compensation to Ue paid therefor, shall be first ascertained and determined by a jury of twelve freeholders." The reason I offer this amendment is, that in the rural districts, where roads are to be laid out, the commissioners of the township have the power to lay them out; and they may sometimes run along for a half a mile or a mile on a man's farm, and it may be through the most valuable portion of the farm. Now, it is necessary, in my mind, for the protection of the rights of those individuals, that you should ascertain the amount of damages, and the compensation to be paid therefor, by — the township. If these commis sioners can in the first place lay out the roads,vand ascertain the amount of damages afterwards, there will proba bly be more roads laid out than there would be, if the townships knew be forehand what was the amount to be paid therefor. I have known several townships where the elections have been governed by the idea of electing persons to lay out roads to certain places. Now I think that property in the country is just as sacred as property in the city. Take it in the cities, streets are laid out there, not so much for the public convenience as to facilitate the sale of lots and the consequent increase of the value of the property in-that city. But it is not so in the country. You lay out a road for the benefit of travelers, six or seven or more miles away from there. It may be no benefit in the way of selling the man's farm whose property is taken for the road; it may be no improvement to the property of the neighborhood at all; it is simply to benefit the surrounding country. The commissioners may be located where it would be for their interest to lay out certain roads. Now what I ask is simply this: that these commissioners shall have power to lay out a road, when a jury of twelve freeholders have determined the damage. There is no such right under this provision as it now stands. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGHI. It appears to me that the section proposed by the standing committee, with the amendment proposed by the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHaTON,) is all that we need upon this subject. It is the annunciation of a principle, the manner in which private property shall. be taken, and bompensation made for it. I think the rest may be safely left to the Legislature; the manner in which the damages shall be ascertained, and compensation paid for it. I think the section reported by ~hestanding committee, withthe amendment suggested by the gentleman from St. Joseph, is all on this subject that we need incorporate into the Constituion. Mr. WITHEY. When this subject was up the other day, I stated my objection to this section as it then stood. That objection applies to the amendment of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON.) I sincerely hope the Convention will not instruct the standing committee to strike out the last sentence of this section. Whatever else they may instruct the committee to do, I hope that will not be done. If they should strike out, as proposed by the gentleman from St. Joseph, the Legislature could constitute the common council of a city, or the board of trustees' of a village, the sole power to determine both the necessity for taking the property of an individual, and the compensation to be awarded him for the property which is forcibly taken from him. Now I do not believe the Legislature should be left with any such authority. I believe the provisions in the Constitution of 1850 were wise. The provision applicable to cities and villages was as follows: Private property shall not be taken for public improvements in cities and villages without the consent of the owner, unless the compensation therefor shall first be deter mined by a jury ot freeholders, and actually paid or secured in the manner prescribed by law." That provision was made to guard the rights of private citizens. If the owner of property in a city is to have it wrested from him, as it may be under a law authorizing it,.by the bare determination of the common council, or in a village by the determination of the board of trustees, I notify gentle men that in future private citizens will be likely to get but little compensation for their property. You will not allow the right of persons, in reference to indebtedness, and the claims of citizens upon each other, to be determined without a jury. The law gives to every man the right in every court of record to demand a jury of his country to pass upon a mere matter of account between himself and his neighbor. Yet you would by constitutional provision give the right to the Legislature to provide that a man's property may be taken from him, no matter what its value, by the determination of the common coun cils of cities, or the boards of trustees of villages. Now, I submit that this is giving a power to the Legislature which they ought not to possess, particularly in cities and villages, where property becomes valuable. A man owns a lot of land, or a block of buildings that has cost him tens of thousands of dollars. The common council in their wisdom see fit to run a street through that property; and they may be authorized by the Legislature to determine both the necessity for taking the property, and the compensation to be awarded ,for it, without preserving to the owner of that property the common right which every citizen has in a court by common law, to demand a jury. It-seems to me those rights are altogether too sacred not to be protected by proper constitutional provisions. Therefore, I hope the instructions proposed by the gentleman from St. Joseph (Mr. STOUGHTON,) will not prevail. So far as the proposition of the gen DEBATES AND PROCE'PT)INGS. August 14, 1867. 847 ~48 C 7' ~d _ewday, tleman from Jackson (Mr. PuriGu,d)is concerned, I have no serious objec-t tion to it. In regard to the matter of determining the necessity for laying out a road or street, and requirin'mg a jury of twelve men to determine that necessity, I am not at all tenacious. I suppose that in the practice- we have had for the last sixteen years,::under the Constitution of 1850, there has been some little diversity. By: the fifteenth section of the article entitled ,"Corporations," in the present Constitution, the necessity could perhaps be determined by the commotn council of a city, or the board of trustees of a vil]age. But by turning to the article entitled "Miscellaneous Provisions," we find this provision: -- "When private property is taken for the use or benefit of the public, the necessity for using such property, and the just compensation to be made therefor, except when to be made by the State, shall be ascertained by a jury of twelve freeholders, residing in the vicinity of such property, or by not less than three commissioners, appointed by a court of record, as shall be prescribed by law." That is a provision of the present Constitution. Yet I suppose many cities have operated under section fifteen of the article entitled "Corporations," in which article are embraced provisions relating both to municipal corporations, and corporations other than municipal. Now, it might be a serious question whether, under the present Constitution, they would not be obliged by the second section of the article entitled "-miscellaneous pro visions," which I have just read, torcall a jury to determine the necessity for taking the property. But I believe the practice has been different. Yet as I have said, I am not particular about the words-" the necessity for -such taking, and," proposed by the gentle man from Jackson, (Mr. PRmGLE,) to be stricken out. But I-think- the re mainder of the section should be retained by all means. Now, as to the objection made by the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MuSSEY;) as I understand the gentle man, he would have the same clause in this article that is in section fifteen of the article on corporationsin the pres ent Constitution. Mr. MUSSEY. That is just it ex actly. Mr. WITHEY. He wants it, as I understand him to say, because with out it even though a party was willing to give his property for such purpose, it could not be taken for public use, the street or road worked, and expense in that way incurred. Now, I have no objection to that clause being interpo lated into this section; it will not injure it at all, and it may perhaps make the section more satisf, tory tb some gen :-e-n/:,: per haps::-: m:a ke it::praistally better; I have no objection to that. But I insist that it would be dangerous for us to say, as proposed by the gentleman from: -St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) that these valuable private interests shall be determinmedby'a common council, who are sometimes ready to take property for nothing, or for half of what it is worth. It is giving them quite authority enough to allow them to saythat there is a necessity for taking the property, without permitting the Legislature to give them the additional power to say that: the compensation shall be five dollars, when perhaps it should be five thousand dol lars. We know what stuff common coun cils ate made of sometimes. I mean no reflection on gentlemen here, who have been aldermen in cities. But we know that they sometimes have private interests to subserve. We ought to act cautiously, and place in our funda mental law-that which will protect all the rights of citizens. It is a very easy thing, if members of a common coun cil desire an amendment to their char ter to give them additional power, for them to get it. They can come up here to the Legislature and say-', This matter has been considered by the city, and they are unanimous in the request that such an - amendment should be made." The Legislature, presuming that those men represent the views of the city, pass the law amending the charter, perhaps without sufficient care,- and without sufficient examination;:and in that way the rights of the citizens in this respect may be wholly sacrificed. Iinsist, Mr. President, and gentlemen of the Con vention, we ought not to go thus -far. -Mr. SAWYER. What difference in principle is there between a public highway outside of a city or village, where a jury is not required to fix the damages, and a public highway or street in a city or village? -Mr. WITHEY. -The difference is perhaps nothing in principle, save in the excess of value of property in the city. A small piece of property iin a city has a large value attached to it. But if gentlemen here, representing towns in this State, desire that there shall be a jury of freeholders in towns to lay out highways, they are entirely welcome to it. But I supposed they did not want it. Mr. SAWYER. That is not my point. The simple point is here: after the highway has been determined upon by the commissioners, then I desire a jury of freeholders to assess the value of the land over which it runs. I sup-: pose we are here not to consider differ ences in value, but to establish princi ples. Even if the value of the land is smallnin regard to the amount taken in the country for the public use, I suppose if the principle involved is aclknowledged to be the same, we here should incorporate that principle in the fundamental law, and aot make an exception.: We in the country desire it, so far as I know. We do not desire the old law, that a jury shall determine the necessity of laying out a highway. - But we have never, so far as I know, objected to a jury to determine the value of the land over which the road runs. Mr. COOLIDGE. Was not the question substantially settled by the people in 1859, in adopting the amendment to the Constitution? Mr. SAWYER. Just the same as many other things have been settled. But I suppose we are here to form a new Constitution. If the old Constitution is satisfactory, then our presence here is not necessary; if it is not satisfactory, then we should make all the changes that- are needed. We hare decided that point once; so we have all points else in the Constitution. Mr. COOLIDGE. Was not this point passed uponin 1859? Mr.-SAWYER. Yes, and it might have been passed upon only two yearx ago. I believe the gentleman wanted the Legislature to meet every year, to pass upon the laws of the year before. Mr. LUCE. While gentlemen who live in the city are trying to arrange matters so far as cities are concerned, I have nothing to say. But when they undertake to go out into the country and arrange matters there, I have a word to say. I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. SAWYER.) In the sec tion of the country where I reside, we like very much to have this provision in the Constitution. We do not want to be required to call a jury every time we lay out a road. That was objec tionable, until the Constitution was amended, sq as to do away-with that necessity. I am satisfied that amend ment works well, more satisfactorily than the Constitution did before that amendment was made to it. I trust the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee will not be adopted, whatever may be done in regard to the other. amendments. Mr. MUSSEY. Does the gentleman object to striking out the words, "the necessity for such taking "? Mr. LUCE. That applies to cities, and I have no objection to it. But the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. SAW PER,) insists that there is no difference betweeen the city and the county in this respect, but that we should have ?the-same rule in the county, that they CON.UUTIONAT,, CONVENTION. Wed'nesday, 848 -ugust 14, 1867. DEBATES AA._.E.E.DI....i._ have in the city. The difference was well explained by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. FE-aS,)' the other day. Cities are all incorporated by special act; they get things through which the majority of the Legislature know nothing about. But taking property in townships is regulated by general law, and that, perhaps, is the reason why a different rule should apply in cities, from what should apply in the country. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. SAWYER; to strike out, of the last sentence the words "except a public highway;" and it was not agreed to. The question then was upon the amendment of Mr. STOUGHTON, to insert in the first sentence, after " or for private roads," the words 4 without the consent of the owner;" also to strike out the last sentence of the section. Mr. STOUGIETON. I desire to say a word, and but a word, in answer to the argument of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) It seems to me that the very able argument of that gentleman, and his earnestness have given a wrong appearance to this question. He has asked us with a great deal of earnestness, if a man own a piece of property in a city worth a hundred thousand' dollars, whether it would be right for the city authorities to be permitted to run a street through that property. That might be wrong, and that is one of the abuses that would be prevented by my amendment. Should the Legislature by any possible means pass a law to take that man's property from him, without giving him just compensation, the law would be unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court would correct the evil. If we have a principle annunciated in the Constitution, it would be better than all the entanglements we can put in there about juries, commissioners, or anything of the kind. Put in the principle that private property shall not be taken for any purpose, without 'ust compensation made; and we can safely leave at least something to the action of the Legislature. This will be no greater power in their hands, than in a vast many other cases, where they have the right to make laws, which laws can be amended if not right in the first place. It is proper for us to take into consideration the facts, and the consequences that would flow from the adoption of this Constitution, in case the latter portion of this section is retained. I apprehend if it is retained it will destroy the practical operation of the charters of almost every village and ,ity in the State. In almost every case YO(; 2-No. 107. the common councils of cities and the boards of trustees of villages are authorized to decide upon the necessity of taking land for streets and highways, and to appraise the damages. In all such cases an appeal lies to the circuit court; and when a case is so appealed, the court can appoint a jury or commissioners to report to the court upon the case. So that it leads back to just where we started. I insist that we ought not to have these entanglements in the Constitution. Mr. WITHEY. I understand the gentleman from St. Joseph to say that, inasmuch as there is a provision here that private property shall not be taken without just compensation, if just compensation is not awarded, then the taking of the property is unconstitutional. I ask the gentleman if the Legislature gives a common council power to determine that just compensation, and they determine it, is there any court Qf review who can say they have not awarded just compensation? Is not their decision upon the question of just compensation final and conclusive? There' is no appeal upon that question. Mr. WILLIAMS. I would ask one other question. Where does the gentleman from St. Joseph (Mr. STOUGHTON,) find the law authorizing the common council of any city, or the board of trustees of any village, to appraise the damages? The Constitution expressly requires that the damages shall be assessed by a jury of freeholders; and the Supreme Court have decided that that jury must consist ef twelve men. Mr. PURCELL. That is the rule applied in our city charter. The common council of the city of Detroit simply determine upon the necessity of opening a street. They then order a jury, and the jury determine the amount of compensation. When the amount of compensation is determined, they report the amount to the common council. And-in case the party whose property is taken is not satisfied that he has been awarded a just amount of compensation, he has the right.to go before the recorder's court of the city of Detroit on appeal. That is the law under the present charter. If the amendments proposed here are adopted,' then it will interfere with the arrangements entered upon this spring in the city of Detroit, so far as street opening cases are concerned. We voted a very large amount of money this spring for that purpose; and there is no tax our peQple pay more cheerfully than that for opening streets in the city. I should hope that, so far, as the city of DetrQit is c~oa cerned, the law will not be changed; it operates very well. Mr. WITHEY. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question? Mr. PURCELL. Yes, sir; certainly. Mr. WITHElY. If the motion of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRNnGLE,) should prevail, and the words "the necessity for such taking, and," should be stricken out, will not that leave the provision so as to protect the interests of Detroit? Mr. PURCELL. It will. Mr. WITHEY. I suppose there is no great contest over that part, I am objecting to the amendment of the gentleman from SK Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON.) Mr. LUCE. What will become of the motion of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) to amend this part that is proposed to be stricken out? Should not the question be taken on his motion first? The PRESIDENT. The amendment of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) is an amendment to the motion of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) to recommit with instructions to amend, and if adopted, the question will then be upon the motion as amended. Mr'PRINGLE. Is not the motion of the gentleman from St. Joseph to strike out the remaining words of the latter clause of the section, to add to the words I propose to strike out, the words which he proposes to strike out? Mr. STOUGHTON. My motion is to strike out all of the last sentence of the section. Mr. PRINGLE. What will be the effect upon my motion, should the Convention refuse to agree to the instructions made by the gentleman from St. Joseph? Would the question still be taken on my motion? The PRESIDENT. The question would still be taken upon the motion of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE;) the motion of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) being simply an amendment to the instructions. Mr. MUSSEY. Is the amendment of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) divisible? If so, I would ask for a separate vote upon that portion of the amendment which proposes to insert the words "without the consent of the owner," in the first sentence of the section. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that it is divisible. Mr. MUSSEY. Then I call for a division of the question. The PRESIDENT. The first question will then be upon inserting the words "without the consent of the QerE" in the fir~t sentences so that i 3 f I 'DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS 849 August.1 14, -1867. 85 COSIUTOA CO- NI~ - -*e n 0 a, that portion of the section will read "Private property shall not be taken for public use, or for private roads,. without the consent of the owner, unless the necessity for such taking, and the just compensation to be paid therefor, shall have first been ascertained and determined, and the compensation therefor paid or tendered in such manner as shall be prescribed by law." The question was taken; and upon a division, ayes 34, noes 18, that portion of the amendment of:Mr. STOUGHTON was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The next ques'tion is upon that portion of the Iamendment of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) which proposes to strike out the last sentence of the section, as follows: * Whenever private property shall be taken lor any purpose without the limits of any incorporated city or village, except a public highway, the necessity fIr the taking thereol; and the amount of compensation to be paid therefor, shall be first ascertained and determined by a jury of twelve Ireeholders, or three commissioners appointed by a court of record; and whenever such property shall be taken within the limits of any incorporated city or village, the necessity for such taking and the amount of compensation to be paid therefor, qhall be first ascertained and deter mined by a jury of twelve freeholders." Mr. CONGER. I wish to make one remark here; that is, I think, without having had inuch time to examine the question, that if this provision is left to stand as it is now, not a city or village corporation in the State but what would have to get its charter amended to meet the requirements of this pro vision. I am in favor of establishing the principle here that the manner of determining the necessity for taking private property, and the compensation to be paid for it, shall be provided by law; to leave it to the Legislature, to assimilate that matter, as they have heretofore, to the charters of our cities and villages. I think it is a matter that can be safely left to the Legislature. Mr. COOLIDGE. I wish to ask the gentleman a single question. Mr. CONGER.' Very well. Mr. COOLIIDGE. I would ask how this provision can require the amendment of our city and village charters, when the second section of the article entitled "Miscellaneous Provisions," in our present Constitution is in precisely the same language of this provision'? Mr. P. 1. WARNER. I desire to inquire Mr. CONGER. I yielded the fdoorl for an inquiry merely. The provision in the present Constitution in regard to-cities and villages, is section fifteen of the article entitled "'Corporations," and is as follows: "Pivate property shall not be taken for public improvements in: cities and villages without the consent of the owner, unless the compensation thereflor shall first be determiued by a jury of freeholders, and actually paid or secured in the manner prescribed by law." In section two, of the article entitled Miscellaneous Provisions," in m the present Constitution, is asserted the general principle, as follows: When private property is taken or the usc or benefit of the public, the necessity for using such property, and the just compensation to be made therefor, except when to be made by the State, shall be ascertained by a jury of twelve freeholders," etc. There is'the assertion of the principle that the necessity for the using shall be determined. Under the other section which I have read, the necessity for taking the property must be determined in some way, just as it is provided for in the first part of this section. These two provisions of our present Constitution must be construed together, and have been construed together by our courts. There are three provisions, if I remember aright, in our present Constitution, in regard to the taking of private property, scattered at random through the Constitution. Here they are intended to be all brought together in one provision. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I wish to inquire how it can be possible for the Convention to act upon the amendment of the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) after they refuse to strike out this last sentence as proposed by the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHLON?) My understanding would be that the effect of the vote against the proposition of the gentleman from St. Joseph, would be that this portion of the section would stand, and that any further amendment to it would not be in order. The PRESIDENT. The Chair understands the motion of the gentleman from Jackson (Mr. PRINGLE) to be a motion to recommit with instructions,not a simple motion to' amend the section. And the motion of the gentleman from St. Joseph (Mr. STOUGHTON) is not a motion to amend the section, but a motion to amend the instructions. Mr. P. D. WARNER. Taking that view of the question, I should be in favor of striking out, unless the amendment of the gentleman from Jackson (Mr. PRINGLE) could be adopted. I am in favor of the adoption of that amendment, believing it to/be just in its application to cities and villages. I believe that no private interest would ever suffer by the adoption of that amendment. I believe it to be competent-for the common councils of cities, and the boards of trustees of villages to determine the necessity of taking private property for public use, and that a jury of twelve men ought to determine'the compensation for that property. While I am in favor of the amendment of the gen tieeman from Jackson, if it is adopted, then I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON.) If I could vote first for the amendment of the gentleman from Jackson, I could better judge of the character of my action in regard to the other amendment. Mr. FERRIS. I do not wish to take up much of the time of this Convention in the discussion of this subject. For one, I am in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Jackson, (IMr. PRINGLE;) and I am not at all in favor of the proposition to amend the instructions as proposed by the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON.) But I rise more for the purpose of calling attention to the exact state of the case, than for the pu pose of entering upon any argument. It has been suggested here in this discussion, that if we retain the portion of this section which it is proposed to strike out, we shall affect nearly every city and village charter in the State. Perhaps if we retain the words which the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PIrNGLE,) proposes to strike out, that may be true; but if these words are stricken out, and the rest of the section is retained, then it is not true, because the very precise principle which the gentleman from St. Joseph (Mr. STOUGHTON,) proposes to strike out has been the fundamental law of this State for the last seventeen years, under which every one of these cities and villages have been organized. Now I say, with all due respect to the gentleman who is arguing in favor of this motion, hat here is an attempt to bring in a new principle that will operate unjustly,and injuriously to people in the cities and villages, and enable interested parties to ride roughshod over our rights, to take our property at their whim and their will, and give us what they please, and withhold from us what they please for-it. a It has been suggested to me, by a friend here in private conversation, that we can trust the Legislature in this matter. Sir, we. cannot dol any such thing as to trust the Legislature in this matter. These corporati6ns are created usually. by special enactment, and nobody seems. to feel any particular interest in them, except the members who may represent the particular locaiities to-be affected. We understand very well how that things works. Whereas, when ypu propose a change in a general law, such as the general highway law of the State, all the members feel interested in it, and look to it carefully. When it is proposed to amend the charter of Grand Rapids, or any other prtieUlar locality, the public generally [CONSTI'.L'UTIONAL CONVENTION.. 'Wednesda -Y) A~~~gu~~~~t 14~ l~~~~~~~~67. DEBAT'1~~~~~~~~~~~S AND FR oa1~~~~~~~~~~~~~E~~t~~~G~~~ 851~~~ feel no interest in it; members repre senting other localities take no interest in it. They rely upon the statements of the member who represents that particular locality; if he says it is all right, it will go through. It is not safe to trust to the Legislature these matters in which the public are not uniformly interested. I call for the yeas and nays on the proposition of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON.) Mr. WITHEY. In reference to the remarks of the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) I desire to say that I am satisfied he has not given careful attention to this subject, or he would not have complainedof this pro vision as he did. We have for seven teen years, as was said by my colleague, (Mr. FERtIS,) lived under precisely the pr6vision we shall have if this section prevails as it now stands, with the ex ception of the words which-the gentle man from Jackson (Mr. PRINGLE,) pro posed to have stricken out. Mr. CONGER. Will the gentleman allow me to- interrupt him a moment? Mr. WITHEY. Certainly. Mir. CONGER. I said, if this pro vision remains without amendment I did not confine my remarks to amend ments which were proposed to be acted on, but to the section-as we had it be fore us. Mr. WITHEY. The gentleman was understood by me, and I think by oth ers also to assert the broad proposition that unless this last sentence was stricken out, as proposed by the gen tleman from St. Jose.ph, (Mr. STGUGHTON,) it would affect injuriously the charter of every city in the State. As I have said, I am entirely satisfed to have the Convention strike out the words proposed by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) to be stricken out. With those words stricken out, it will leave the provision of the Constitution-to stand precisely as it has stood for the last seventeen years. I hope, thereforesythe motion of the gentleman from St. Joseph will not prevail. In regard to the motion of the gentleman from Jackson, I sball make no objection.:The question recurred upon the mo: tion of Mr. STOUGHTON, to amend the instructions so as to include the: striking out of the following portion of; the section: "Whenever private property shall be taken for any purpose without the; limits of any incorporated city or village, except a public highway, the necessity tmr the taking thereot, and the amount of compensation tat be paid therefor, shall he first ascertained and determiued by a jury of twelve freeholders, or three commissioners appointed Dy a court of record; and whenever such property shall be taken within the limits ot any incorporated city or village,.the necessity for such taking, and the amount Ql eo~ompeiation to be paid I SEcTiON 3. The Legislature shball probibit public officers receivingor having charge of public moneys, from using or employing the same in any manner fob their private use or benefit, and shall provide that whenever such moneys are deposited with any person or corporation, the interest thereon shall be paid to the fund to which such moneys be long. SECTION 4. Private property shall not be taken for public use, or for private roads, without the consent of the owner, unless the necessity for- such taking, and the just compensation to be paid theretor, shall have first been ascertained and -deter mined. and the compensation therefor paid or tendered in such manner as shall bepre scribed by law. Whenever private property shall be taken for any purpose, without the limits of any incorporated city or village, ex cept a public highway, the necessity fior the taking thereof; aid the amount of compensa tion to.be paid therefor, shall be first ascer tained and determined by a jury of twelve treeholders, or three commissioners appointed by a court of record; and whenever such property shall be taken within the limits of any incorporated city or village, the amount of compensation to be paid therefor, shall be first ascertained and determined by a jury of twelve freeholders. SECTION 5. The Legislature may.authorize the construction of dams acrOss navigsable streams, and the improvement of the naviga tion thereof; but such authority shall not in terfere with the public right to the use of any such stream for any purpose of which it was susceptible before such dam was built or improvement made. The article was then referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseolgy, for arrangement in the Constitution in its numerical order. AMENDMENT AND REVISION OF THE CONSTI - TUTION. The PRESIDENT. The next arti cle upon the order of third reading is the article entitled " Amendment and Revision of the Constitution.": The article was then read the third time. The question was upon the passage of the article. Mr. BILLS. I ask unanimous consent to have made a transposition of one of the clauises in this article.:The first section provides how amendments may be made to the Constitution; the second section -provides how the: Constitution may be revised. The last clause of the second section reads as follows-"-All amendments shall take effect at the commencement of the year after their adoption, except as otherwise provided:by law, or by this Constitution." That undoubtedly is intended to apply to the first section of the article, as it qualifies that section. I would, therefore, Suggest that it be transposed from the end of the second section to the end of the first section... Mr. NINDE. My attention has been called to this matter heretofore. But it wile be seen by reference to. the second section that it contains the words" to revise or amend the Consti..:.................. tutlQn.: Mr.' - $ nt Wo ti.hat highway, the necessity for the tion was ainended accordingly. sage of the article; and being taken it resulted -yeas 73, nays 3, as follows Barber, Birney, Blackman, Bradley, Brown Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Crock er, Danielli', Deiioyers, Divine, Duncan, Dun cumbe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Ger main, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes Holt, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Lamb, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McClelland MConncll, McKernan, Miles; Miller, Morton Mussey, Mugrave, Ninde, Norris, Princrie [)urcell, Rafter, Richmond, Root, Shearer Shebion, T. G. Smith, Stuckwell, Stuuhton Sutherland, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Val kenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M C Watkins, F. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winans, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Yeomans, and the President-73. The PRESIDENT. A majority of the members elected -to this Convention having voted therefor, the article entitled Miscellaneous Prov isions" i passed. - The article as passed is as follows: SEcTION 1. Members of the Legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirmtn) that I will support the Constitution of the. United States, and the Constitution of this State, and that I will faithfully discharge ,the duties of the office of, according to the best of my ability." SECTION 2. Judicial and legislative proceedings shall be conducted, and the laws and public records promulgated and preserved-in the linglih language., D. B'ARPIMS AND, P'ROCIM]tDtl!GSO 861 Au-,',upAt 14-, 1867. 852 COSITUTIOAL ()ONvETIO. Wednesday, the clause which I have read qualifies simply the first section? Mr. NINDE. I do not know how that is. Mr. CONGER. If that clause was put in as section three, would it not then qualify both sections? Mr. BILLS. Perhaps it might. Mr. BIRNIEY. If it applies to amendments made by a convention, it should be in the same section. Mr. BILLS. Revision is not amendment. The Convention revising a Constitution may and in all cases probably will provide when the revised Constitution shall go into effect. We here can provide when amendments shall go into effect. I apprehend the distinction is a good one, for amendments are not revision. Still I have no purpose other than to procure such a transposition as will make the section read properly. Mr. BLACKMAN. -am of the opinion that it would be more proper to have the clause referred to by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILS,) attached to the first section. The sec ond section provides for "a convention to revise or amend the Constitution." If amendments are made by a conven tion, instead of by a Legislature, the convention would fix the time for the amendments to go into effect, the same that they would in the case of an en tire revision. It seems to me it would be more proper to attach that clause to the first section, and to consider it as applying to amendments made by the Legislature. Mr. COOLIDGE. Can anything be made more definite than the following clause of the first section of this arti cle? ",,And if a majority of the electors quali fled to vote for members of the Legislature, voting on the amendment or amendments proposed,, shall ratify and approve such amendment or amendments, the same shall become a part of the Constitution." That means instanter; it can have no other meaning. That is as definite as anything can be made. If it is a "part of the Constitution," that is enough. I do not think anything need be at tached to that section. Mr. BILLS. I ask unanimous con sent to make the transposition I have suggested; or to make the clause a sep arate section. Mr. COOLIDGE. I have no objec tion to its being made a separate sec tion. But if you attach it to the first section, you make the separate clauses of that first section contradict each other. Mr. GIDDINGS. I object to the change proposed. -—. The question recurred upon the pas sage of the article; and being taken, re suited yeas 71, nays 4, as follow;: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapin, Chapman. Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Lamb, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McConnell, McKernan,: Miller, Morton, Murray, Musgrave, Ninde, Pringle, Purcell, Rafter, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner Tyler. Utley, VanValkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard Winans, Wisnor, Withey, Williams, and Yeomans-71. NAYs-Messrs. McClelland, Norris, Richmond, and Shearer-4. The PRESIDENT. A majority of the members elected to this Convention having voted therefor, the article entled,Amendments and Revision of the Constitution," is passed. The article as passed is as follows: SECTION 1. Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in the Senate or House of Representatives. Ift the same be agreed to by two-thirds of the members elected to each House, such amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals respectively, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and the same shall be submit ted to the electors at such time as the Legis lature shall prescribe. And if a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of the Legislature, voting on the amendment or amendments proposed, shall ratity and ap prove such amendment or amendments, the same shall become a part of the Constitution. SECTION 2. At any time after the first day of January, A. D. 1880, the Legislature may provide for a Convention to revise or amend the Constitution. The question ot the revis ion or amendment shall be submitted to the, electors, qualified to vote for members of the Legislature, in such manser as may be pro vided by law. And in case a majority of the electors voting at such election, on such question, shall decide in favor of a Conven tion, for such purpose, the Legislature, at the next session thereafter, shall provide by law, for the election of delegates to such Convention. All amendments shall take ef fect at the commencement of the year after their adoption, except as otherwise provided by law, or by this Constitution. The article was then referred to the committee on arrangement and phrase ology, for arrangement in the Consti tution in its numerical order. ;... LEGISLATIVE nEPARTMENT. Mr. HENDERSON. Cannot the ar ticle on the legislative department be reached by a motion that it now be put upon its passage? The article as amended is printed in our journals. The PRESIDENT. That article is next on the order of third-reading, but the printed copies ordered by the Con vention are not yet ready. Mr. HENDERSON. I move that the article on the legislative depart ment be now put upon its passage. The PRESIDENT. That is the next article in order; no motion is necessary. The article entitled "Legislative Department" was then read the third time. The question' was upon,the' passage of the:rticle.. Mr. BIRNEY. I shall feel constrained to vote against this article as it now stands; not because there are not a great many things in it with which I entirely agree, for the article in the main I heartily approve. But this article contains a clause fixing the power of the Legislature in regard to a sumptuary law, which it seems to me is entirely unnecessary. I do not come to this conclusion in regard to my duty in reference to this article from any view of party policy, but simply because my judgment leads me to the conclusion that such a restriction is not for the good of the greatest number of the citizensof the State of Michigan. It seems to me that any member of this Convention sent here with the authority which has been given him, depreciates his office i} he allows a matter of mere policy, of party interest, to determine his conclusion upon a question of this kind. I consider that I am delegated or sent here as the representative of' my con stituents, not committed to any par ticular measure, without pledge, and for the purpose of doing that which my judgment leads nme to believe for the best. Now, I have come to the conclusion that, if this prohibitary clause is left in our organic law, instead of diminish ing a great evil which all deplore, it will be the means incidentally of in creasing that evil.' It will not stay its progress, but rather give acceler ation to it. It appears to me that every one of us would agree -to the fact,- that- we are not to consider the intertsts of the few, of a portion of the people, but of the great mass of the people. Look abroad over this State, and we see that intoxicating liquors can be obtained by any one. -Instead of there beingprohibition there is universal permission. This being an evil of this kind, it appears to me we might adopt the same measure in regard to any other evil. A very intelligent physician remarked to me a few days ago that he believed there was more injury done to the peo ple of this State by the use of tobacco than there was by the use of intoxicat ing liquors. That may be an opinion formed upon not the best data, but nevertheless it is his opinion. I fre quently notice men who are very ardent temperance men as it is termed, yet who are addicted to the use of tobacco to an extent injurious to their consti tutions. But I do not consider it my duty to aid'in adopting a law to re strict their personal liberty in that par ticular. ---—. There is a very extensive use: of opium, which is said to be very injur t9oUs to those who are addicted to it, COXS'.UIT'-U-TIOXAL CON V"PNTIOX. A,Fxr dnesd IF -e ay2 852 Au~ — 14 186... \ -T Af._CE I._..! If such a provision as this is good in regard to one particular evil, it is good in regard to another. And we should therefore have a provision here restricting the sale of opium. We find that when there is a restriction it tends to promote the use. Allowing liquors to be sold by druggists, apothecaries, etc., instead of restricting their use for ordinary purposes, the use obtains generally. Now I am opposed to this because it makes itself a political question; it makes it a part of the organic law of the State, and hence tends to cause those efforts by moral suasion against the evil to diminish. We notice that there is s(.arcely any effort made in the way which was so common years ago, in order to prevent persons from using intoxicating liquors. When there is a statute upon the subject, it deters persons from the means formerly adopted. That, it seems to me, is a source of harm, and prevents the diminution of an evil, which we all desire to see diminished. : I am also opposed to the introduct-ion of the provision here, because it continues it during the existence of this Constitution should it be adopted, and prevents any change in that particular. So far as I have noticed there are pe riodical changes in the public mind, in regard to the best mode of effecting a- diminution of evils of this kind. At one time one method is considered best, at another time another method is preferred. We have the opinion of some of the very best men in the coun try, men of the most experience-and of the greatest ability, who have come to the conclusion that a restriction of this kind does not prevent the evil, that it is a failure for the purpose designed. Now, if any good can be effected by the use of moral means, I would not insert a clause in the Constitution which would tend to prevent the use of those means. It appears to me that this clause has had that effect heretofore, and that it will continue to have that effect. And furthermore, it is entirely con clusive to my mind that a lawnthat is not sustained by a majority of the people will not be enforced. All laws of this kind must depend upon the moral convictions of the people; and if they are not with the law, that law will not be enforced, but will be practically a dead letter. I do not believe it accords with the moral convictions of -a majority of: the people, that it is best to interfere with their own judgment in regard to what they shall eat, or what they shall drink. They deem themselves the best judges in regard to those matteru; and go far m we- interfere with them, we adopt a law which falls short of its purposes and accomplishes but little good. I think I have noticed influences operating upon the minds of members here, which it seems to me should not operate upon them in matters of this kind. The idea seems to be that they have been elected here upon an issue of this kind, or that there were certain coteries or interests in their particular neighborhoods which induced them to come to the conclusion that this provision must be in the Constitution, whether for the best or not. It seems to me that no member canproperly be influenced in that way; but that he should;determine to do that, as I remarked before, which is for the best good of the greatest number. Notwithstanding a mere iocal influence or interest may have sent him here, he should, nevertheless, use the authority given him to enact such an organic law as will be for the best good of the whole State. Under our system of government we are tolerant; we are tolerant in re ligious matters; we should be tolerant in matters of this kind, in what may-be called sumptuary laws.- We should not curtail the liberties of persons un til they revolt against the oppression. I am opposed to the insertion of this provision here, because I- do not think it will meet with the approbation of the majority of the people. And in order that this Constitution, or any provision of it, may be- effective, it should be one which will meet-with the favor of the people. We are here to do not that simply which is for the best, but that which the people will approve and justify, and be governed by. We do not finally enact the organic law; we merely submit it to the people. And in seeking to provide such a law,: we must be govered by what we con sider to be the choice of the people, and not force a regulation upon them, which has strength simply because it is incorporated with other regulations which are good and wholesome. Mr. HENDERSON. The remarks made by the gentleman from Bay (Mr. BIRNEY,) seem to make. itmneces sary that I should make an explanation of the vote which I expect to cast, be cause I expect to vote against this arti cle. And lest by implication I might be thought to vote against it for reasons which the gentleman has given, and to which I cannot possibly subscribe, I simply wish to state that it is-for other and entirely different reasons. Nor would I desire to be placed where he has placed many of this Convention under the ban- of pledges. I never could consent to hold:any seat in a body like thiis at'the expenl Qif pledges. I act independently in this place. I expect,to vote against this article, but not for the reasons'assigned by the gentleman from Bay. The question was then taken upon the passage of the article; and it resulted, yeas 28, nays 51, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Andrus, Bills, Blackman, Case, Chapin, Divine, Harris, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Lovell, McConnell, Miller, Musgrave Root, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Tyler, Van Valkenburgh, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Williams, and Wright-28. NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Barber, Birney, Bradley. Brown, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmner, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Lamb, Longyear, Luce, McClelland, McKernan; Miles, Murray, Mussey, Ninde, Norris, Pringle, Purcell, RafLer, Richmond Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Turner, Utley, Walker, P. D. Warner, F. C. Watkins, Winans, Winsor, Withey, Yeomans, and the Presidenrt-51. During the call of the roll the'following explainations were made by members:: Mr.- BRADLEY. If the question was simply to:-retain thoe clause'r hibiting the grant of license "for the sale of intoxicating liquors, I should vote "yes." But there are other serious objections to this article, sufficient to lead me to vote against it, with the opportunity of further reference — and revision. - Mr. MURRAY. I deem it due to myself to explain my vbte on this - casion. Having voted for this article and all the amendments to it, of course I could not be seriously-opposed to it. But, believing it to be one of the most important articles this Convention is to pass upon, and believing it to be uinwise to pass it against the views o'a majority of the Convention,: I shall vote "no," in the hope that it mnay be amended so as- to secure a larger num ber of votes. -- Mr. MUSSEY.- It is not often I feel called upon to explain my votes; and I shoUld not do so now, but for some re miarks made by others. So far as the objectionable clause referred to by the gentleman from Bay (Mr.:']BIRNEY) is concerned, that; is not objectionable to me. But there are -other portions of the article which are objectionable,:and with those portions im it I shall vote "no," -- Mr. SHEARER. When the prop osition was before the Convention to limit the sessions of the Legislature not to exceed fifty days, I was in favor of annual sessions. But now as it pro vides for annual sessions without limi tation, I should prefer biennial sessions, That is one of the reasons why I mut vote against this article.:.':.; Mr. ALDRICH. For reasons of,my -own, I vote;,yesa"' -~~; 4 ; The P?REIDNT. A majoio Q:c . Auzt- 14,1867. I)VIBATES AND PIROCEEDINGS. - 853 854 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Thursday, all th'e members elected to this Conveni3tion not having voted therefor, the article entitled "Legislative Department" is not passed. ORDER or BUSINE,SS. -Mr CONGER. I move- that the Convention now adjourn. Mr. LEACH. I hope the gentleman will allow us to pass the article on finance and taxation, and not press an adjurnment now. Mr. CONGER. I will withdraw the motion to adjourn. Mr. HOWARD. I moave that the article on the legislative department be recommitted to the standing com mittee, with instructions to report a s 6cion providing for biennial sessions of the Legislature. Mr. GIDDINGS. Is that motion inll order Mr. CONGER. I withdrew my motion only for the purpose of taking up the article on finance and taxation. Mr. HOWARD. Then I hope we may have a vote on that motion, and vote -it down, and then I will renew my motion. .The PRESDENT. The motion to adjourn was withdrawn,, to allow the gentleman from Grand Traverse (Mx. LEAcH,) to call up, the article on finance and taxation. M r. HOWARD. I hope the gentleman:- from Grand Traverse will withdraw that motion, until we can dispose -of this article., Mr. LEACH. It will take but a few minutesto pass it. - Mr. LUCE. I have an objection to the, article on finance and taxation. I-would very much prefer not to be called upon to vote upon the passage of that article now;-, I would preferthat the article remain until printed in bill form, as the other articles have been. Mr. CONGER. If there is any objection- to passing that article now, I presume it will not be -urged, as it has not been printedin bill form yet. -Mr. LEACH. I withdraw/ the motion to take up the article.; M Mr. CONGER. I renew the motion that the Convention now adjourns. - The motion was agreed to, upon a division; ayes 40, noes 33.:, -. The Convention (at 5 o'clock p. m.) accordingly adjourned.' -:: * $S1XTY-EICHTH -DAY., - THURSDAY, AUgust 15, 1867. -The Convention met:at nine o'clock a m., anidl was caued Ato order by the PRESIDENT. - i:'Prayer by Retv. Mr. ZE., -- - The roll was called, and -a quorum of /e~mbers:nswered.to t'i anlme,. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Hr. HOWARD. I wish to ask for indefinite lIave of absence for myself after to-morrow, on account of anin creasing indisposition. Leave was accordingly granted. M~r. DANIELLS. I ask leave of absence for myself for this forenoon. Leave was accordingly granted. CORPORATIONS OTHER —THAN MUNICIPAL. Mr. NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, made the following report: The committee on arrangement and phra seology, to whom was referred Article -. entititled "'Corporations other than Mn nicipal;," respectfully report that they have had the same under-consideration, and have directed me to report the same back to the Convention with some corrections, recom mending that the same be concurred in, and ask to be discharged from the further consid eration of the subject. T. NINDE, Chairman. The report was received, and the committee discharged... -. The article as corrected was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed at large in the journal It is as follows: SECTION 1. Organizations for the construc tion of railroads, tor the purpose of banking, insurance, mining, telegraphing, transacting business as common carriers, and religious societies, shall be incorporated under general laws. No special charter shall be granted, nor shall the franchises given thereby be en larged without the assent of two-thirds of the members elect to each House. Every act passed pursuant to this section may be amended,'altered or repealed by a majority vote of the menibers elect to each House. SECTION 2. The stockholders of every cor poration or association for banking purposes, issuing bank notes or paper credits, to circu late as money, shall bhe individually liable- for. all debts contracted during the term of their being stockholders of such corporation or as sociation, equally and ratably to the extent of their respective shares of stock in any such corporation or association. SECTIoN 3. The Legislature shall provide for the registry of all bills or notes issued or put in circulation as money, by any bank or ganized under the laws of this State and shall require security to the full amount of notes and/bills so registered, in interest bear ing stocks of this State, or- the United States, which shall be deposited with the State Treas urer, tor the redemption of such blls or notes n lawful money of the United States. SECTION 4. In case of the insolvency of any bank or banking association, the bill-holders thereof shall be entitled to preference in pay ment over all other creditors of such bank or association.- -... .SECTION:5. The;;Legislature shall pass no law authorizing or sanctioning the suspen sion. ot payments by any corporation. - SEcTIoN 6. The Legislature shall pass no law:altering or amending any act of incorporation granted prior to the first day of Jannary, eighiteen hundred and flfty.une, without the assent of. two-thirds of the members elected teach House. No such act shall be renewed or extended.:. - SECTION 7. NO corporation shall hold any real estate f'or alonger period than ten years Irom the time of acquiring the same, unless /such real estate shall be; actually. occupied by such corporation in the exercisseof its'frau.,'chis'e'B.'"eNo'real, estate shall hereafter, be, :withheld from:m'arket or a- longer time than ten years, for the use or benefit of any corporation. SECTION 8.: The stockholders in any corporation shall be individually. liable for all labor done in behalf of such corporation during the time of their being such stockholders, equally and ratably to the extent of their respective shares in the stock of such corporation. SALARIES. MHr. NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, also made the following report: The committee on arrangement and phra seology, -to whom was referred Article entitled "Salaries," respectfully report that they -have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report the same back to the Convention with some corrections, rec ommending, that the same be concurred in, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. T. NINDE, Chairman. The report was received, and the committee discharged. The article as corrected was laid upon the table, and ordered printed at large in the journal. It is as follows: SECTION 1.: The Governor shall receivean annual salary of three- thousa nd dollars. The Secretary of State shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The State Treasurer: shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five hundred dollars. The Commis sioner of the State Land Office shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five hun dred dollars. The Auditor Gene'al shall re ceive an annual salary of twenty-five hundred dollars. The Attorney General shall receive an annual salary of two thousand -dollars. The Judges of the Supreme Court shall each receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars... The Judges of the Circuit Court shall each receive an annual salary of three thousa'nd dollars. The -above named officers shall not be entitled to any fees or perquisites for the performance of the duties of their respective offices, but all perquisites received shall be paid into the State treasury., It shall not be competent for the Legislature to increase the salaries herein provided. SECTION 2. The Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Commissioner of the State Land Office, and Auditor General shall superintend in person the duties of their respective offices. - PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, also made the following report: The committee on arragement and phraseology, to whom it was referred to prepare a preambe to the Constitution, respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration and have directed me to report the accompanying preamble, and ask to be . discharged from the further consideration of the subject...... T. NINDE, Chairman., The report was received, and the committee discharged. The question was upon agreeing to the preamble, which was as follows: IWe, the people:.of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for civil and. religeious liber.ty, do ordain this Constitution. MIr. BLiACMK N. While I believe there-'was n'o' objection.: on the partQof any of the'committee to that i;preamble, g0 far'a Ad -'tent, * ome'of the as' CONSTI'll"tTfl'IONAT4 CONVEN'.VIOX. .854 Th'Ur d a-r-, DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. mittee rather preferred one a little more full. For the purpose of bring ing the matter before the Convention, and giving members an opportunity to choose, I offer the following as a sub stitute for the preamble reported by the committee "We the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ru ler of nations, for civil and religious liberty and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance thereof to us and our posterity, do ordain and establish the follow ing Constitution." Mr. WILLARD. I move that the preamble and substitute be laid upon the table for the present, and printed in the journal. Mr. VANVAT,KENBURGH. Would it be in order to offer an amendment to the substitute, or a substitute for the substitute? The PRESIDENT. An amendment to the substitute would be in order, but not a substitute for the substitute. Mr. LAMB. I hope the gentleman from Calhoun (Mr. WILLA RD,) will withdraw his motion to lay on the table, untill the gentleman'from Oakland (Mr. VAN V~BUNBURG[,) can offer his amendment. Mr. WILLARD. I will withdraw my motion for that purpose. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I move to amend the substitute so that it shall read as follows: "We, the people of the State of Michigan, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source (f all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, and Hlis revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the inalienable rights and blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit'of happiness to ourselves, our posterity, and all the inhabitants of the land,-do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Michigan." Mr. NINDE. I move to amend still farther by adding the Nicene Creed and the Lord's prayer. i - The PRESIDENT. No farther amendment is now in order. Mr. WILLARD. I now renew the motion.to lay the preamble and pending amendment on the table. The motion was agreedt to. :SHEDULE Mr. TURNER, from the.- committee on the schedule, made the following report: The committee on schedule, to whom was referred the schedule to the present Constitution, respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report the accompanying, entitled "Schedule," recommending.that the same do pass, and ask to be discharged from the lurther consideration of the subject. JDSIAH TURNER, Chairman. The report was received and the committee discharged. The schedule was read a first and second time by its title, ordered to be printed, placed on the general order, and referred to the committee of the whole. ~LEGTSLATIVE DEPARTMENT.. Mr. MUSSEY. I move to recon sider the vote taken on yesterday upon the passage of the article entitled "Legislative Department," and which resulted in the defeat of the article. The PRESIDENT. Did the gentle man vote with the prevailing side? Mr. MUSSEY. I voted in the nega tive, which I believe was the prevailing side on that question. Mr. LAMB. I offer a substitute for that motion, which I think will more readily and directly reach the object which seems to be desired. My sub stituteo is as follows: Resolved, That the committee on the legis lative department be instructed to report to this Convention an article entitled Legislative Department, of the substance-matter of that which on yesterday failed on its passage, with the following exceptions, to-wit: That they report in proper shape for separate sub mission to the people 1st. The question of annual or biennial ses sions of the Legislature, being the substance of section 8. 2d. The question of aid to railroads, by townships, being the substance of sections 27 and 28. 3d. The question of prohibition or license for the sale of spirituous liquors, being the substance of a part of section 32. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that the question must be first taken upon the motion to reconsider. Mr. FARMER. On that question I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. MUSSEY. I do not wish to press this motion to reconsider. I re:gret that it is in a position where without unanimous consent it cannot be withdrawn. If there is any better way for us to get at the question than by reconsidering:the vote of yesterday and bringing the article once more before the Convention, so that it will be within the power of the Convention, I would be very glad to have it suggested. And I-would be glad to support any inotion, or offer any, in any other direction that would accomplish my purpose. I made ~this motibn because. I believe it is the most direct way to:get at the question, in order that we may adjust the differences and difficulties that seem to be in the way of the passage of this article., I regret to do it exceedingly, inasmuch as I have not consulted the chairman of the committee that reported the article, (Mr. -CoNGEr) I acknowledge that according to my views of good parliamentary practice, it is his province to control the article, it is shi privliege to move -to reconsider, and to give direction to it, and hence I waited until the last opportunity seemed to be passing. If there be any objection to my motion I would prefer to withdraw it now, if I can have the privilege, of doing so. If any better way can be suggested I would be willing — to agree to it. I should be willing to consult the wishes of the chairman of-the committee on the legislative department, (Mr. Cos aER.) Otherwise I shall let the Con vention determine the matter. Mr. LAMB. -I also waited on this matter, feeling the same delicacy that my friend from Macomb (Mr. MUssFy) has expressed. The question which rises in my mind is, if we reconsider thisvote,:where are we; is the matter within our power; can we amend.? Can we then recommit with in structions? The thing is a little tangled, as I view it. I have not been here through the entire discus sion upon this article; but it seems to me that the direct way of meeting the object in view, is to instruct — the com mittee on the legislative department to report a new article. I do not under take to say that I am entirely correct, but that is my view of the matter. - Questions of order must arise upon motions made after this matter shall have been reconsidered, as I under stand it..I want to receive instruction in this matter. If I am wrong, I am ready to be righted. I desire to react the matter in the most direct manner possible. I had hoped that the chairman of the committee (Mr. CONGER,). would have proposed some course. But he seems to feel as though he had performed his entire duty. And I have no doubt this Con vention will say that he has, and has done it well. Yet we have something to do; we must decide this question in some way.'Hlow shall it be? I think that the separate submission of three propositions contained in my resolution will secure for this Constitution an unparalleled majority, which it cannot receive with this article in its present shape, though a majority of the members of this Convention could be induced to vote for it here. These are my views, nothing sub rosa, but plain and specific on this point. Mir. CONGER. The particular remarks made in reference to myself, as chairman of the committee on the legislative department, make it proper for me to say that I had understood there were several propositions to be presented for the consideration of this Convention, in connection with this subject, but not- necessarily requiring that the article on the legislative d. partment should be directly before the Convention. I had-proposed, if,,n I Aluzust,,15-) 1867, .8,5 - .11, 856 GO\STITUTIO~AL (3ON~ENTIO —, -- arm- i. I -a\ I I, —u,,a, one else did so, at the proper time to move to reconsider the vote of yesterday. But I thought that it was perhaps the desire of some gentlemen to introduce their propositions, and let the Convention see what they were. When it assumes the proper form, I- will move a reconsideration of that vote, or any other member can do so. That is theway I understood gentlemen desired to have us do; to let the article remain where it is, until we had discussed some proposition connected with it. It seems to me that would be as good a course for us to pursue as any. Mr. MUSSEY. I would a3k the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoxGEri,) if he would prefer not to have the motion to reconsider submitted now? My idea was that we could reconsider the vote of yesterday, and then lay the article on the table, to be.-taken up whenever we saw fit, if it was not till a week from now. Mr. BIRNEY. If it is designed to bring this article up before the Convention, it seems to me there is no better mode to reach that end than to agree to the motion to reconsider. That will bring the article before us, and then it appears to me a motion to recommit with instructions would be in order. Mr. LUCE. Perhaps this is not the right time to get a rulirng of the Chair; still it would affect my vote. If we reconsider the vote by which this article was lost, it is proposed to recommit it to the committee on the legislative department with instructions to modify what was put in the article by the Convention by way of amendment. Could that be, done? I would also like the ruling of the Chair whether a vote could be tal en upon the proposition of the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) if the motion to reconsider shall be voted down. I have thought that would be the better way. I-would like tot understand what the ruling of the Chair would be, for that would control my vote. Mr. *LAMB. It seems to me that if we reconsider the vote of yesterday, this article will then be upon its pas sage. If the Chair would rule that while the article was upon its passage, it-could be recommitted with instructions, it would be well to reconsider it. This is a question I am not prepared to'decide; I do not know what course the Convention will take on this point. Mr. BILLS. I fee], as perhaps ev ery member upon this floor feels, an interest in regard to this matter; and yet I am a little embarrassed to determine by what method we can best re ]leve ourselves from the embarrass m et under which we are now labor ing. One thing is doubtless certain to every member, that it has become necessary for us in some manner to review our action. If the motion to reconsider shall prevail, I - suppose the article will then be again before us, and might be laid upon the table, subject to such action hereafter as the Convention may see fit to take upon it. The effect of the motion to reconsider, if it shall prevail, will be, if I- understand it, to bring the article again before us upon its final passage; I may be mistaken in that. - If not, the article will then stand as it stood yesterday, before the vote was taken upon its passage. And at that time I suppose it will be in the power of the Convention to recommit it with instructions. If I am right in that regard, that it seems to me is perhaps the most direct method of again reaching the article, so that we can act upon it in such manner as. it may be the desire of the members of the Convention to act. Mr. LONGYEAR. Would not this course obviate all the difficulties which have been suggested by gentlemen? After reconsidering the vote by which the article was defeated, the article would then, of course, be upon its passage. Then reconsider the vote by which it was ordered to its third reading, which would place it back on its second reading, and subject to the action of the Convention. It seems to me that would obviate all difficulties. Mr. MUSSEY. I will state what my view of the matter is. I know that some gentlemen are in favor of the course suggested by the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) of' having a new article reported from the committee. If that be done, then we must go through the whole routine of first and second reading, reference to the committee of the whole on the general order, and all that, which it seems to me we might avoid as well as not. If that course is taken, I think it will pro long our session, and perhaps delay our action on this subject. My view was this: if the motion to reconsider should prevail, the article t h en.will be before us on its passage. I suppose no one wwill doubt but what it will be perfectly competent for ns to then lay the article on the table for future action, or to recommit it with out instructions, or to recommit it with instructions, provided t hose instruc tions do not come in conflict with some rule. For instance, according to the r uling of the Chair on a former occa s i o n, it would not b e competent to change any words which the Conven tion have already decided shall stand in the article in their present form. That was my view of the matter; that when the vote of yesterday was iecon . sidered, any gentleman on this floor who saw fit to do so could submit a motion to recommit with instructions, if those instructions did not come in conflict with that ruling of the Chair; and a majority of the Convention, if they saw fit, could send the article back to the committee with those instructions. I think that is the shortest way, and the easiest way in which we can get the matter before us, so as to perfect the article, or put it in shape where it will meet the views of a majority of this Convention. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the motion to reconsider. Mr. LAMB. If I could understand what would be the ruling of the Chair, as to whether it would be proper, after the motion to reconsider shall prevail, to then move to recommit this article with the instructions I have named, I should be better prepared to give my vote on the motion to reconsider. But I doubt whether the Convention can reconmmit with these instructions, after the vote of yesterday shall have been reconsidered, and the article again comes up directly upon its passage. If it shall be laid upon the table, as suggested by the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) whenever it is taken from the table, the same objections will come up with it. I am a little ia the fog about this matter. The gentleman from Macomb (Mr. MussEY,) may be clear; thegentleman from Ingham (Mr. LONGYEAR,) may be clear; the President of this Convention and this entire body may be clear upon this point. But I confess I do not understand how my vote should be given, In order to give the proper opportunity for my proposition to be considered by this Convention. Mr. BRADLEY. I do not feel prepared for this reconsideration at this time. There will come a time when it will be necessary to vote on that moo tion, and to vote for it. But it has seemed to me that this subject may be reached in some other way, so that we may determine what we want, before we have a reconsideration of the vote of yesterday. I had supposed that under the order of business of "motions and resolutions," some gentleman would come forward here this morning, with something in reference to one or more quesdions, which would lead to the discussion necessary for the full un derstanding of those subjects. When the proper time comes, I shall offer something myself in that shape, if no other member does. I am not pre pared to do it just yet, because I have thought some preliminary questions might come up in debate and be de cided, before it would be necessary for 856 CONSTITUTIONAL GONVENTION. Thrusday,. 'N August~~ 1v 187 DEAE s RCE~S 5 me to come forward with any propo sition, if I did so at all. I shrink from doing it, and if I do it at all, I shall only act from a sense of impera tive duty in the matter "in regard to two or three subjects in the article which was lost yesterday. Mr. MUSSEY. In order that we may have an opportunity to harmonize, I will move that this question be post poned until half-past nine o'clock to morrow morning. If the motion to reconsider is defeated now, it cannot: again be made.. Mr. LUCE. If that is done we will not have a thing to do to-day. Mr. ]MUSSEY. So many as prefer to postpone-this question can: vote t.o do so; so many as prefer to go cn with the matter now, can vote against it. I shall prefer to go on with it now. But in order to give those who ask for fur ther time a fair chance, if a majority of the Convention wish to delay it, I am willing they should do so. If a majority of the Conveation choose to go on with the matter to-day, I''shall be satisfied. But in order that all may have a fair chance, I move to postpone until half past nine to-morrow. Mr. CONGER. I'would suggest to the gentleman from Macom"b, (Mr. Mussmy,) in view of the propositions of other gentlemen, that-: he- withdraw his motion to reconsider for the present. Mr. MUSSEY. Very well; I will ask leave to withdraw that motion. No objection being made, the motion to reconsider was withdrawn. Mr. LAMB. I now offer the resolution I read some time since, as follows: oResolved, That the committee'on the legislative department be instructed to report to this convention an article entitled "Legislative Department," of the substance matter of that which on yesterday failed on its passage, with the following exceptions, to, wit: That'they report in proper shape for separate submission to the people- - 1st. The question of annual or biennial sessions of the Legislature, being the substance of section 8. 2d. The question'of aid to railroads,'by townships, being the substance of sections 27 and 28.... 3d. The' question of prohibition or license for the sale of spirituous liquors, being the substance o! a part of section 32. And if it is agreeable to the Conven-; tion, I will now move to' lay the reso-. lution on the table. It can be called up again, whenever the majority of the Convention may desire ito consider it. Mr. NORRIS. Before'the resolution is laid upon the table, I desire to offer an amendment to it. Mr.' LAMB. Very well; I withdraw the motion to lay the resolution on the table for the present, so that the gentleman may be able to offer his amendment....' MHr. NORRIS. I move to.dd to VoL 2 —No. 108. the instructions contained in the reso lution the following clause: 4th. Upon the question of allowing every male citizen of the United States of African desbcent, the privilege of suffrage." Hr. HOWARD.- I -rise merely to ask a question. If-the- course pro posed is taken, and the committee on the legiSlative department report as reqiired by the'resolution of the-gen tieman from Lapeer, (Mr. LARm,) and the amendment of the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NoRRis,)- will that report bein such a shape that addi tional sections made be "added to it? The PRESIDENT. -If the commit tee should report a new article,' the. opinion-of -the. Chair is that it would ha've to take the same' course that' all other articles brought before the Con vention have -taken, and be subject to amendment. Mr. HOWARD... It w"il be before us as a new article, subject to amend ment or additional sections. The PRESIDENT. That is the judgment of the Chair.,... Mr. LOVFT-ILL., I would' like to i'quire whether tho' amendmient of the gentleman. fro-m, Washtenaw (Mr. Noi-, nis) is in' order at the present time. It relates to a matter upon which the Con'venition'thave already passed, anod :..,~~~~~~Jy is.*,1,.!:.e it has no refeience to the'-matter under consideration, as I understand it. I think'it'relatdes'to the article' on ele'tions,, an"d has nothing to do with'the article on the legislative department. Tihe" PRES-IDENT:. The Chair is of the opiniDn that[lthe amendment o,f the gentleman from Washtenaw (r. NORRIS) is in- order. It-' is -Siply a proposition to amend a resolution of instructions, so as to submit to the eommnittee the question to "which it relate's, with the questions embraced- in' the original resolution'.... Mr. McCLELLAND. I -would sug-, gest.to the chairman of the committe on the legislative department, (Mr. Co~(E-,) the propriety of reconsidering the vote of- yesterday upon the question.of the passage of this article. I presume there would be no objection to a reconsideration of that vote, and then the article will be in the possession-of the Convention. And then if he chooses to'move to recommit it, or to go on and reconsider' the preceding proceedings, as far'as that' may be done, it would save a great deal of time,:I think. Otherwise' we may be' detained-here some two weeks longer, and have to discuss this whole matter over again.: Mr. HENDERSON.- I desire, t offer a' substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NoRRIS.) I want to amend the original proposition, by striking out all that relates to the subject of municipalities voting aid to railroads. I do not kno6w that it can come in now, but it cm -be received, I suppose, and held in abey ance- for the present. The PRESIDENT. That' is not in order at this time, as it is not an amendment to the amendment. It can be offered hereafter. Mr. BIRNEY. I very much regret that the motion to reconsider has been withdrawn. I take it that the article having been passed upon and rejecot.ed, it is not now in the possession of the: Convention, or ofthe'committee. I-do not know but what that committee have -been discharged from the further consideration of. the article, and must have additional authority given them before: they can act again., I hope the gentleman who made the motion to reconsider will renew.it. If itpreva'ils, then the motion to recommit with instruc-. tions can be properly made. But if we get at -the matter in the wayy proposed- by the' gentleman from Iapeer, (Mr. LAM,) it will protract our session for a long time.. :.Mr. CONGER. The object I hadi' view in -proposing that the article be. left where it now is, so that the Con — vention would not be embarrassed'. by rules which.would'apply to amend-' ments, and substitutes, and motions:to recommit, was that we might if possible in some.manner get an expression, of the wish of' the majority of, this Convention, as to the course which we should pursue. If the motion to reconsider should be made and should prevail,:and the -article is before us.' again, every motion in regard to -it must' be governed by strict rules.. I apprehend we never would arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to ourselves -in. that,way., I think the quickest-may to ascertain what will be satisfactory to' the Convention, would be to propose resolutions of one kind and another, expressive of the sense of this Convention, and test the views of the membersupon them. When we have reached: some project upon- which we can unite, it will then be a very easy matter.to reconsider the vote of yesterday; we will wish to do so. Then after" we have united upon some plan which will obviate the' difficulty, and open- the dead-lock in which we - d. our-, selves, the Convention can soon dispose: of the matter. I think that is the better course for us to pursue. And whatever control of the.. matter I,; achairman of the committee on the legislative department, may be supposed to have, will be exerted so that' in some manner, by motion or resolution, this Convention: can arrive; if-possible, at some conclusion in regard toothe DF'RA'TES AN"i)- PROC, E'F.DINGS. Agu'st.,.l 18670 857 85 CO-IUIOA COV T.: hrdy subjects contained in that article.- That is why I am opposed to the motion to reconsider at this time. The article is all well enough. There are certain provisions in it about which members of the Convention differ. Let us see if we cannot harmonize upon some proposition in regard to those points of difference. Mr. VAN VALKFENBURGH. WVhatever course may be pursued upon this subject, I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Washtenaw (Mr. NORRIs,) will not prevail. We have considered in another article the subject to which his amendment relates; it has been fully discussed and decided upon there. I hope his amendment will be voted down. The feelings of the Convention upon that-subject have been very freely expressed. Mr. MUSSEY. - A single word in regard to these variouspropositions. I regret very much to see so many different propositions, and those, too, on which it is clear there is a difference of opinion in the Convention; I regret to see so many accumulating in connection with this article, which is now loaded down so heavily that it is almost impossible to move it. I have after a long time discovered that this Conven tion were very -much disinclined to come to my views about some things; they do not seem to appreciate them' as I do. There. are a great many things that they are not willing to yield. I am in a great deal the same predicament of the juryman who re ported to the judge that he had eleven men associated-with him on the jury who were mulish and stubborn, and would not yield. Now, I do not see any probability of the Convention yielding to my views. I find myself in the same predicament that the jury man was in, and I do not see how we are to get out of it.'- -. However, on the whole, I am willing to make a little effort to get into work ing order again, so that we may dis pose of this article satisfactorily. I presume that when it is passed it will not meet my views exactly; but I am going to make the best of it. Mr. BLACKMAN. Will the gentle man yield to me for a moment? Mr. MUSSEY.- Certainly; always; I want the gentleman to have his share of the time. -M. BLACKMAN. Would the gen tlenian promise to vote for the article, if we would come to his terms? Mr. MUSSEY. I was coming to tha t.-... Mr. LAMB. Mr-. President Mr.: MUSSEY. - However, - I- will yield to the -gentleman from -Lapeer, (Mr. -LAMB.) He has been gone for some time, and I want him to have his chance. Mr. LAMB. I have no desire to raise a point of order at any:time. But I would like to know what is the- question now before the Convention? The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the amendment of -the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIS.) Mr. LAMB. Let us have that question, if you please. Mr. NORRIS. Of course I have not the bad taste to rise to discuss this matter. I thought it simply my duty to present the amendment I have offered. I thought it possible that in the omnibus brought forward by the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) there might be one seat for the minority. Mr. LAMB. Not of that kind. Mr. NORRIS. I call for the yeas and nays on my amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken, and the amendment was not agreed to; yeas 19,- nays 62, as follows: - YEAS-Messrs. Alexander, Andrus, Case, Chapman, Crocker, Desnoyers,;. Giddings, Hixson, McClelland,- McKernan, Morton, Ninde, Norris, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Shearer, Sutherland and Winans-19. NAYs:-Messrs. Aldrich, Barber, Bills, Birney, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Chapin, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain,' HIarris, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Howard,- Huston, Kenney, Lamb, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McConnell, Miles, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Pratt, Pringle, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Thompson, Turner, Tyler,' Utley, Van Valkenburgh, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins, White, Willard,:Winsor, Withey Williams, Wright, Yeomans, and the President-62. Mr. PRINGLE, (when his name was called,) said:: While -I do not wish to explain my vote, for that is not my habit, I wish to say that I think it very likely that the proposition refer red to in the amendment of the gentle man from Washtenaw (M-r.- NORRIs) will be needed to carry through some other parts of the instrument we are framing. Hence:I cannot vote for this amendment.. I vote i" no." The question recurred upon the resolution submitted by Mr. LAMB. Mr.' H ENDERSON. I move to amend that resolution by sriking out all that relates to the subject of muni cipalities voting aid to railroads. Mr. LAMB.: -I gave way in order to allow the — gentleman from Washtenaw (Mr. NoaRis,) to move his amendment upon the subject of instructions. -While that was pending, the gentleman fom Calhoun (Mr. HENDRRSoN,) came in with a proposition which I consider not strictly in order, there being a pend ing question, and his proposition not relating tq the question pending before the Convention. I claim my right now, without allowing anymotion to amend, to make the motion that this resolution be laid on the table. Mr. HENDERSON. I was not aware that the gentleman gave way for any such purpose. I have no desire to press the matter; I do not wish to embarrass the action of the Convention at all, and therefore I will withdraw my amendment. Mr. ILAMB. My object is that this matter may be brought up again, when the Convention has agreed upon something. Mr. FERRIS. I would ask the gentleman if he -does not suppose the Convention are as well prepared to vote upon his proposition now, as they will be at any time? Mr. LAMIB. Eor myself I am prepared to do so; but the chairman of the committee on the Legislative department (Mr. CoxGER,) made a suggestion which I consider a proper one, and which should receive consideration from the Convention. - And -consequently I move to- lay -the resolution on the -table. The question was taken upon the motion to lay the resolution on the table; and upon a division, ayes 8, noes 47, it was not agreed to. The question again recurred upon the resolution submitted by Mr. LAMB. Mr. HENDERSON., I now renew the - amendment I offered some time since, to strike out all of this resolu tion that refers to the subject of muni cipalities voting aid to railroads. Mr. McCLELLAND. I would sug gest the propriety of dividing this resolution, so as to have a separate vote on each item, and -amend the items as we go along. The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon-the amendment of the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HEz DEBSON.) - - - Mr. MCOLELLAND. That is, to strike out the second clause of the in structions?. The PRESIDENT. So the Chair understands... - -', Hr. LAMB. The object in present ing this resolution in'-this shape was , for the specific purpose hinted at~ by ; the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. Mc* CLLAED,) in order that it might be divided, and the sense of this Conven,tion itaken, firstly, secondly, thirdly, r upon the propositions submitted. And if this Convention can by the separate s submission of one of these propo- sitions acquire a majority sufficient to pass the article, all right, and I shall try to be satisfied. If that majority * can be secured by adopting propo~ sitions one and two, I shall also be satisfied; if by adopting all three of. , the propositions, then I am with you, and the people of this State also. -t CONSTI'XUTIONAL -CONVENTION. Thursday, 858 I 0 DEBATES AND PROCEF,DING S. I want it distinctly understood that I speak for, a portion of the"' temperance men of my community. In my neighborhood they ask that this matter of prohibition may be separately submitted; they have said so to me. I have asked them why? They have said they could not vote for the Constitution with railroads put in it, and they wanted to vote for prohibition. In my resolution I have embraced three subjects foreign to our political platform. We need not endorse them, other than to leave them to the people to be endorsed or rejected by them. My object is to take the vote upon proposition one, then upon proposition two, then upon proposition three. We shall thereby arrive at the sense of this Convention upon the three subjects embraced in those propositions. I shall be satisfied, or will try to be, withwhatever action the Convention may take. Mr. IHENDERSON. If the Convention shall in the end propose to do what the gentleman from Lapeer (Mr. LAMB,) has expressed the hope that they may dbo, and what has been indicated by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MoCLETLAND,) my amendment will not alter the shape matters shall take, only it will reverse the order; the vote will be first taken upon the second proposition of the resolution, instead of the first. But at the same time the three propositions will all be looked upon in just the same light by this body. Upon the question of voting aid to railroads, all will agree that if we desire to prohibit or restrict that power, the proposition at present in this article is much better than the one in the present Constitution. The difference of opinion has been as to whether we would allow municipalities to vote any aid at all, or whether we would leave the matter unrestricted. Upon the other two propositions of this resolution, there is a radical difference of opinion, which will not admit of any qualification like the other. And in my opinion, there is much more reason why they should be separately submitted to the people, than there is that the one to which I refer should be so submitted. I prefer, therefore, not to withdraw my amendment, but to allow the vote to be taken upon it. Mr. VAN ~ALKENBURGH. I move to amend the resolution by striking out so much of it as refers to the question of prohibition of grant ing license. The PR~ESIDENT. That amend ment cannot be entertained at the present time, as~ it does not relate to the pending amendment. Mr. McCLELLAND. I have an amendment which I desire to offer, in order to test the sense of the genuine temperance men of this Convention. It is to strike out the third proposition, and to insert in lieu thereof the following: "The question requiring the Legislature to prohibit entirely the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits and intoxicating drinks." The PRESIDENT. The amendment is not in order at the present time. There is an amendment pending to another portion of the resolution. Mr. LAMB. The gentleman from Calhoun (Mr. HENDERSON,) has said in his place that which is not the fact. He says we are all agreed that the new Constitution, so far as relates to granting aid to railroads, is better than the old one. For my part, that statement is incorrect. Mr. HENDERSON. Will the gentleman allow me to say one word? Mr. LAMB. Certainly. Mr. HENDERSON. I intended to say that all who desired to prohibit such aid must be agreed in the idea that the provision in this article, inasmuch as it was a restriction, was better than the one in the present Constitution. Mr. LAM. I accept the explanation. I now desire this Convention to take a vote upon the first proposition in my resolution, and then upon the second proposition, and then upon the third proposition. If either of these in their order are amendable, according to the sense of the Convention, I have no objections to an amendment. But I earnestly request that the sense of this Convention may be taken in this way. I have looked upon this course, if we will be cool, if we can be cool, as the course which will enable us to arrive at the conclusion to which we must come. -We must come to an agreement somewhere; we desire to come to an agreement which will be agreeable to ourselves. Mr. HENDERSON. I offered my amendment before there was any move looking towards a division of the resolution. If we are to vote upon these propositions in the order which the gentleman indicates, I am perfectly willing to take that course; and with th, consent of the convention I will withdraw my amendment. But as it stood formerly, no division having been called for, I did not desire to vote upon !the entire instructions together. - The PRESIDENT.- The Chair de sires to state that he has heretofore ruled as he shall rule now, that a mo tion to commit Lwith instructions is not divisible. - - - Mr. HENDERSON. It was upon that understanding that I offered my amendment. Mr. LAMB. The Chair has made that ruling? The PRESIDENT. The Chair has heretofore made that ruling,- and has also read to the Convention the authority for it, which was acquiesced in by the Convention. It seems to the Chair to be the correct parliamentary rule. Mr. LAMB. It may be right. But I do not happen to come within that' rule, in the resolution I have submitted. Mine is not a resolution to recommit, but a clean and new proposition. The ruling of the Chair may be correct; no doubt it is. I am not a parliamentarian.,This is a new proposition. Has the Chair,looked at it in that light? The PRESIDENT. The Chair will read the rule, as laid down by Mr. Berclay, in his Digest: A division of the question is not in order on a motion to commit or recommit with instructions, or on the different branches of instructions." - - The Chair understands the gentleman to have offered a resolution of instructions to the committee. He now asks to divide the instructions and have the vote taken separately on each branch of'the instructions. In the opinion of the Chair that is not in order. Mr. LAMB. As I said, I do not profess to be a keen parliamentarian. But I submit:that I have' not submitted a motion to recommit, but a motion of requisition upon a committee created by this body. That is my point, and' I think that may be the Chair will coincide with me in my position, and say that I have a right to the floor. If not, I will sit down; if I have the right, I will explain myself. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman has a right to the floor. The resolu tion he has offered is a debatable one. Mr. LAMB. I am not debating the real merits of the question at issue, but the object at which] would arrive, which isn conciliation, which is the bringing together a sufficient number of ourselves, so that we mayrpass this article. -This is my entire ohject. I have no doubt I am understood by this Convention, without proce'eding further. - I have not exhibited a disposition to occupy the time of the Convention heretofore, neither do I have that de sire) now, nor do I expect to have it hereafter. But I wish it understood that we must arrive at something sat isfactory to ourselves; and it is very desirable that we should arrive at something satisfactory to the people. I undertake to say that with the sepa rate submission of these three ques tions, there will be an entire satisfac I - i A.ugust 15, 1867. 859 .0' 860 Tliur~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day,~~~~~~~~~ tion which will be' astonishing; w ith those three questions incorp?' ated in this article, the question of the adop tion of this Constitution i'm' my hum ble opinion, is: somewhat doubtful. We need not have it doubtful. There is ability here' to'clean this thing in such a manner that it will be accepta ble' to ourslves and to the people. 'That is my desire. Mr.' BRADLEY. I am not satisfied with the' resolution 0of the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAB,) and I donot kiowthat I can present anything that *il'be"e'entirely satisfactory to myself or to the Convention;' I' have great doubts about that..'.. Myi yposition in regard to.one of,those questions, the temperance question, is clearly understood in..the Convention. I see no reason to take.any other posi tion tha'n that'whlch I have always held. I think that last week, when on 'the:fi,opr, I stat/ed''in regard to that question'that.I intende''to.fight out this temperance reformation unto.the 'end; and that if compelled to go'out of our intrenchments for the battle, I was ready for that, although I preferred the defense where I might have the advantage of intrenchments. And the poetry of.:the speech of one of the gentlemen on' the other side was made simply out of that illustration.' Now, sir, if we are to submit any thing to the people' as separate propo sitions, I desire -to have something submitted that shall be distinct, that. shall be concise, that shall be clearly understood, and not liable to any mis apprehension when these propositions shall'come before the electors of the State of Michigan. The'proposition which-I desire to offer at this time is a substitute for the "resolution of' the gentleman:from' Lapeer,' (Mr. LAMB,) and it will-look to that distinctness which I desire; so that if I am compelled finally to carry this question'to the electors of this State,:my own consitituency and others, I shall do it on :clear ground, where no sophistries can bewilder'the voters, or render at' all uncertain what they are voting for. :Let no gentleman on this floor inti'mate to me, or'mtimate behind my back, that I abandon principles in the propositon I am about to submit. I 'have a'record, i think, as fair' as that 'of any'other man:in'regard to this temperance movement in the State of Michigan.:That record shall not be blurred over by any action of mine in this'Convention. I yield to no one in my integrity on this question; though I may be compelled to'yield on' the ground of understanding what is fit and meet, or on the question of wisdom in the mode of operation, but on no other ground. In order, then, to perfect what we may finally have to sabmit to the people; of'this Stiate as separate. propositions, I desire to sub "mit the following as a substitute'. for the res0olution now under considera Lion: Resolved, That the substance of section 8, and t,he last clause of section 32, in the legis lative article, be taken from that article and be submitted to th~e,people separately, as lol lows: 1.-Shall the Legislature meet annually or biennially?. 2.-The, Legislature shall restrict, but,shall never grant a license for the' sale ot ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors.'".''''' I am very tenacious in regard to the last item named, that is, in the lan guage which' — II'use here.' I' stated, when discussing this question last week, that I never would consent to vote in this:Convention' for a'proposition" con taining this' and'an alternative propo sition; that I never would vote" in this Convention for anything that looked liked license, or t'axation, which is a sugar-coated license''of'.the "s,ale'of in toxicating liquors. But if I am com pelled to go before the people' of this State I shall' go earnestly, and with' the expectation'of victory, if I'g'o if I am compelled to go to the electors of this State, and discuss this question from town to'town, and from' couinty to' county, with other men in this S.tate, I want to go''on this proposition. I understand other gentlemen in' this C onvention are willing.t' o meet "'me'on that ground; that the most'rigid pro hibitionists will' do'so; "that gentlemen who'are not so rigid in'their views.up on. prohibition of license are willing to meet me''on' that ground, and'if we come to that conclusion, I.will come to; it cheerfully.' I have nothimng''to ac cuse gentlemen of if they di'ffer with me. They act conscientiously, according to the best of their understanding on these several questions, and on this -, o_z*w_*vvsa. qu_ question inparticular. 'Mr. VA N VALKENBURGH. Will the gentleman'permit me'to'ask him a * A, * A\ - ~~~~~~~~. t -.........' question?. Mr. BRADLEY. Certainly. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. What meaning does the gentleman'mean to convey by the word "' restrict"?':Afteri saying that no license shall be granted, the gentleman says: "The Legislature shall' restrict.' Is' not that...sugarcoated?....... '- )Mr.'BRADLDY. I thought'iot; I should beg unwilling to u'sea'[nother 'term which has been used'in this Con'vention, ", to regulate.:"'But the word " restrict" is a word of clear meaning. Take:the Latin derivation and you get at:the very gist of the'definition of that word: "Restringo,'restrictus; to'cutoff."' ' "'Mr. VAN VALKENBURGHI. "'',' Restrict the sale.". """'"''' "' ' Mr. BRA,DLEY. Yery good. Mr.,VAN VALKFNBURGH. There must be a sale in order to "restrict the sale." Mr. BRADLEY.' Under the pro hibitory clause in our present Consti tution the Legislature have passed a law; and that law is' a restriction'upon the sale of intoxicating liquors in the State; restricting it to the shop of the apothecary, and forbidding its. sale in almost every other place. Now I de sire to go one step beyond the prohib itory clause in our present Constitu fion,.and to say not only that the Leg islature shall always refuse to grant any license, but that they shall do this one thing more. They are at liberty to do that. one thing under the present clause. But I want to compel'the Legislature, if we'must go upon.this ground, to do two things: one is not to grant, any license, and the other is to do what they have.actually done here tofore,,and more if they please; to re strict the sale to its utter annihilation, if they choose-to do that;' -or to re strict it to any' other extent that the Legslature in their wisdom shall de termine upon. M [r.'.ROOT.'Will the gentleman al low -me to ask him one question? Mr. BRADLEY. Certainy; we want discussion. M"r. R'OOT. By what authority does the gentleman say that the prohibi tionists willmeet him upon this ground? This is a little sugar-coating, and I do not propose to meet him on this ground. Mr. BRADLEY. l am glad the gen tleman will not, then. Mr. THOMPSON. He will have company. ''Mr. ROOT. By what authority does the gentleman make that statement? Mr.' BRADLEY. I will answer; I desire to answer good-naturedly. I have ihe'authority of the' personal statements of several gentlemen of this Convention,.who are known to have voted with me:up to this time,'that they. will accept this proposition,i if we cannot get our first'desire. Let it" be 'understood by the gentleman' over the w,ay,: (Mr. RooT,)' and'by every other gentlemen in this Convention that this' is not my first'choice. -Dicd'I not say, the other.day in this Convention, that if I could'not have' my first' choice, I would take something else? Did Inot say I intended. to'fight.out the temperance:war until the victory.came? I[am'not belying my own record, or the" statements I made the other day. In regard to these pledges from prohibitionists, I do say' again that they said to me last evening and this morning-" If you will' present that proposition, we will be' with you."' Some men, on the other hand, have also said, as the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. CONSTYI-'U.TIONAT,. CONVENTION. Thurs-day I -DEBATES AD,P-RROC'P,-EDIGS. ROOT,) has said, that they willfght this thing to the end; that they' wll not yield anything. Mr. ROOT.'i wish to correct the gentleman. -I have not.said:so, to my knowledge. Mr. BRADLEY. -The gentleman has not; I did not; refer to.him. Mr. WITHEY. Do1esth6e gentleman from Hillsdale (Mr. —:RoW,) regard himself as the only.i probtionist here? Mr. ROOT. I do Bntconsider my self the only prohibitionistl here. But I consider myself one among a ma jority of this Convention, who have stood for prohibition. A.d I'do not consider it is our duty,.as,the majority, to yield to the minority in th is-matter. The PRESIDENT.:The time of the gentleman from Kalamazoo (-"(r. BRADLEY,) has expired. Mr. BRADLEY. Iregret it. Ihave not made many seeches, and-I want to make one now. Mr. CONGER. -I meove that the time of' the gentleman be extened.:e' The. motion was agreed to. -Mr. BRADLEY1. I -do not kn.ow that I shall detain the Conve nti6n many minutes longer..:-But I wish to say simply this, in regard.-to the elec tors of the State of Michigan,'so "far I am acquainmted with them; -I now mean the temperance people of -.the State, those where Iam acquainted, in my own county, and among my o wn immediate constituents. I hhave met some of them, earnest, true, reliable men, who take -the ground which I have taken from the beginning, and who desire to have" this'-prohibitor'y clause incorporated in the Constitution. We do not desire, as our first choicde, the separate submission of -this provision. But if we find ourselves in a position where, inmy judgment it 1is better to take another course, they say to me -" We are with you, and we will take care of you, and of this question before the people.". That is where they stand; that is where I stand.' ^ Mr. LAMB. That is where I stand. Mr. BRADLEY,... NoW sir, this is not my first choice. I want to be understood here; I desire that this prohibitory clause be retained in the Constitution. But inasmuch. as I do not like the proposition of the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAM,) and as' I have never been satisfied with -the propositions Which': have come fr6m the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. L —'oTHnOP,) and the gentleman rom Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) in regard' to this' maetter, I have taken?the responsibility, without consulting either party, only as:I have gone to them on my!ownl account, not; having been a'pproached or influenced in regard to itemI have -.taken the responsibility of endeavOring, if possible, to perfect the -provision which may go before-the people. ;: r. McCLELLAND. I would like to ask the gentleman-one question. Mr. BRADLEY. Very well. Mr. McCL ELLAND. I would like to know whether' the gentleman is fighting now within his entrenchments, or in the open field? Mr. BRADLEY. We are now in consultation, the same as when.General Grant, at the clo'se of the battle of tle Wilderness, called; his generals around him. In that silent meeting he simply gave each one a slipof paper; the sup position' was that there was to be a retreat. But instead of that, the direc tion given to those corps commanders was simply this: ":Advance towards Richmond'in a flank movement." [Great laughter and- applause.] Now, sir, we stand just so to-day. We: have,foiught out the battle of ithe wil derness. ".,We are cast down," to use the words of an old writer, " but not' destroyed." We are ready now, with some few recruits that are coming in, :'to m'ake headway against whatever force the rebels may bring against us. ~Renewed laughter and applause.] -.Without detaining the Convention longer, and without going into: any argument-for this argument has 11 been made to this Convention by other members-I will add but a few words more. I desire, before I sit down, to: enter my solemn protest against those views in relation to taxation and license which have been presented in'two set speeches, by the gentleman from Bay, (M.r. BIRNEY.)', -Mr. HUSTON. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question? Mr. BRADLEY. Certainly. Mr. HUSTON. I would ask the gentleman, if his provision shall become a part of the Constitution, wo.uld not the Legislature have the authority to allow the sale of intoxicating liquors, and to levy a bax on that sale? i It seems to me there can be no doubt about it. Mgr. BRADLEY. I judge not; if I thoughtJ there was any such liability, I would myself move to strike o0t the word "-restrict." The Legislature have already restricted the sale of intoxicating driks, under the prohibitory clause in the present Constitution; and I undertake to say -they will not have any more power, looking towards license or taxation, if we now insert this word "restrict." I am not a judge of law, but that-is my view of the definition of words.' -.: M r. LONGYEAR. -Will the gentleman permit me to'nake.a single suggestion? Mr. BRADLEY. Certainly. > Mr. LONGYEAR.- I would s~uggest whether or not the Legislatuire have not always held, under the clause prohibiting the granting -of license, that they had no powerto eftax the traffic. Mr. BRADLEY.: I Lha've supposed so.. ' Mr. LONGYEAR. That has been the case. ".Mr. BRADLEY. I defend my last proposition ore especially upon its definiteness. -I.notice.a the other day when. this subject was..up, that some propositions- were made, which might hlave one meaning beforeethe people in a -certain locality, and in another locality another interpretation.would .be placed upon them..'.When we,go into.'the field:and have the. contest which we will have before. the people, I repeat -I want a clear field for the fight. I desire to have it distinctly und-'rstood what we are to vote -upon, so0 -that when people vote "yes," or when they vote "no,"' every elector shall und/erstand what he is doing, and. shall not be:influenced by any misapprehen sion or misrepresentation whichi may be placed uipon the language presented to him. - MIr. HUSTON. -.NVill.the gentleman allow me to ask him another question? ~Mr. BRADLEY. Certainly. Mr. HUSTON. Since -the suggestion made by the gentleman from Ing' ham, (Mr. LONGYEAR,) I would ask whether the Supreme Court of the UnTilted States, in a case that was taken up there from the State of Massachu setts, have not decided that a tax upon the sale of intoxicating liquors was not a. license, and thereby made a prece dent on that question? Mr. BRADLEY. I am not acquain ted with the decision of the court. Mr. LONGYEAR. I would ask the gentleman from Tuscola (Mr. HUSTON,) a question in return for his; whether or not, when this subject was up for consideration before, he did not himself take the position that the right to tax was tlie right to license? Mr.:HUSTON. I wish to say that I have not, before to-day, opened my mouth upon this question, since it has beep under discussion. :Mr. GIDDINGS. Allo16 me to make a suggestion. The -Legislature, under the prohibitory clause:, may tax; they may prescribe that whenever a man is found seliing liquor he shall be taxed. I do not see how one proposition interferes with the other at all. Mr. LAMB. Then I would inquire of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDiGs,) whether, if the Legislature has the right.to tax, that would not.viia'te the prohibitory law in its operation':?!''' M Mr..GIDDINGS. The tax would abet in the nature of a penalty for the ,August.15) 1867. -1,,861 I I 862 OOSIU-OA -OV~I~ Thnia sale. I understand that a tax may be levied upon liquor wherever you find iL The General Government taxes it, but it does not license it. hMr. HOWARD. I enter upon the discussion of this question somewhat reluctantly, for fear that I may take: such a course as will have a tendency to stop the notoriety that I gained, when I spoke upon this subject- upon a former occasion, when it was under consideration here. I do not desire to stop that at all; I wish to have it go on. I feel under many obligations, and propose now to acknowledge my obligations, especially to the Detroit Post, and the Detroit Free Press, for whatever little notoriety they have given me. I propose to say a few words to this question, but I trust the Convention will indulge me in this explanation. I make it more particularly in replyto the speech of the gentlemanfrom Kent (Mr. FERRIs,) which I did not have the honor to hear, but which, through his kindness, I read yesterday. He said I had been guilty in my remarks of making unwarranted sbatements, and applying harsh epithets to a portion of the citizens of this State, to persons who voted the Republican ticket. Now I wish to speak guardedly in this mat ter, that I may not hereafter be made the subject of quite so much comment. I with to ask the gentleman this qties tion: Did I use the word "German," or did I apply my remarks to any in dividual or nationality? Mr. FERRIS. I will state to my friend from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD,) that during the discussion in which he took part I was absent from the Con vention; and all I know of his remarks is what I have heard from others in conversation, or have read in print. Mr. HOWARD. Then I will say, for the information of the gentleman, that I used no such language. I did say that the petitions that were pre sented upon this floor in favor of li cense, had come from men who were in the interest of the liquor sellers, and that many of those petitions were signed by persons engaged inthe traffic. From that remark the gentleman under took to draw the deduction that I was assailing the German element of the population of this State; the Repub lican German element, who were with us in political sentiment. I want to ask this question? Is it to be neces sarily inferred, whenever we speak of the opponents of temperance in the Republican party, we include the Re publican Germans in this State? I deny it. I claim that there are tem perance men among the Germane I claim that we are not willing to have any such construction placed upon our language, when it was tot intended. to cover them at Sll. I simply stated that we have now been threatened by the men who are engaged in the liquor traffic, or who are interested in the traffic, that if we do not abandon the prohibitory provision they will abandon the party. These threats had been made here. I did not claim that they had been made by the German population. I deny now that they have ever been made by that population. And I say distinctly, that I believe if the prohibitory clause is put in the Constitution, and it is carried by a majority of the voters in the State, we shall find as few Germans will leave the Republican party, because it has hoisted the banner of temperance, as we shall of any other nationality. Another thing has been said —that we have been elected here as Republicans, bnd are resposible for this Constitution. I admit that. But while I admit that, I admit or claim that there are two sides to this question. There are many men, as I have always said, who claim that we ought to put the prohibitory clause into the Constitution; that it is a measure demanded by the exigencies of the time. And those men have the same right, whether their number be larger or smaller than the number of their opponents, to claim that we should put this clause in the Constitution, as the other faction have to say that we shall leave it out. I do not stand here, I have never stooc here, to claim to speak for the Republican party. I distinctly avowed in my statements when upon the floor before, that I did not pretend to speak for the Republican party. I deny that I ever made any statemeint from which any such inference could be drawn. I did say, however, and I repeat it, that there were many Republicans who would look in the Constitution, and if they did nefo find the prohibitory clause there they *ould not vote for the Constitution, because that alone was left out of it. That is what I said the other day; I repeat it now, there are many of that kind. 'Now to the question before the Con vention, we have, many of us, been charged with being stubborn in regard to this prohibitory clause. I wish to say simply this: I am not wedded to the prohibitory clause in its present form. I believe in prohibition; I be lieve the principle of prohibition should be implanted in the Constitution we are here to frame. But if I cannot get that, I am not guilty of'the stub bornness of refusing to yield that, and to take the next best thing; I am wil ling to do that. When we assembled here, petitions began to come in for prohibition in the Constitution. As I understand, not a single petition has been.presented here to have the question sub: mitted separately to the people. Every petition that has been presented in favor of prohibition, has asked us to incorporate in the Constitution at least the principle of section 47, article IV, of the present Constitution. Mr. CONGER. Will the gentleman allow me to make an inquiry? Mr. HOWARD. Certainly. Mr. CONGER. Have not a large number of the petitions for prohibition been for prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors? Mr. HOWARD. I think so; yes. Mr. CONGER. I have looked over the petitions reported in the journal; and.I find that a large proportion of them are not for prohibition of license, but for prohibition of sale. Mr. HOWARD. The journal merely shows the endorsement made upon the petitions by those presenting them. A large majority of theypetitions were upon printed forms,- and were for the incorporation in the Constitution of at least the principle of section 47, article IV, of-the present Constitution. Mr. CONGER. I only refer to the record.. Mr. HOWARD. The joural shows what was the endorsement made by those who presented the petitions; the petitions themselves might not read according to the endorsement. I said I was in favor of prohibition on principle. Now, one remark in regard to the statement made by the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BIRmY,) yesterday, that a very intelligent clergyman said to him that he believed there was more injury done by the use of tobacco in the State of Michigan than by the use of liquor.' And then he asks, would gentlemen be willing to put in the Constitution a prohibitory clause against the use of tobacco? My reply is this: if the use of tobacco be comes destructive of the interests of society, if the use of tobacco becomes injurious to the interests of society, to the peace of society, to the welfare of humanity, and to all those in terests that we cherish as law-abi ding and good men, then I will be in' favor of putting in the fundamental law, or in a legislative enactment, a clause that shall prohibit its use. But until it does-become an evil of that magnitude, I most respectfully submit to the gentleman that -his analogy amounts to nothing. Now to the question before the-Con vention. We are here with very little prospect of agreeing upon the basis of prohibition in the Constitution. I sub mit that with the record- my friend from Kalamazoo (Mr. BRADY,) has CONST.R.LIUTION AT,, CONVENTION. 862 Thur,sday, - 4 Auu 15 187 DBi~S -D r~c~E~s made here, with the record which he brought here with him, with-the course which he has pursued here, recognizing himrn as we do as a firm friend of temperance, we should not look with so much suspicion upon this olive branch that he extends to' the friends of temperance in this Convention. It is not all that I ask. But I am unwilling that either the leaders of the Democratic party, or the leaders of my own party, or their journals, shall be able to say that I stubbornly refused to- concede one single iota for the purpose of harmonizing the "action of this Convention, and saving to the people the instrument that we have framed here; I am unwilling to assume that ground, and whatever has been said in regard to my stubbornness, and my having used epithets, has been said without any foundation. Now, I am willing to accept the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) with an amendment which I propose to offer. I am willing to accept it for this reason; that it has the essence of prohibition in it; it has in it a prohibition against the granting of license. Now, what more has our prohibitory clause as it stands? Has it anything more? It bears upon its face a prohibitory clause,as long and as broad as that which to-day is in the body of our present Constitution. And it goes further, and says that the' Legislature shall restrict the sale of ardent spirits. Now, I wish to say that my only fear for the temperance movement is not that we shall take action here which will drive from the support of the temperance cause its long tried friends. But I propose to follow out the programme that I made in the beginning, for the temperance reform has arrived at that stage that it must be carried on by the united efforts of men in political life. And if we distract here that party which must carry on the temperance reform, we leave in the hands of the opponents of temperance a power which will wipe out every vestige of temperance that appears in our legislation. Therefore, I say, let us harmonize, compromise, if we:can. I ask the friends of prohibition, however, to go with me one step further. I ask the gentleman who offered the resolution, (Mr. BRADLEY,) I ask the gentleman from St. Clair,:(Mr. CoNGE;,) and all the friends of temperance upon this fiGor, to meet me upon common ground, and go with me for the pro.position I am about to make; and then as a compromise I will vote for the resolution offered by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY.):My proposition is this: that we put in the Con stitution a clause forever prohibiting the sale of ardent spirits to minors, persons under guardianship, and commion drunkards. My friend from Kent, (Mr. FERRis,) with all his ingenuity, will not say that there is any nationality that will vote against that in the body of the Constitution. The Democratic men on this floor will not say that it is anti-democratic. But every man, every friend of temperance, whether upon the floor of this Convention or elsewhere, whatever his position or politics may be, I believe will unite to place in the fundamental law of the State a proposition which shall forbid the sale of intoxicating. liquors to minors, the making of drunkards out of our young men, the sale of liquor to common drunkards, and to persons under guardianship. I ask those who are in favor of prohibition, and those who are not willing to go for the naked proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) to go with me upon this proposition. I offer it as an amendment to his'proposition; to have placed in the Constitution that provision upon which I believe.we can all stand.' Suppose you take a different course?At what stage of the proceedings have we arrived here? The friends of license and the friends of separate submission joining together, have the power in this Convention by making certain compromises with gentlemen who are opposed to? annual sessions of the Legislature, to submit this bare question of prohibition separately to the people. I say they have the power. Here the hammer fell, the ten minutes allowed under the rule having expired. Mr. CONGER. I move that the gentleman have leave to proceed with his remarks. The motion was agreed to. Mr. HOWARD. I say. that the friends of separate submission, with compromises that they can make on other qu.estions, have the power to carry this article, with separate submission of the prohibitory clause. Now, let us ask ourselves as prohibitionists, how we stand? I have advocated prohibition inthe Constitution, because I believed prohibition separately submitted, would bring into the canvass all the forces of the liquor power, all the forces opposed to temperance, and not only make that canvass a disgrace to the State, but also inflict an injury upon the cause of temperance which we should not get over in long year's. If this proposition is to be separately submitted-and I am forced to come to that conclusion from all I have seen or heard-if it is to be separately sub mitted,' I ask -you,- gentlemen, is -it not better to have it in the form of the proposition submitted by the -gentle — man from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) with my amendment in the body of the Constitution, than to have the bare naked proposition of prohibition submitted to the people? Suppose we lose it; suppose it is voted down at the polls. We certainly then can fall back on the Legislature. But suppose it is carried.'Is it any less effectual for the promotion of temperance by legislation, than the provision which is now standing in the present Constitution? I sayitisnot. Itiseffectual; it covers the same ground; it goes the same length; it accomplishes the same purpose. And if it' is defeated, we certainly will- be in no worse dilemma than' we shall be in if the naked proposition of prohibition is defeated. Now, in going to this length, I do it, not to: compromise any principle, but to compromise the action- of,this Convention, so that we can send- forth to the people a Constitution up':oi'Which we can'all stand. And with'-all the denuneiations that have been poured upon my poor feeble head, I ask gentlemen, in justice to me, to say if I did not in the beginning say that I recognized in the leaders of the separate submission' clause, and of the license clause upon'this floor, temperance men against whom I was unwilling to say an unkind word? I have recognized that fact from the beginning. And while I believe prohibition should be placed in the Constitution, while I say that the responsibility of striking it out rests upon the temperance men and prohibitionists i:m this Convention,. I cannot be blind to the fact that we have now arrived at a point in our proceedings when it is impossible to restore it and carry the article through..'' That being the case, let me ask, do I abandon any principle? Does the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) abandon any principle, in going for the proposition which he has introduced here? 1 go for it conditionally. I'ask the friends of- tem'perance, irrespective of party, irrespective of their views upon the question of separate submission, or upon the question of prohibition, to plant themselves on this onie common platform; to say that they will have im the Constitution' a clause forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors' to minors, common drunkards, and persons under guardianship, and then we will go for the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) and submit to the people separately the question of prohibition in the form in which he presents it. I DEBATES A W PROCIM H'I)IXGI$,O, ugu st, 15, 1867. COTUTOA'L CONV'ENTION.' I, therefore f, mov'e to- aend'the substitute by:addinig thereto the foIlowing: TheO saie of spirituous or intoxicating liquors to minors, personsunder guardiahnship and common drunkards, shall be prohibited under appropriate penalties, by fine or imprs0nment, or both, as shall be provided by law. And this provision shall:be inserted in the body of the Constitution." Mr.-, LAMB. In order to hasten mattersi I will state to the Convention that,- inasmuch as according to the ruling'of the Chair my proposition is incapable of division, I desire by consent of the Convention to withdraw the two latter-.clauses of my rpropositio-n, and leave my resolution to instruct the committee onlyon one point. It will then be open to any amendment which any member of the Convention may desire to offer. If any amendment shall succeed, they can then vote finallv upon the whole resolution. - I think that will facilitate the action' of the Convention. I will, therefore, with the consent of the Convention,: withdraw the two latter clauses of my proposition, in order that thatcourse may be taken. Mr. HENDERSON. If consent' is given for that purpose, I will withdraw my'amendment. The PRESIDENT. That can be done, if there is no objection. ir. HUSTON and others objected. The - PRESIDENT. The question will then be taken upon granting leave to the gentleman from Lapeer (Mr. LAMB,) to modify his resolution as he has indicated. The question was then taken, and leave was accordingly granted. The resolution of Mr. LAMB, as'modified, was as follows: Resolved, That the: committee on the legislative department be instructed to report to this Convention an article -entitled "ILegislative Departm'ebnt," of the substa'nce-inatter'of that which on yesterday failed on its passage, with the following exceptions, to-wit:. That they report in proper shape for separate 6submission to the people- The question of annual or biennial'ses.s ions of the Legislature,' being the substance of section 8. ~For this resolution Mr. BiYDLE'Yhad offered the following substituite: Resolved, That the following propositions be submitted to the people separately:. 1. Shall the Legislature hold annual-or biennial sessions'? 2.- The Legislature shall restrict, but shall never grant a license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors. To that substitute' Mr. How:D ha::d moved to add the followiug: "The sale of spirituous or intoxicating liquors to minors, persons under'guardian.ship and common drunkards, shall be prohibited under appropriate penalties, by-fine or imprisonment, or both, as shall be provided by law. And this provision shall be inusrite'd 'in the body of the Constitution.": The question was' upon the-'amed-' ment' of Mr. HOWARD to the substitte. Mr.' ROOT. It is with some diffi: dence that I rise to Say!a:ord on'this.. subject' But I wish to say a'-few' words upon the proposition for a COn': promise, as it may be understood by some that I seem to be somewhat tubborn and willful about this matter of prohibition in the Constitution.' And it is possible that I may be. Yet'it will be understood that when we start'ed out-in this matter of prohibition, -it was said by nearly all the. members of this Convention that they wereall prohibitionists. We all agreed upon the' provision that is in the article at this time. The only difference between us was as -to the mianner of submitting that provision'to t heo te vote of the people;' whether it should; be subnmitted in the body of the Constitution or submitted separately. Sonon after'this came up the lice'nse' Clause,-a proposition for restriction and regulation of the sale of intoxicating liquors,': and the taxing of the sale. We ffought this thing throuiigh, and stil held a majority for prohibition in the body of the Constitution. Now, after those gentlemen'have retired from the field, after they hayve been beaten'in the fight by those of us' prohibitionists who h-ave stood -haid tf' hand in this m'atter,' there comes from those' of whom we least expected it a propositi'6n to restrict and tax the sale. Wlhy do they propose it? As a mattei of compromise. Now, I think it is noco6mpromise whotever. I think -w6 have a' majority here, anid that a magj6r-f ity of the people of StgS' State6 are withus; and' I think' we sho6tild'put prohibition into the body of; the Constitution.: - There have beei other provisioins put in this..legislative- article whieh have caused many members to voter against it; all thie votes again'st it were it -on account-of prohibition. I thmk — if those other matters could- be''reconsidered, there is a decided' maoi.y here in favor of putting prohibltion in the body of the Constitution.' '' And- yet we' n-ow' see' men, who havea - heretofore gone hand in' han-d'with 1usin this moral fight, iln this det"erinin'a"-~ tion to do what is right and'juSt, come' forward with a compromise, whien there is no necess'ity: for> any: compronmise: upon this::provision. Let us compromise'-up'on' other'provisio'ns not so'vital! tO'the in'terests of'the Staate,an'd let us pu't' prohibition where the pe6ple' of -the State' demand that we shall put it. We havse'had- no petitions here'for a separate submission of this prohibi-. tion clause. None of the people of this State have petitioned us'to send'Sit' to th'em separately for their vote. Th'ey have:said: "Put-in the body of the:: instrujment either- the prohtibitory' cl'aus'e,' or'a- clause:' allowing: lice'se."' If we are.'to be controlled at all by pe, t'iti6ns,-we must be- controlled- in this direction; we must put'in the body of the Constitution either this prohibitory clause, or a clause requiring the Legiislature to-provide a'license system. ;I look upon this proposition for'compromise' as tending towaids license. We have already received from the friends of'prohibition, it would seem, a-propositioin for restricting the-sale of i'ntoxicating drinks, which to my view looks towards licensing the traffic. I am opposed' to it. - Yet I wishto be'understood as'not standing opposed to any just compromise ii this matter. I have said, and I still say, that when this legislative article is finally perfected by a majority of thi's' Convention, I propose to'vote for it, on its, final passage; I feel that we are in duty bound to do so. We cannot have all that we wish always.'. And when gentlemen stand up here and say they will vote against an article, or against the Constitution, because there is s ome provision in it they-d- d' not' like, I' ithink they are g6ing —too far; it is showing stubborn ness.:'- If it-had not been'for that stub bor eaess, this artice would have' passed yesterday. When gentlemen .reflect upon me as being stubborn, I wish'they would look'to themselves, andseei'ff there is not something of thatexisting in their own breasts. This' subject is to me of vital impor tance. I take great'interest in it, al though I- cainot- say what I wish' be fore': you:. I;- have not the capacity to explain myself as some gentlemen here' can., There is a principle' of rights aiid' justice in this propo'sition, and a' majority of the:members of this 'Convention are in favor of that princi ple. Shall'we" sacrifice- that principle which a majorityof us came'here fully re-solved' to catry through this ConvenLibn'? Shall weo be called: factious, when a milnriity of this Convention stand out, and say we must go with Lhemxi? I- hope that - those of us who ae temperance in principle, and who 'belibeve that'- pohibition is right, will stand together firmly on this proposiLion,: and if necessarsy compromise: on some other: proposition. Mr. WILLIAMS. I have so far taken no'part in the discussion of - this question''inthis: Convention, for I was absent diuring' the greater portion of the dis'cussion on a former occasion. But I believe' it: has been understood that: I have been firmly in favor of putting in this Constitution a provision embodying the principle of no license., I am still in favor of that; I am-in favor.of it for different' reasons, perhaps, from those: assigneds —by' others here. But it is' Sunnec~essaryj for:me to- go int'o .any'" um:':umbnt to m'aintain a prop'osi 1.-,.l — - I, — 11 8'64.' Th -ur- $days. 1. D. I i has ot uffciet mrit ofitsownto tion which has been so thoroughly can vassed before this body. But I wish to say one word; I am satisfied that constitutions are made by compromises; they are the compromises of Conventions, and the compromises of the people. Not that we should ever compromise principles, or any great proposition of right. But in order to make a Constitution, each individual member will have to yield something of his own ideas of what should be inserted in the Constitution. I am ready, as one member of this Convention, and always have been ready, to give way upon any proposition wherein I am satisfied I am not yielding up any question of principle. But I cannot favor the proposition now before the Convention, the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) as proposed to be amended by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HowARD.) I am not willing to put a clause in the Constitution which shall prohibit the Legislature, if they see fit, from prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors. Taking the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, in connection with the prohibitory clause of the gentleman from Geneseei as they would both have to be construed together, I apprehend that the extent to which the Legislature could prohibit would be to minors, drunkards, and persons under guardianship. If the people should adopt the two propositions, the Legislature must restrict in connection with prohibition; prohibit as to one or two classes, and restrict as to all pthers. Restricting is not prohibiting; and if these two propositions should be adopted by us we certainly would show that we do not mean to use the two terms as synonymous. We mean that in the one case they shall restrict, or regulate, if you please, though they are not the same. "To restrict" is far more definite than "to regulate." The Legislature may restrict it in certain cases, and prohibit it in certain other cases. When a positive proposition is laid down in the Constitution, I understand the rule of construction to be that it negatives any other power in that direction. I apprehend that the result of the adoption of these two clauses would be that the Legislature would be forever prohibited from prohibiting the sale of intoxicating drinks. I would much prefer the proposition submitted by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) the other day, and for which I then voted. Mr. BILLS. I will engage the attention of the Convention but a few minutes. I wish simply to institute an inquiry in regard to this matter, to Voh 2 —o. 109. this effect, among the members who have placed themselves upon the record iin favor of prohibition of license in the Constitution; simply that and nothing more, and nothing less. I do not understand that any gentleman upon this floor has authority to say that those members who have voted for this prop osition, and who have sustained it by their counsel, have changed their posi tion in that regard. I am pleased with the remarks just made by the gentleman from Allegan, (Mr. WILLIAMS.) I need not waste a moment's time here in defining my position on this question. It is simply this: that I am satisfied with the proposition that has been' made to incorporate in our Constitution a prohibition of license. I care not to insert in that Constitution anything more. I do not favor the proposition which was suggested by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) to insert in the Constitution a prohibition of the sale of liquors. I desire simply to prohibit the license; I desire to put that in the Constitution. I desire to leave to the Legislature all matters pertaining to the regulation of the sale, to the limitation of it, the restriction of it, the partial prohibition of it, or the entire prohibition of it; to leave all that a subject-matter of legislation. I desire, so far as this Constitution goes, to leave that traffic just where we leave all other traffics, except in this respect, that it shall not be a subjectmatter to be licensed by our Legislature. I think in saying so I represent that element in this Convention who have recommended placing in the Constitution a prohibition of license. We do not desire to go beyond that; we do not desire to stop short of that. I may say, perhaps, though it may be of no consequence, that I am prepared to unite with other members of this Convention to perfect a Constitution. I have regretted, of course, as every other member has, that I cannot make a Constitution to suit myself. It may be a misfortune to the whole people of this State, that this was not left to me. But I congratulate myself that the responsibility is not upon me. I do not desire to control the vote of any man in this Convention. I desire to vote perfectly free and untrammeled by any compulsion from any man, and I desire every other man to stand in the same position. It is sufficient for myself to sustain the responsibility of merely my own vote. I do not desire to control the votes of others by any considerations other than those which arise from a proper discussion of the question itself upon its naked merits. If the proIposition now before the Convention p 1d t 8 I 0 sustan itelf,I donot dsirethatprop osition to be carried. And I shall hold~~~~ mysel in radines, asall ohers o, t exercise the privilege of urging meas-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ vote. Mr. BILLS. If I understand the inquiry it is whether the Legislature have not the power to prohibit or limit Mr. THENDERSON-in the same manner as indicated by the amendment offered by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD.) I August 15, 1867. DEBATES A.ND PROCEEDINGS. '865 866~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ COSITUTIONA-L — i —-----— NVE-,- -,,...IO - - -.- - I-. ....Mr. BI,T,S....Undoubtedly. ,Mr. HOWARD. The. language of my proposition is that-the cthe Legislature shall;' it is not left to their dis.cretion, but -they, shall prohibit," under proper penalties. Mr. BILS....T-hey have already done that. Of course they have the power; nobody- doubts that power on the part of the Legislature. As we propose to have the Constitution leave it, it will leave the trade perfectly free, as now, except that the Legislature may do anything in the-way of regulating or prohibiting the sale, but they cannot license it. They may prohibit in part or wholly; they may tax it; they may collect revenue from it; they may impose upon the sale any burden they may see fit, -or they may leave it. as we leave it. But-under-the.present prohibitory law it is well understood that they were exercising their power to prohibit it. And here allow me to remark that I do not desire to incorporate in this Constitution provisions which are solely subject-matters of legislation. We do not do this by prohibiting license; for that is simply the annunciation of a principle which shal govern the Legislature. But when we go on and make dscrimmations, and put in the Constitution a prohibition of sale'to minors, paupers, persons under guardianship, or common drunkards, we incorporate in the Constitution something of the character of police regulations, a thing which we do not desire. I disclaim, on the part of those -who have stood with me, at any rate for myself, any in-tention, -design, or wish to incorporate in the Constitution any such provision. , shall be satisfied simply to leave the Constitution where we found it when we came here, in that respect. We are-not advocating any change or amendment radical in its,ch.~acter, so as to: disturb very materially the harmony, peace, and good orderof society. M~r. M. C. WATKINS. It was very refreshing to me to hear the remarks of the gentleman from Hillsadae, (Mr. ROOT.) After noticing.theicourse of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. ]BRADLEY,) and of.ther gentlemnam from. Genesee, (Mr. EIWRns,) I had almost begun to despair, and I had almost ondluded that I stood aloneo on this question. To see gentlemen who had taken the lead here in the temperance movement in favor of prohibition, go over at a bound and advise something else beside prohibition, I did. not know but I stood entirely alo..ne on this question, and had really become stubborn. and mulish. But. I; am.very gliad.ito learn that there a.re some frends who agree with me. I was very gilad to hear the remarks of the chairman of the committee on intoxicating liquors, (Mr. BmLS.), I think there,are some in this Convention who are in favor of prohibition, and of putting it i' the Constitution. It seems to me it is a very simple question. It,isby no means a new question; it is one which has been tried; it is one that is in the present Constitution. And all that we ask is simply to let it remain there. But simple as it is, it has met with very stern opposition in this Convention. Gentlemen have_sought some way to avoid it; they have. tried'different ways; they- have presented several-different propositions, but they all amount to this; to evade if possible the -drect proposition to prohibit licen.se, and-to get at some plan by which the Legislature maytregulate and allow the sale of intoxicating liquors in this State. Now I am opposed to all these things. Iam in favor of standing by the principle.which I avowed at the start, and if possible carrying it through. If I fail,very well; I shall not vote against this legislative article, if that provision shall be stricken out. But I do des'ire that members of the Convention may continue to act consistently. -The gentleman from IKalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) claimed on a former occasion that we were entrenched; and- said that he did not propose to come out in the open field and-fight this battle, but he wished to preserve the advantage which we had gained. But in the hour of temptation, he has left his entrenchments and come out in the open field; and he is now engaged in what he calls a flank movement. I do not know whether he can succeed - in that movement. But I submit if it should be a failure, and I think it may be, it would have been better for us to continue on steadily in our course here, and as we had a majority here, or did haveda majority, I cannot for the life of me see why we should not:succeed, or why we are not bound to succeed now, if we will simply keep on the course we were pursuing. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I can sympathize with my friend from Kent, (Mr. M.?C. WATKINs.) I myself desponded, when I saw gentlemen upon whom I-had relied, and who had stood by me, now in a manner deserting me. But I feel.alittle revived, a little reanimated.;:The sentiments of the gentleman from Hilledale, (Mr. RoOT,) and the: gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. Bnis,) and: the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. M.C. WATIN~s,) have reallyreanimated me; and I begin to think there are some temperance men here, who are. temperance men from pr'inciple, and who will stand by the principle of prohibition in the Constitution. -.. As for myself, I came here for that purpose; I stand upon that ground. I have advocated it to the best of my ability, and I shall vote for it as long 'as I am able to vote upon this floor.And am glad that I have some coadjutors here who will stand by me. Though all the rest should desert my friend from Kent, (Mr. M. C. WATKas,) he may be assured I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him. I think this proposition of prohibition is vital to the interests of our State. And I think our Constitution will be defeated unless this provision is incorporated in it. I know that is so in our section of the State, and other gentlemen have told me that it is so in their sections of the State. Our people are watching our action with solicitude and with anxiety. And they will write us down as recreant-to our trust, and unworthy of their confidence, if we return to them and tell them that we have failed to_t —to our duty upon this subject. It- has been manifest here that we have a large majority of temperance men here. They have told us, and have reiterated the statement in our ears, that they were-temperance men from principle. Mr. FERRIS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Certainly; by all means. Mr. FERRIS. I would ask the gentleman if the temperance men of the State cannot just as well carry prohibition as a separate proposition, as to carry the Constitution with prohibition in it? Mr. VAN VATLKENBURGH. Admit it. [ have no doubt that if submitted to the people it would b6 carried. It has been submitted to them once and again, and been carried, and it would be carried again. But our constituents did not expect us to-come here and put them to the trouble of a separate vote on this question. It:is our duty to put it at.rest forever, and we can;-do it by the casting of our votes in this Convention. I was remarking that gentlemen have told us, time and time again in their speeches here, and also in private conversation, that -they were temperance men from principle. I do not doubt them; I do not doubt that many men who are desirous of submitting this question separately to the people are as earnest and zealous temperance men as I am. I do not doubt that; but on this subject we appear to differ in our views. But a strong majority of us have voted together here in favor of putting prohibition in the Constitution. And CON&.fkrUTIONAT, CONVFWTION. Thursday, Augus t 15187 DEAE AD PROED. 8 why has this change come over the spirit of their dreams? What has transpired to change the views and opinions of these men in so short a space of time? I hope and trust that this principle of prohibition will be incorporated in the Constitution, and that it will not be separately submitted to the people. The gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) made a specious argument the other evening, when he told us that this should be submitted to the people; that that was the proper tribunal to decide whether we should have temperance or not. Mr. SUT-HERLAND. Allow me to correct the gentleman. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I beg the gentleman's pardon; I meant the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BIRNEY.) I would not cast any suspicion on the character of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND.) Mr. BIRNEY. I trust that in warding off any imputation from the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) does not mean to imply that I am asuspicious character. [Laughter.] Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. The gentleman urged that if we prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors, we should prohibit the sale and use of tobacco. His argument has already been answered by my friend from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD.) Iwill not detain the Convention by saying anything on the subject, for it is too fallacious to occupy the attention of my friend from Bay, (Mr BIRNEY,) and certainly nobody else would follow him. I say that the people of this State, so far as I know, throwing out the liquor sellers and the liquor drinkers, require us to put prohibition in the Constitution. I feel it is a duty, I think it is the duty of this Convention to regard the petitions and prayers sent up to us here, from time to time, from the heads of families, and from the victims of this traffic. If it wasin my power I would gather all the liquors, and- all the implements of manufacturing it, into one grand pile, and I would go on top of it and set fire to it, if that would destroy it forever. I would do anything I could to exterminate it from the face of the earth. I hope to see prohibition incorporated in the Constitution. If it is not, I shall fear to go back to my constituents, and will be almost impelled to take my flight westward. Mr. MUSSEY. I do.not know that I should undertake to occupy a moment of time of this Convention, did I not fear that-my position was in doubt in regard to this matter. There has been a great deal of.time spent - ulpon it, and I have not yet said a word on this prohibition question. Lest some gentlemen might think I was not exactly orthodox, and sound on, this question, I will inform the Contention just where I stand in regard to it. I am in favor of prohibition; I did not think it was necessary to say so, because the universal expression of allthe members but two, I believe, is that that are all in favor of prohibition. One member, I believe, thinks that liquor is a good thing for a beverage; another thinks it is a good thing for food. Aside from those two, I believeevery member has been'in favor of prohibition. I was perfectly satisfied with it, where: it was in the Constitution. I did not vote yesterday against the article on the legislative department because that clause was in it. In looking over the list, I believe more than;half of those who' voted against the article are in favor of prohibition in the Constitution. Upon looking over the article I found there were four provisions in it which I did not like; the prohibitory clause was not one of them. I was asked this morning if I was willing to compromise. I am willing to compromise considerably; but I do not want to compromise too much, because it hasbeen intimated to me by - some of the members of this Convention that I am a little too yielding, that I am not stubborn enough, that I am too much disposed to compromise. I was willing to endorse the proposition of the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) as far as I could, and not incur any liability. I have a personal prejudice against endorsing, where there is any liability. Now I am willing to yield thismuch; we will leave this prohibition rightwhere it is, and then we will look over the four or five provisions that I am opposed to, and I will divide. If they will make half of those five-well, if they will make two of those five so as to meet my views, I will vote for the other three objectionable ones. I cannot say "we.~ Some gentlemen get up here and say "we twill do so and so;" I cannot say that; I am not in any clique or circle; I am speaking for myself. If it is necessary that I shall yield still more, I will yield another provision; I will vote for four objectionable provisions, if the Convention will amend one to suit me. That I think is all that I should be asked t~o do. By the discussion this forenoon, it would seem that the only hindrance to the passage of the article on the legisIlative department was the fact that it contins the prohibitory clause. I do not believe any such thing. I believe more; than half of those who voted against the artile- are in favor of pro hibition, and would not vote aganst it, if that was all the objectionable clause in it. Then whymakethis prohibitory clause the scape-goat to carry the sins of the Convention off into the wilder — ness? Why do we not consider some, of the other objectionable features of this article? I am willing to have this matter thoroughly ventilated. It has been discussed, perhaps, all that is necessary. Still if it is thought proper to spend all of to-day in discussing it further, I am willing to sit here and listen to it. But I wish to say to members of this Convention that there are other features in this article that ar" objectionable, besides this clause of: section thirty-one. There are: other objections to this article,- serious objections, with which it would not be very easy to get along, unless: we all adopt the national and individual popular hobby of "swinging around the circle," and bringing up where we can. I am willing to go in on that principle, provided they will let' me direct the circle. But I donot want to commit myself so far but what I can have some control over the matter. Now, I ask members of this Convention to consider whether this prohibitory clause is the only one that is objectionable. I think not. Mr. HUSTON. I desire to say'a few words im justification ofthe vote I shall give. I am opposed to the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (HMr. BRADLEY;) with the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOwARD.) If I were going to make a compromise on this subject, I would prefer to vote for the proposition, introduced some days ago by the gentleman fromWayne, (Mr. LOTHROP,) as amended on motion of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WIT1EY,) because I believe it is better than this, and goes: further. If this proposition of the gentleman from'Kalamazoo (*Mr. BRADLEY,) should be adopted by this Convention, I should look upon it as a direction to the Legislature of this State to repeal our present prohibitory liquor law. I take it if the s!e is to be restricted, thereumust be a sale as! a matter of course. I hold that- those gentlemen who claim to be the advocates of temperance, and advocate this- proposition, have really gone- over-to the: enemy, and have at last come out against prohibition of of sale. I cannot vote for a proposition here which if adopted will makeit the duty of the Legislature! to repea the prohibitory law of this State. I A-uguAt-.-15i-1867.,, I -G-S D-EBA-TES A ND- PROCE'EK 867 -t 868~~~ COSIUINLC-NIN hrdy believe this proposition would be a direction to the Legislature to take that course. I say to the men who claim to be in favor of prohibition that I am not willing to go so far as this proposition would lead me. Instead of the gentleman from Kalamazoo (Mr. 3BRADLEY,) having come out of his breastworks and fighting the enemy in the open field, I think he has been taken prisoner by the enemy, and is doing what the rebels sometimes did when they were taken prisonors by our boys in the army. When the rebels would boast of what they had done and what they proposed to do, our boys called it "blowing." That is what I would say about the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD,) and the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BuRADLEY.) They have gone over to the enemy and laid down their arms. Mr. CONGER. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. HUSTON. Of course. Mr. CONGER. I would ask the gentleman whether the present prohibitory liquor law does not restrict the sale of ardent spirits as a beverage, and not for manufacturing, commercial, chemical, or medicinal purposes? Mr. HUSTON. That is true. Mr. CONGER. Does it not restrict it as a beverage only, and not for medicinal or mechanical purposes? Mr. HUSTON. I agree to that; that is true. Mr. CONGER. Does it not restrict the sale, and prohibit the sale in regard to persons mentioned in the amendment of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD)? ^Mr. HUSTON. I understand that the proposition now before the Convention, restricts the sale, so far as minors, paupers, and common drunkards, and persons under guardianship are concerned, and no further. It then leaves the subject open, implying plainly from its language the Legislature shall provide for the sale of liquors. That being the case, I shall vote against the' proposition. I do not believe that the new Constitution will be rejected, as gentlemen claim, if the proposition already in the legislative article is kept there. I understand that nearly every gentleman on this floor claims to be in favor of prohibition. I believe the people are as strongly in favor of prohibition as the mass of the members of this Convention. It is true that we judge of this question somewhat according to the particular locality in which we live. Gentlemen who come here-from the city of Detroit and the other larger towns, where they see this traffic carried on, and where they are controlled somewhat by the infiu ences around them, judge that the whole State is of the same opinion with their constituents, and will vote in the same direction. They forget that nine tenths of the inhabitants of this State live in the rural districts; that nine tenths of the votes of this State are outside of those influences, and that in those rural districts probably seven out of every eight voters are in favor of prohibition. Those gentlemen who live in the larger towns forget this fact, and judge that the whole State is un der the rum influence that is brought to bear upon themselves. Now we claim that that is not the proper stand point from which to judge this ques tion. I believe if we change the provision of this legislative article so as to pro vide -for biennial instead of annual sessions, it will pass this Convention if the temperance men and the men in favor of prohibition will only act together. I believe if we will adopt that course there will be no danger as to the result. At any rate, I do not propose to abandon my manhood in reference to this question. I propose to vote understandingly upon it, to vote according to my better judgment. I do not propose upon a question of this kind to have the minority dictate to me what my vote shall be. Neither do I propose to be dictated to by the newspapers of the State. I propose, so far as I can, to exercise an honest unbiased opinion Iupon this subject. I say that no minority, no political in fluence, the influence of no political papers that may stigmatize us as one idea men, shall hold the lash over me, and compel me to vote upon this ques tion differently from what my judg ment tells me is right and proper. If a substitute could be offered now, I would like to offer one for this prop osition. The PRESIDENT. A substitute would not be in order at the present time; there is one substitute now pend'ing. Thie time of the gentleman has expired Mr. LAMB. I move that the gen tleman have leave to proceed. The motion was agreed to. Mr. HUSTON. I do not propose to take many minutes more of the time of the Convention. My view was, when I came into the Convention this morning, from some talk I had had with others, that if we would reconsider the vote by which the article on the legislative department was rejected yesterday, and refer it to the committee on the legislative department, with instructions to change it from annual sessions to biennial sessions of the Legislature, we could then put' the article on its passage, and pass it without any difficulty. I believe we can do that yet, if the temperance men will stand firm on this proposition. If they will come up to the standard' they have themselves made, judging them by their speeches in this Convention, stand together and vote together, I do not expect any difficulty. Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question? MIr. HUSTON. Yes, sir. Mr. GIDDINGS. Is not the gentleman asking those who voted for annual sessions to forsake their manhood, to give' that up and go with him? Mr. HUSTON. I voted for annual sessions myself. I am willing to do that much in order to compromise upon this matter. When the proposition for annual sessions was finally voted upon I voted for it. I am ready to change my vote now. I take this position in reference to this matter: when the question comes up as to stubbornness, it comes with bad grace from the minority-to accuse the majority of being stubborn, because they do not come down to their standard in reference to this matter. I claim that our friends who have stood with us on this question have gone farther than the opposition have ever asked us to go upon any other proposition. This proposition is not as good as the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mlr. LOTHROP,) as amended on motion of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) They now propose to out-Herod Herod himself; that is the proposition. They go further than those men who have asked for license; so far as any proposition has ever been voted upon in this Convention. Now, what I say is, of the temperance men of this Convention, and all who claim to be in favor of prohibition, I want to see them stand together upon this prohibitory clause. If they will leave out of this article the other objectionable features, if there are any, I certainly shall have no fears as to the result. I believe the people are. in favor of prohibition. It is a great moral question. I do not believe this Convention ought to be afraid of that question. It has been the fundamental law for the last seventeen years. We make no change; we simply stand by that proposition. I have no fears:of the result. For these reasons I shall vote against the proposition now before the Convention. Mr. CONGER. I have but a word or two to say to the Convention at this time. I find by looking at the prohibitory law, that it is simply a restrictive law solely. The very firm clause of CONSTJL'JL,'UTIONAL- CON VFWTION. 868 'Thur,sday,. August 15, 1867. DEBATES AD ROOEEDING 869 the very first section, prohibits to a certain extent and no more. The sale of intoxicating liquors is restricted under certain conditions. , That no person shall be allowed to manufacture or sell at any time, by himself, his clerks, servant or agent, directly or indirectly, any spirituous or intoxicating liquors, or any mixed liquors, a part ot which is spirituous or intoxicating, except cider, beer, and wine of domestic manufacture, and except also as hereinafter specified." Then it goes on to provide for the sale by a person authorized to sell, and restricts all others from selling. It is purely and solely restrictive. It is not a prohibition of sale, for commercial, manufacturing, chemical and mechanical purposes. It prohibits the sale to minors, except upon the written order of their parents or guardians; that is to say, it restricts, it does not absolutely prohibit. This is the prohibitory law, known to the people of this State. Here is the restriction contained in section three: "m If any person by himself, his clerk, agent or servant, shall, directly or indirectly, sell or keep for sale contrary to law, any such liquor, he shall forfeit and pay, on the first conviction, ten dollars," etc. If he sells contrary to the restriction, contrary to the prohibition. The whole law recognizes the right to sell; all payments for liquors sold in violation of law shall be considered as having have been made without consideration, and may be recovered back. But if the sale is according to law, there is no pretense but that the payments due therefor may be recovered in any court. All through the law everywhere the question of sale comes up. It is a restrictive provision; that is, it prohibits to a certain extent. Now, what does the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo (Mr. BRADLEY,L) say? It says all that the prohibitory clause in our present Constitution says; everything, absolutely. I will read it: " The Legislature shall restrict, but shall never grant a license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors." What does the prohibitory clause in the present Constitution say? "The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing-the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or other intoxicating liquors." This proposition now before us says the Legislature shall never grant a license. Any gentleman who can find any distinction between the two propositions finds a distinction that is purely technical. Mr. WILLIAMS. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him a moment? Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir. Mr. WILLIAMS. What about the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mgr. BRADLEY,) when coupled with the amendment pro posed by the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD?) ]Mr. CONGER. I agree with the gentleman from Allegan,.(Mr. WriLuAMS,) that if in the same Constitution there is a prohibition as to a particular class, it is possible the courts may construe that full prohibition was thereby prohibited. I am not certain on that point. I have thought of it since the gentleman from Allegan made his remarks; it is possible that might be the interpretation oLit. But that does not affect the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY.) That proposition covers exactly the ground covered by the prohibitory clause in the present Constitution, and by the prohibitory law upon our statute book. The law authorizes certain persons in every township, village or city to sell; it does not prohibit the sale. It requires the giving of bonds, and restricts the sale to certain purposes, for manufacturing, commercial, medicinal and chemical purposes; it authorizes that. No law ever will be passed in the State of Michigan that will absolutely prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors for any and all purposes. I suppose that no one will contend that there should be a law prohibiting the sale for mere manufacturing, chemical, or medicinal purposes. Section fourteen of the law provides that " Every seller of drugs and medicines shall be held to be included in all the prohibitions and penalties of this act, against the selling of spirituous or intoxicating liquors, or mixed liquors, a part of which is spirituous or intoxicating, excepting only those persons whose sole or principal business is the selling of drugs and medicines other than intoxicating liquors, who shall in person, with two or more sufficient sureties, give bond to the peopie ot the State 6f Michigan, and cause the same to be filed in the office of the county clerk, in the sum of not less than five hundred dollars in any township, or one thousand dollars in any city or incorporated village, where he carries on such business," etc. And then it goes on to specify the terms of the bond. Among the conditions are the following: "The,said principal hath covenanted and agreed, and doth hereby covenant and agree as follows, to wit: That he will not, directly or indirectly, by himselt, his c'erk, agent or servant, at any time, sell any spirituous or intoxicating liquors, or any mixed liquor, a part of which is spirituous or intoxicating, except to be used as a medicine, as a chemical agent in scientific, mechanical or manufacturing purposes, or of wine for sacramental purposes. That he will not sell the same to any person who he knows, of has good reason to believe, intends to use it for a beverage, or for any other purpose than such as are herein expressed, or to any person to be drank for any purpose upon the premises. That he will not sell any such liquors to a minor, unless upon the written order of his father, mother, guardian, or family physician. That he will keep a book containing a list, in writing, of the names of all persotis who shall from time to time, purchase any such liquor ot him," his clerk, agent or servant, and of the persons who act as their gents in such pur chase, together with the quantity and kind of liquor purchased on each and every occasion, and the declared object for which the same was purchased; which list shall, on demand, be exhibited to any elcctor ot the township, city or village. And that he will not, in any case, sell or deliver any such liquor, for any purpose whatever, to any person known to him to be an habitual drunkard, or a person in the habit of getting intoxicated." These are the conditions of the bond. Now, I submit, gentlemen, whether that law and the bond that is to be given do not make it purely a restrictive law, to the ends and purposes specified in the law itself? If so, then there can be no objection in that respect to the proposition offered by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY.) His proposition will conform, and in my judgment does conform, to the provisions of that law. The prohibitory clause in the present Constitution prohibits merely the license to sell. The prohibitory law prohibits the sale, except upcn conditions which I call restrictions, which conditions are specified in the law. But the law itself does recognize the right to sell, only subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed. It is only to that point, upon that portion of the prohibitory law, that I desire to make any remarks now. Mr. BRADLEY. I desire to say a word or two by way of explanation. Gentlemen will bear in mind that I said in the beginning of my remarks this morning that I had voted for putting the pr ohibitory clause in the Constitution, and was ready to do it again if I was given the opportunity. I said that was my first choice, and that in the move I had made I had only this thing in view: to correct the proposition of the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) and make it more nearly perfect, so that if hereafter I must accept a proposition of that kind, I would have one which I regarded as preferable to all others. And I would simply ask if it does not appear a little discourteous and ungracious to say that I have abandoned my principles, my friends and the cause, and have gone over soul and body to the enemy? Mr. HOWARD. I would make the same explanation, with this addition: that I have received so many knocks on one side of the head, it was perhaps necessary that I should receive a few knocks on the other side to straighten me up. Mrh HUSTON. If a few knocks will straighten up the gentleman, we are willing to give them to him. Mr. HOWARD. I am willing to vote for prohibition; but if we cannot get that, I will go for what I can get. Mr. BILLS. I move the Convention now take a r~ecess. Th. motion wa agreed to; and a DEBATES - A. ND PROCElRllIINGS. 869 Auguist 15, 1867. C:ONtllU O NALT, CON 0VEN TON-. cordingly (at five minutes pastttwelve o'clock, p. m.,) the Conventionii- took- a recess until half-past' two o'cloek, p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention-re-assembled athalfpast two o'clock p.m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum of members answered to their names. RESOLUTION OF A TEMPERANC ME ETNG. The PRESIDENT, by unanimous consent, laid before the Convention the following communication: FAIRBURY, ILLINOI8, Aug. 12, 1867. To the President of the Michgan Constitu tional Clonvention: - Sin-At a great union temperance'meeting, held in this town last Sabbath evening, the following resolution was, unanimously adopted: "Resolved, That the great union temperance meeting, held in Fairbury, livingston county, Illinois, Aug. 10, 1867, senad Christian greeting to the Michigan State' Constitutional Convention, for having incorporated a clause in their new Constitution, prohibiting all traffic in intoxicating liquors in that great State." We mean victory. O. S. EASTMAN, Secretary-. The communication was laid on the table. SESSIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE-TRAFF-IC IN INTOXICATING LIQUORS, ETC. The PRESIDENT. The Convention, at the time it took itA recess, had under consideration a resolution offered by the gentleman fromLapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) which, as modified, is as follows: Resolved, That the committee on the legislative department be instructed to reportto this Convention an article entitled "Legislative Department," of the substance matter of that which on yesterday failed on its passage, with the fbllowing exception to-wit: That they report in proper shape for separate sub' mission to the people, the question of annual or biennial sessions ofl the Legislature, being the substance of section 8. For this resolution, the gentleman from Kalamazoo (Mr. BRADY,) offered the following substitute: Resolved, That the- following propositions be submitted to the people separately:. 1. Shall the Legislature hold annual or biennial sessions? 2. The Legislature shall restrict, but shall never grant a license, for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors. The gentleman from Genesee (Mr. HOWARD,) moved to amend the substitute, by adding to it the following: "The sale of spirituous or- intoxicating liquors to minors, persons under guardianship and common drunkards, shall be prohib. ited under appropriate penalties, by fine or imprisonment, or both, aS shall be provided by law. And this provision shall be inserted in the body of the Constitution." - The pending question is -on the amendment of the- gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARDl) to -the -substitute offered —by the; gentleman: from Kalamazoo,'(Mr. BRApm.) Mr. BURTCH. Mr. President, it seems to me and I say it with all candor-that when a proposition so grave as the one now before the Convention is presented, it should be: considered with the gravity which it demands. Many members have expressed on this floor their approbation of prohibition; yet so far as I am aware, no proposition, except the one which I offered as an amendment, has been presented here to prohibit the Sale of intoxicating drinks as a beverage inm the State of Michigan. That proposition I regarded as perfectly sound. There was no "sounding brass or tinkling cymbal" in that proposition. Itwas a proposition that was outspoken in its terms-one that would lay the axe at-. the very root of the tree. It was calculated to prevent any Legislature hereafter from granting license for the sale of liquor as a beverage, or allowing any person to sell it. It would put a stop to one of the evils in connection with this question; that is, the constant importuning of the Legislature, on the one hand, for prohibition, and on the other, to open the floodgates and do away with all legislation restricting the traffic in intoxicating liquors. By that proposition the Legislature would be entirely relieved from this subject. By a constitutional provision of this sort, the question would be entirely taken out of the domain of politics. I regard that proposition as one, the adoption of which is very desirablea measure which would be calculated to prevent men from being educated up to be drunkards, instead of providing that when a man has reached this point we shall say to him, "Now you have become a drunkard, you cannot have any more of the'.creetur."' [Laughter.] The proposition of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD,) in addition to prohibiting the sale of liquor to drunkards, would prohibit it to minors. Now, sir, I might send my little child to get some intoxicating drink, but-for 'o purpose of intoxication. It might be a case of the most strenuous emergency, and yet-the liquor might be refused to that child. I see clearly that a vast amount of evil might be obviated by taliing a proper course on this subject. I am not'going to steer my course here in the trail of'other men, when I frequently find the ruts worn so deep, by long-continued travel, that they have become dangerous. I proposeto keep clear from such dangers. Sir, I speak here as atemperance man. Without:making any assumption: whatever, I presume to say that I have a~ better right to speak as a temperance man on this floor, tian any other man; first because I adopted temperance as a principle in my youth-as the guiding star of my course; and secondly, because I was nominated in my county upon that platform, that being the particular issue upon which I was nominated, I being opposed to the other candidate on this question. Now, sir, the county of Eaton is the place where the Republican party was conceived and born. In that county we saw that there must necessarily be another plank in the ship upon which the Republican party was to sail, if it was to be saved in the tremendous storm that is sweeping over the land. It was seen to be necessary that there should be a plank upon which every true, genuine philanthopist, so far as temperance is concerned, could stand -upon which he could sail forth in perfect safety through the storm. [Laughter.] But, sir, whether this be true or not-whether sucha aplank will add strength to the Republican party, is not the question before this Convention. The question is, what shall we do in order to form a Constitution, which, in beauty and grandeur, shall be accepted by the people? In order to do this, we must take this question out of politics, and submit it to the people upon its merits. If the proposition has merits, are not the people competent to decide? Are they not, capable of judging whether or not the subject of temperance is a child to be adopted by them or rejected? Sir, though this child may appear to-day to have no father, yetif it is a worthy child, it will finally be adopted. - Itmatters not about to-day. We must not look upon this question as a matter of to-day. Put this question upon its merits before the people. Let it stand or fall by its merits. We thus relieve ourselves of all party considerations; we thus float out upon the great ocean, where we can sail perfectly free of the weights which are upon us under the circumstances that now surround this Convention. In this hour of. peril, and in such a tremendous gale and storm, when men quake with fear, why should we not step out and take our position like men-act like men, vote like men? Thus we shall avoid all further difficulty in regard to this question. Let us also take some other questions connected with this article and put them before the people. Are not the people, I ask again, competent judges? Arec'you afraid to trust the people? -Ah~!' yes, we hardly dare do it. We have a: great love for the people, but we fear that the people are not 8,70, . Thut-tdtty, Augu~t 15 1867.EAE A, PRCEIG 87Re sufficiently eiducated up to these great moral -and political questions, to be trusted to decide them upon their merits. What a confession to make to the people! We are ready to clasp the hands of the people-for what? For their votes. But we dare not trustthem except to vote; and vote for what? Not to sustain a certain clique, a certain something, nobody knows what. The PRESIDENT. The ten minutes of the gentleman from Eaton have expired. Mr. BURT(CH. I am glad of it. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, it is with some embarrassment that I rise at this time to make a fewremarks, fearing that in the enthusiasm which has been set in motion by the remarks of the gentleman from Eaton, my suggestions may appear tame and pointless. But sir, in the outstart, I shall place myself right where I desire to be placed, so that the remarks of the gentleman from Tuscola (Mr. HUSTON,) will have direct reference to me, as they had to the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) for the reason that I had some consultation with the latter gentleman in reference to the proposition which he has introduced; and we both agreed that, if we could not get prohibition, and that in the Constitution, (this being what -we deemed the best thing,) we wanted to obtain the next best thing. In regard to the word "restrict," which the gentleman from Kalamazoo has inserted in his proposition, I had, in the first place, some misgivings; and the questions which have been raised here in regard to the construction of which that word might admit, and which ultimately may be put upon it, have not in any way dissipated my doubts and misgivings. I have been led to the conclusion that if we are driven to the final alternative to submit this question to the people outside of the instrument which we are here to frame, I prefer just what the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. BILLS) has indicated-the naked proposition of license or prohibition. In regard to much that has been said here on this question, I must confess that in my humble opinion it does not reflect very favorably upon us, either as individuals or as a body. When gentlemen, upon this floor, because they see fit to change their votes with reference to. a pure question of expediency, not involving any matter of principle, are charged by others with ]having abandoned their principles, the charge being made in terms which reflect most unfavorably upon those who: are the subjects of the charge, I sy it does not. do us credit; and-I have regretted very much to see such an exhibition. I have-no boasts to make; I have no references to make to my record at home. I leave that to take care of itself. I am responsible to my constituents, and I ex;pect that they will hold me responsible, irrespective of any'imnpression which I may make upon anybody here. Yet my responsibility to my constituents will not allow me to ignore my duty, as a member of this body, to the remainder of this State. I am glad, however, that I came to the conclusion as to how I should act on this question before reading an article contained in a paper which I found on my desk thismorning; for' from childhood up, it has been my disposition, as it is the natural disposition of many others, to hate to be driven into doing a thing, although I may: know it is right. Most of us much prefer to act in accordance with our own personal convictions, without compulsion, doing that which is right because thus prompted by the dictates of our own consciences. Hence I say that I am glad that I came to my conclusion before reading this article, which is, in my estimation like many other articles, in very bad taste. But as that matter is not under discussion, I have nothing more to say about it. Now, sir, one word in regard to this question of separate submission. Neither prior to my nomination to this Convention, nor since, have I ever been interrogated upon this subject ati home. I suppose, however, that, had I been regarded as a man opposed to temperance, opposed to prohibition, I should not have held a seat here. Although I live in a city where there is an immense amount of liquor sold and drank, a city which cannot be said to be a temperance city, yet the county at large, I am happy to say, has an entirely different complexion; and I suppose that, had I not been atemperance man, I should not be here. But having made no pledges on this question,. I may now be governed entirely by my personal convictions; and as I said in some remarks here the other day, I cannot abandon personal convictions of present duty for the sake of contingencies, especially contingencies which, to say the least,. are only possible. I mean this. remark to apply to my own individual action when I am acting separately and alone. But it is unfair to assume that my convictions of expediency or of right are infallible, or that my peculiar discernment enables me to see the. whole breadth and scope of aprinciplei and that, just as I see it, it is right, irrespective of the views of other gentlemen. And, in saying as I didothe other day, that to abandon prohibition now would look to me like abandoning pricipe for expediency, I had no reference to the question of submission. I had reference to the question of prohibition alone. I do not recognize any principle as being involved in the question of separate submission. I would desire prohibition in the body of the instrument which we are here framing; but if we cannot have that, I am willing to go for submitting the question to the people. I wish, however, to submit along with it, another proposition which I think, to a portion of my constituents, will be quite obnoxious, and that: is the one with reference to annual seseions. When the article on the" Legislative Department," was under consideration the other day, I did not state my objections to it. They are not confined to the matterof annual sessions. There are other features of that article which are seriously Objectionable to me; and I may take an opportunity, when that article comes up hereafter for: consid eration, to state my objections. They were, to say the least, sufficient to pre vent me from voting for it, although I would have been glad to do so, with prohibition in it. If we can have anything better than is offered to us by the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, I think I would not favor the amendment of the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. HOWARD.);A' proposi tion which-would be preferable, seems to me to have been indicated by the remarks"of the gentleman from Lena wee, (Mr. BmILS.) The nearer we can approximate to prohibition, the better ill my opinion we shall do. Mr. HOWARD. After hearing the news which have.been expressed upon the construction -which might be given to the provision by the courts, if my proposition should be adopted, I have come to the conclusion to withdraw it. The PRESIDENT. The amendment of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD,) being withdrawn, the question now recurs on the substitute *offered by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BADLEY,,) for the resolu. tion submitted by the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAni.) Mr. CHAPIN.- Mr. President, -at the risk of being classified by the gentleman from Tuscola, (Mr. HUSTON,) with my friends from Kalamazoo and Genesee, (Mr. BRADLEY and Mr. How-' .'D,):| I claim. the privilege of explaining the vote which I shall give upon this question, and the reasons which will actuate-me in giving it. I have not participated in any. of the previous discussions of this subject. I have heretofore been in'favor of pro.hibitiQn,: and am /.tiU-:ira- favor of it.'I I DP'HATES.AWD PROC'PH'.,')INGS. August 15, 1867 - 871 87 eOSIUTOA'OETIN Th rda have also been in favor of incorporating that principle in the Constitution. I so expressed myself when I first came here. I continued to be of that opinion up to the time when the friends of temperance had an informal gathering to consult with each other upon the subject. I then, in common with some other gentlemen, became satisfied that it would be the more proper course to submit the question separately. I so expressed myself at that meeting. At the same time I also stated that I should vote upon the question of submission with a majority of my temperance friends. I have, in accordance with that declaration, continued to vote with them upon the question of submission up to the present time. We have now arrived at a juncture in the affairs of this Convention when I deem it necessary that we should take some course that may enable us to proceed with our business and accomplish the purposes for which we were sent here. We are literally at a dead lock. One of the most important articles of the Constitution has been rejected, and remains upon the table of the Secretary of the Convention. We have arrived at a dead wall, which it is utterly impossible for us to scale or dig under; and we have but one course left, to go round it. Now, so far as I am concerned, I have always considered the principle of prohibition sacred; but I have regarded the method of voting on the question, whether it be incorporated in, the Constitution or submitted to the people separately, as a mere question of mode -simply the modus operandi, the manner in which the vote of the people shall be taken upon the question. Looking at it in this light, as a matter of mode or manner, I have not thought, and do now not think, that it involves any principle that should require us to stand here confronting each other like Macedonian phalanxes, neither side yielding to the other, while the business of the Convention and the object for which we were convened are entirely disregarded. Looking upon the question in this light, I have concluded that in my action thus far, I have redeemed my pledge. I think I have gone as far in that direction as I am required in honor to go; that I am absolved from further obligation, and that I have now the right to pursue the convictions of my own judgment and conscience upon this question. Under these circumstances, Mr. President, I shall vote for prohibition; but I shall vote for the separate submission of that question to the people. And here permit me to remark that I am unable to perceive why my friends who favor prohibition in the Constitu tion should be so decidedly opposed to its separate submission, when they admit, as they frequently have admitted upon this floor, that the principle will receive a large majority of the popular vote, whether in or out of the Constitution. Are they not aware that the moral force of such an endorsement would do more in the way of enforcement than all the legal suasion that could be brought to their aid? Do they not know that it would far surpass in efficiency the constabulary force of Massachusetts; that it would enable those whose province it might be to prosecute offenders to discharge that duty, armed with the sovereign power of the State, recently and significantly expressed, and thus do away with those cavils and objections which have been such serious obstacles in the way of the execution of the present law? And with all due respect, I would submit whether there is not an apparent injustice-at least, a seeming lack of candor and fair dealing, such as should never characterize the treatment of great moral questions-in pertinaciously refusing to submit this subject to a separate vote, particularly when it is borne in mind that no option is left the people but to adopt the new or the old Constitution, with prohibition in either? Under such circumstances, our opponents will argue that that the friends of temperance, knowing themselves to be masters of the situation, have determined to force prohibition upon the people, by compelling them to accept it in the new, or else fall back upon it in the old Constitution-an inference which will be far more damaging to the true interests of the cause in this State, than all the blows which its most bitter enemies can inflict upon it. Besides, sir, what would it avail us, what advantage would result to the cause of temperance, should we under such circumstances retain prohibition, either in the new, or the old Constitution? Could we enforce it? Do not all laws, and more particularly that class of laws which seek to carry out moral obligations or duties, derive their highest sanction, their chief power and effect, from the consideration that they are based upon the moral sense of the people? And is it possible, in a government like ours, where the lawmaking power emanates directly from, and is accountable to, the people, to execute for any great length of time, laws which are not a reflex of the popular will'? : I do not agree, nor do I wish to be so understood, that the present prohibitory law is a dead letter; nor do I take the ground that, if'prohibition were to be continued either in the old or the new Constitution, it would-prove a failure. I merely wish to declare that if the prohibitory clause -were separately submitted to the people, and adopted by a decisive majority, I verily believe, in common with most of the prohibitionists of this Conventi6n, that a vitality, vigor, and impetus would be given to the principle, which Would enable it to sweep all opposition before it. Its friends would be fired with new zeal, its enemies would be discouraged, whilst those to whom the law assigned the duty of its practical enforcement, could point with satisfaction and pride to its triumphant vindication by the people. These considerations, Mr. President, as well as a regard to the peculiar condition in which we find ourselves, with one of the most important articles of the Constitution lying rejected on our table, will induce me, as I said before, to vote for prohibition, and for its separate submission. Mr. BILLS. Mr. President, I rise to make a proposition. As — has just been stated, we are embarrassed in reaching a conclusion upon a very important article. We all share to some extent in that embarrassment. Now, there is standing upon the general order, the report of the committee upon intoxicating liquors. That report has not yet been acted upon. I suggest for the consideration of the Convention, whether it is not practicable, and whether it would not be desirable at this stage of qur proceedings, in order to relieve the legislative article of one provision which is obnoxious to at least some members, to bring forward the proposition contained in that report, which can be taken up in committee of the whole; or the committee of the whole can be discharged from its consideration, and the question can at once be brought before the Convention for its action. Upon that proposition, all those friends of temperance who wish to record their votes in favor of the simple separate proposition for prohibition of license, can avail themselves of the opportunity; while, if there are any opposed to that proposition, they will have an opportunity to record their votes in opposition to it. If there are those who desire this to be presented as a separate proposition, the way is entirely open; and the matter may be presented to the Convention as a new proposition, and acted upon without being embarrassed by being a part of an article now defeated. If those who have moved the proposition for instructing the committee on the legislative department, are satisfied to lay that motion upon the table, and allow this other matter to be taken up, I wil -872 CONSTr.rUTIONAL. CON V ENTION. Thursday, Auus 15 187 EAE ~ R(ED~S make a motion for that purpose. The pending questions are a motion made by the gentileman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) and an amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY.) If they shall be satis fied to allow the matter to lie upon the table, that this other proposition may be brought forward to be acted upon now, I will with the leave of the Convention submit a motion to that effect. Mr. LAMB. Mr. President, so far as I am concerned, I have no objection to the course suggested by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS.) IF submitted a proposition this. morning, declaring at the same time that I had no objection to its lying on the table; and I moved to lay it there; but that motion did not receive the concurrence of a majority of the Convention. I have no objection to permitting this matter to lie on the table, that we may take the course which the gentleman from Lenawee suggests. Ir. BRADLEY. If the mover of the resolution has no objection to the course suggested, I certainly shall not object. Mr. CONGER. I do not know whether, after amendments have been offered, propositions can be withdrawn in this way. The PRESIDENT. The question is not on withdrawing any proposition. The gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) moves that the resolution and the substitute be laid upon the table. Mr. CONGER. He has not made that motion; he has simply indicated his purpose to do so. I claim the floor. Mr. BILLS. I made the suggestion, supposing that the gentlemen who had moved in this matter would consent to lay the subject on the table. If they do not consent, I shall not press the matter. Mr. CONGER. Mr. President, I wish to say, in regard to this suggestion, that it seems to me it would be a very unusual course to pursue the method of proceeding indicated by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS.) Weeks ago I urged that gentleman very strongly to allow this subject to take the course which he now indicates. The gentleman at that time declined to accept the suggestion. We have come at last to a direct proposition, upon which I am prepared to vote; and I know of no reason why we should go through with all the formality of the committee of the whole or any other proceeding, to arrive at the point to which we have already come. So far as I am concerned, if there is any virtue in deciding, as we propose to do, what the views of the Convention are, that virtue consists in Vol. 2 —-No. 110. the directness and the speed with which we arrive at the result. If this propo sition is not satisfactory, let some other proposition be made under the present order of "motions and resolutions," and let us at least arrive at a vote. The other course suggested would bring us by a circuitous route to the same point at which we have now arrived directly. I can see no possible object to be gained by it, because amendments can be made to this proposition; it can be changed in whatever way may be desirable; and we shall thus arrive at the sense of the Convention. Mr. BIRNEY. Mr. President, I hope that we may reach a vQte upon those propositions which are now pending before the Convention. It will be- remembered that when the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. BILLS) offered an amendment to section thirtyone of the legislative article, it was suggested to him-I think I made the suggestion-that the propositions reported from the committee on intoxicating liquors, being on the general order, could come up regularly, and be considered upon their merits. But he insisted, and others with him, that the proposition reported by him from the committee on intoxicating liquors, must be inserted as an amendment to the legislative article. I trust that now we shall act upon the proposition before the Convention, and see whether we can come to an agreement upon this question. Mr. GIDDINGS. -Mr. President, I do not see what we are to gain by carrying out the proposition of the gentleman from Lenawee. We have been trying all day, thus far, to reconcile our views by propositions for amendment. I know not what is to be gained by laying aside this subject, just as we are perhaps nearing some sort of an arrangement upon which we can bring ourselves into harmony, and taking up another proposition which will ultimately involve us in the same difficulty. Suppose that we should lay aside the pending resolution, and take up the report from the committee on intoxicating liquors; suppose that we should take a vote on the straight question of prohibition. Everybody knows that on that direct question, this Convention will vote in the affirmative. What then shall we have gained? Suppose we vote to put it in this article, what shall we have gained? The article must come before the Convention to be adopted; and shall we not then be placed in the same position in which we were when we voted upon the adoption of this article? If any man says this is not so, ] would like to know the reason. Have there been any secret arrangements by which men are to change their positions? I do not know but there may have been some arrangement under which votes are to be traded off in one way or another. I do not, however, believe any such thing. Now, sir, when we come back again to the article, there stands that prohibitory proposition, mixed up with the whole article; and that article, to be carried, must obtain fifty-one votes. Now, it appears strange to me that the proposition of the gentleman from Lenawee should be sprung upon us at this hour. When an effort was made by several gentlemen to have that course pursued in the first instance, the suggestion was not listened to for a moment; the proposition must go into the legislative article. And now when it is found that we are brought to a dead stand-still, that the article containing this proposition cannot be carried through, there is some side movement and some shifting of position. I do not care to be dealt with in this way; I do not want any claptrap in a Constitutional Convention. I want to meet questions fairly and squarely. If my friend from Lenawee wants to meet questions in that way, I for one'shall be very glad to join with him; but I do not see what is to be gained by laying aside the question now before us, and taking up the report of the committee on intoxicating liquors, when the only result of taking up that report will finlally be to bring us to the same position in which we now stand. I hope, as I have hoped all along, that, by discussing our different views of this question, and presenting different propositions, we may come to some understanding upon the subject, our pim being, not to make a Constitution for the purpose of carrying out some particular views of our own, but to make a Constitution which the people of the State will adopt. If we do not do this, our assembling here will have been entirely useless. The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state that the pending question is upon the substitute of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) for the resolution of the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB.) The discussion of any other question is not in order. Mr. STOUGHTON. Mr. President, I would like to ask the consent of the Convention to present a resolution which it seems to me, if we act upon it favorably, may facilitate our proceedings. I voted for prohibition of license in the Constitution, because I considered that measure right in principle, and the settled policy of the State. We find, DEBATES AND PROCF,'F.'nINGS. A' ugt 15 1867. 873 4 I 87, O~IU~OA, _.. E......ay however, that here as well as elsewhere, there is an honest difference ofopinion. The article on the legislative department, embrag thisprohibitory clause, crannot pass as it is now framed. There must be-some changeade, or the work of this Convention willbe afailure. When we cannot arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the question of prohibition, or any other question, there is, so far as I can see, but one fai and reasonable course to pursue, and that is, to submit the question to the people, the source of all power, and who must ultimately decide the issue. I ask consent to offer this resolution: .1 Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, it is expedient to submit the question of annual sessions of the Legislature, and the question of prohibition of license, separately to a vote of the people. The PRESIDENT. This resolution cannot be entertained except by unanimous consent. Is there any objection? Mr. FAM' and others objected. .Mr. FARMER. Mr. President, we have, I tbin;k, a distct proposition before this Convention, in the resolution introduced by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLY,) as an amendment to the proposition of the gentleman from Lrapeer, (M. LAMB.) That resolution is distinct in its character; and it seems to me that the decision upon that proposition will be calculated to decide, the question upon which we differ. It is a propositionto submit to: the people separately the question of a nnual'or biennial essi0ns of the Legislature, and the question of the prohibition of the liquor trafic. For this reason, if for no other, I am anxious that the vote shold be taken on t]4he propo. sition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo. I have taken no part in the discussion of this subjec from the commencement of the debate. At no time has the question been- presented to the Convention in such a shape that I could vote according to principle, as] Pi desired fo do. On every question pre sented, I have voted with one endl in view —to favor prohibition, and to have the question separately submitted to the people. I take this oportunity to explain my posiion, and to state that I am in favor of prmhibition; that ia opposed to any license sytem, and nthat Iam in favor of submritting to the people the question of prohibition separatelyfrom the body of the Constitution. We know from facts which have come be fore us as members of this Convention, and facts of which we were cognizant before coming here, that there is a di ver sity ofopinion on this subject. We are in no wise sure that a Consti tution with -prohibition - embodied in it, would meet with. the -favor of te people. y impression is that any Constitution which we may sub,rit to.the vote of the:people, if prohibition be embodied in it, will be defeated. This is one of the reasons why I desire a separate.submission of the.question. Another reason why I desire it, is that if' we submit this question separately to the people for their immediate action, the contest will be on that question, distinct and separate from any other question. I consider that upon a direct issue the prohibition clause could be carried, by spirited efforts on the part of its friends. I believe that such efforts made upon this distinct issue, would do more for the suppression of the liquor traffic, than all the efforts -by temperance men for the last fve years have accomplished. Having expressed these views, I am willing and desirous that- the Convention should come to a direct vote upon'this question. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the adoaption of the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, for the resolution-of the gentleman -from Lapeer. Mr. CONGER. On that question, 1call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. PRATT. I move to amend the substitute by striking out the words, shall restrict but;" so that the second proposition will read, "the Legislature shall never grant a license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors." r.BRADLEY.I. I'will accept that amendment, if there-be no objection. There was no'objection, and the substitute of Mr. BRADLEY was modified accordingly. The question was taken'on the substitute of Mr. BRADLEY, and it was not adopted; there bepig yeas 40, nay 42, ,as follows: -..... YEAs-.Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Barber, Birney, Bradley, Brown, Chapin,- Coolidge, Conger, Duncombe, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings, Hazen, -Henderson, Holt, Lamb Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Lace, McKernan,; :Miles, Murray, Pratt, Pringle, Sawyer, Sheldon, Stoughton, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Walker, F. C. Watkins, Winsor, Withey, Williams, :Woodhouse, aidt the President-40. :NAYS-Messrs. Andrews, Bills, Blackman, Case, Corbin,Crocker, Desnoyers, Divine, Duncan, Elliott, Germain,-Harris, Hixson, Holmes, Howard, Huston,. ienney, McClelland, McConnell, Miller, Morton, Mussey, Mlusgrave, Ninde, Norris, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Root, Shearer, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Sutherland, Thompson, Van Yalkenburgh, P. D. Warner,'M. C. Watkins, White, Willard Winans, Wright, and Yeomans42. Mr. RAFTER, (whemhis n'ame was called,) said: If this were a proposition for the submission of the question of prohibition or license, I should vote "aye;" but as it is not, I vote "no." The result of the vote was - announced as above stated. The question recurred on the adoption of the resolution of Mr. LAMB. Mr. LAMB. Upon the suggestion of friends, in order to test this question and see whether these two questions just voted upon could combine sufficient strength, I this morning withdrew two important clauses of'.my resolution. I feel entirely friendly to any effort which may combine strength sufficient to carry through the article upon the legislative department. I now desire to renew the two propositions which I withdrew, and to have a direct vote taken upon the merits of the instructions as a whole. Mr. BIRNEY. Mr. President, I rose at the same time -as the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) for the purpose of offering an amendment, consisting of one of the propositions which he has just renewed-the proposition in regard to prohibition-so that it might be acted on as an amendment. The other proposition could afterward be acted on as an amendment; and thus each proposition could be acted upon separately. I understand the Chair to decide that the instructions embracing these several propositions are not divisible. By the course which [ suggest, we could get a direct vote upon each proposition. I hope the gentleman fromi Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) will accede to this proposition. Mr. LAMB. I withdrew a portion of my original proposition, expecting that. the course which had been indicated by the action of the Convention, would be followed by the friends of prohibition. If they have varied so !far from the idea submitted by myself as not to be able, with the aid of my :vote, to carry the measure, then I think I am entitled to return to my original proposition. If any other gentleman has a proposition which is likely to meet with the favor of the Convention more readily than that proposed by myself, which embraces ,the idea of prohibition or license, I .have no objection. I am not here to Ihinder any measure of that kind, but to assist in forwarding it. If there can be nothing better proposed, I now ask a direct vote upon the proposition sub pitted by myself as a whole.: Hr. CONGER. As it has been sug gested~ by some gentleman on this floor that they would like a direct vote upon the question of prohibition, and 'inasmuch as there is a perfect willing ness to submit the question of annual sessions, I would ask the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) to withdraw the second proposition of his resolu tion; I mean that in regard to rail roads. We can then see whether there 8 d r 0 .8 8 -i CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Thurr.day, 874 DEBATES AND PROCEEDING S. is any possibility of acting together upon the other two propositions. Mr. LAMB. Have we not just con sidered those two questions? Mr. CONGER. The proposition for prohibition has not been voted upon in the language in which some gentlemen desire it to stand. They wanted it in the words of the old Con stitution. I would like to have a test vote upon that question. Mr. LAMB. I do not feel altogether at liberty to comply with the request of my friend from St. Clair, (Mr. CoNGER,) so far as regards the second proposition of my resolution, which relates to aid for railroad purposes. I am, however, willing to withdraw again the two propositions, and allow the friends of prohibition another chance to perfect their work in a different manner, still reserving my right to present this other proposition, which I expect, as a matter of course, to be negatived. The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from Lapeer (Mr. LAtn) withdraw the latter two propositions of his resolution? Mr. LAMB. At the suggestion of friends-who wish to try a different course, I again withdraw those two propositions. Mr. CONGER. What I suggest is that the gentleman withdraw only the proposition with regard to aid to railroads, leaving for the action of the Convention the question of prohibition and the question of annual sessions. Mr. LAMB. I will accede to the suggestion of the gentleman from St. Clair, if wq can come to a vote. Mr. FERRIS. I would suggest that the last proposition contained in the resolution of the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) should read "ithe question of prohibition of license," instead of "the question of prohibition or license." Mr. LiAMB. I should be very glad to accommodate every gentleman in this Convention; but I would be pieas — ed to retain the resolution in its present shape, and take a vote upon it.' Mr. WILLIAMS. I move to amend the resolution of the gentleman from Lapeer, by striking out in the last proposition the word "or," and inserting in lieu thereof the word ",of." Mr. LEACH. I wish some gentleman would tell us, if he can, what dif. ference there is between the last proposition of this resolution as it now stands, and the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo (Mr. BRADLiY,) which was just voted down. I do not see the difference. Mr. FERRIS. It is not a question as to what may be the difference; it is a question as to the effect on the minds of members of this body. Quite a number of members were willing to vote to submit.the naked propostiton of pro hibition, uiencumber ied- by- any other question. It is to meet their views that I have -made thiis sugges hon'.': —::' tion. Mr. BLACKMAN. I would like to state, in answer to the gentlemman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LREACH,) my view of the difference between the two prop ositions. The proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRAD LEY,) as voted upon was this:' "The Legislature shall never grant" a li cense for the sale of ardent: spirits or intoxiecating liquors.,'. Now, the proposition contaie inedm the legislative article was, -that.the Legislature should never authorize the ranting of licenses. There is nothing in the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo to prevent the Legislature from authorizing the granting of licenses by law. It is a very different proposition from that adopted by the Convention in the legislative article. The amendment of Mr. -WLm Was adopted. Mr. NORRIS. I understand that bythe amendment -just adopted, the last proposition in the resolution of the gentleman from Lapeer now reads " prohibition off license." The PRESIDENT. It does. Mr. NORRIS. I think, then, that it will get just as many votes as did the substitute of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY.) The PRESIDENT. The question now recurs on the resolution of the gentleman from Lapeer (r. TAMS,) which, as modified and amended, reads as follows: Resolved, That the committee on the legislative department be instructed to report'tQ this Convention an article entitled "Legislative Department," of the substance matter of that which on yesterday failed on its passage, with the following exceptions, to-wit: That they report in proper shape for separate submission to the people- X < 1. The question of annual or biennial sis-g sions of the Legislature, being the substance of section 8.'' - 2. The question of prohibition of license for the sale of spirituous liquors, beintg the' substance of a part of section 32. Mr. CONGEl. I call for the yeas: and nays on the adoption of the reso,ution. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and the' resolution of Mr. LAMB, as amended,: was not adopted, there being yeas 38, nays 43, as follows:' YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Barber, Birney, Brown, Chapin, Coolidge,'Conger, Duncombe, Estee, Farmer, Ferris,:Giddings, Hazen, Henderson, Holt, Lamb, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McKernan, Miles, Murray, Pratt, Pringle, Sawyer, Sheldon, Stoughton, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Walker, F. C. Watkins, Winsor, Withey, Williams, and Woodhouse — 38. xis-Messrs. Andrus, Bils, Blackimtan, Case, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Divine, Duncan, Elliott, Germain, Harris, Hixson, Holmes, Howard, Huston, Kenney, McClel land, McConnell, Miller, MIussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Norris, Purcell, Rafter, Root, Shearer, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Thompsonii, Van Val kenburgh, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winans, Wright, Yeomans, anbd-thie President-43. Mr. WRIGHT (when his name was called) said: Mr. President, I -have no objection to that portion of this reso lution which proposes to submit the -question of prohibition. If- that por tion stood by itself, I should vote "aye." But I am opposed to the sub mission of the question relative to annual or biennial sessions. I must, therefore, vote against theresoluition. I vote "no." The result of the vote was announced as above stated. !. FERRIS. I move a reconsideration of the:ote by which the word " "of",was substituted.'for the word or," in the resolution of the -gentle man from Lapeer, (Mr.-LAMB,) -niniikg the phrase read, "prohibition of license." - The-PRESIDENT. The gentleman (Mr. FERRIS) cannot -accomplish his object except by:first moving a reconsideration of the vote by which the resolution was rejected. Mr. BIRNEY. I move the fl1o0wing resolution: Resolved, That at the election, and at the same time -when the votes of the electors shall be taken for the adoption or rejection of this Constitution, an additional section to article numbered i, n the words following: "The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant' of license for the sale of ardent spirits or other intoxicating drinks," Shall be separately submitted to the electors of this -State for their adoption or rejection, inform following, to.wit: A separate nallot may be -given by every person having the right to vote for the revised Constitution, to be deposited in a separate box. Upon the ballots given for the adoption of the:said separate section, shall be written or printed, or partly written aind partly printed, the: words, "License fbr the sale of liquors —No;" and upon the ballots given against the adoption of the said separate section, in like manner, the words, "License for sale of liquors-Yes." And on such ballotS:shall be written or printed, or partly written -an'd partly printed, the words, "4C-onstit~utional License," in such manner that s'uch words shall appear on the outside of 'such ballot when folded. If at said election a majority of the: votes for and' against the said separate section shall contain the words, " License for the sale of liquor-No," then there shalll be inserted in the said article numbered, the said additional sectihn, as aforesaid separately submitted, to be numibered afsection -, in said article. Mr. SUTHERLA_ND. I move to .amend this resolution by striking out the proposed section embraced in it, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:.. -. .The Legislature shall prohibit: by'law -all sale or disposition of.ardent spirits or intoxicating drinks for use as a beverage, and may: enforce such prohibition by prescribing suit .8 5 Au'g'u'r,t — 15, 1867. i f able punishments; and may to the same end grant power to search, seize and destroy or confiscate such liquors." On this amendment I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. SUTJH I'RLAND. Mr. President, I am in favor of prohibition, and in favor of inserting it in the body of the Constitution, and in the form proposed by the amendment which I have sent up; but if- the Convention should decide to submit the question separately, I am in favor of submitting separately a provision of this kind, such as I desire to have incorporated in the Constitution. It will be observed that the section which I have offered is different from the provisions of the present Constitation; and the change has been made to obviate some objections urged to the latter provision. It has been urged that the prohibitory clause of our present Constitution ac complishes nothing; that it does not prohibit the sale of liquor, and does not directly tend to accomplish the ob ject of temperance men, inasmuch as it embraces no mandate to the Legisla ture to proceed to any legislation. The section which I offer requires the Legislature to prohibit the sale of liquors, and enforce that prohibition by suitable punishments; and it arms the Legislature with the power, which it has not possessed heretofore, to autho rize searches and seizures and the de struction of the obnoxious article. Such a provision was introduced either in our present liquor law or in some liquor law which we had here tofore; and the question of the consti tutionality of that provision being brought before the Supreme Court, the provision was, by that tribunal, declared unconstitutional. By inserting in the Constitution a section conferring this authority upon the Legislature, the efforts of those who would desire to adoptian effectual law for the suppression of the liquor traffic will be very much aided. They will be armed with an efficient weapon. The concealment and the clandestine sale of liquor can be prevented by empowering the officers of the law to find it out wherever it may be and to destroy it. Whether this provision be incorporated in the Constitution, or separately submitted, I prefer a pro vision in this form to the clause con tained in our present Constitution. Mr. WITHlEY. Mr. President, it seems to me that in the proposition offered by the gentleman from Sagi naw, (Mr. SUThiERLAND,) the great apostles and advocates of temperance upon this floor have a challenge to show how strong and how firm they can be upon the subject of prohibition. I believe, sir, that I have not been classed among the extreme prohibitionists on this floor; but I now ask the most extreme prohibitionists to go with me in supporting the proposition of the gentleman from Saginaw. If prohibition means anything, it ought to mean just what the gentleman proposes in this section. It ought to mean something more than mere prohibition of license, which the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoxGEz,) characterized as g" but the shadow of the substance." Let us have what this amendment proposes to give us-the substance of the matter. So far as I am individually concerned, I propose to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Sagi.aw. Mr. BLACKMAN. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHIERLAND,) by striking out the word "drinks," and inserting in lieu thereof the word liquors." Mr. SUTH- ERLAND. I accept that amendment as a modification of my own proposition. The word " drinks was used inadvertently. Mr. HOWARD. As an amendment to the amendment, I move to strike out of the resolution so much as re lates to separate submission, and insert a provision instructing the committee to incorporate in the article the pro posed amendment. The PRBSIDENT. The motion of the gentleman would hardly be an amendment to the amendment. Mr. HOWARD. There seems to me to be some misunderstanding. I un derstand the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BmNY,) to have offered a resolu tion instructing the eommittee to re port a certain article with a provision for separate submission. The gentle man from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAD,) then proposes to amend by inserting an amendment so as to require the committee to report his proposition. But as the resolution stands, that prop osition would be reported for separate submission. The PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks that the gentleman from Gene see, (Mr. HOWARD,) misapprehends the question. The gentleman from Bay offers a resolution-not a resolution to commit or a resolution to instruct a committee, but simply a resolution in these terms: Resolved, That at the election and at the same time when the votes of the electors shall be taken for the adoption or rejection of this Constitution, an additional section to article numbered, in the words following, etc. To this resolution, the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) of fers an amendment. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Gen esee is not an amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Saginaw, and consequently cannot be entertained at the present time. Mr. HOWARD. Then, sir, I will offer it as a substitute, modifying it so as to require the insertion of the section proposed by the gentleman from Saginaw, in the body of the Constitution. The PRESIDENT. When the gentleman shall have put his proposition in the shape he desires, the Chair will decide whether it is in order. Mr. BIRNEY. The gentleman from Genesee will allow me to ask him whether he would not attain his object by moving to strike out all that relates to separate submission? .p.. Mr. HOWARD. I will state what I wish to accomplish. I am in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Saginaw; I accept the challenge of the gentleman from Kent (Mr. WITHEY;) but I am in favor of incorporating the provision in the -— Constitution, and am opposed to submitting it as a separate proposition. The PRESIDENT. If the amend ment proposed by the gentleman from Saginaw should prevail, a motion similar to that proposed by the gentle man from Genesee would be in order. Mr. HOWARD. Then I withdraw miy motion for the present.. Mr. MUSGRAVE. I shall support the proposition of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) as proba bly the best thing we can get. Mr. ROOT. Mr. President, I for one never doubted the temperance principles of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITmHEY;) but such'an extreme proposition of prohibition, submitted separately would, I think, have the ef fect of-defeating the measure before the people, and then we should have nothing in the Constitution with refer ence to prohibition of license. I think that, if this proposition shall be sub mitted separately to the people, it is so very extreme in its character, (although I should be in favor of it myself,) that it would certainly be voted down by the people. And this seems to be the great object in bringing it forward at this time. If we are driven to a separ ate submission of any proposition to the people, I want a fair submission of the prohibitory provision contained in the present Constitution. I never yet have declared that I will not vote for the separate submission of that provision, if we cannot come together on any other proposition. But I do believe that this proposition advocated by the gentleman from Kent will, if separately submitted, be much more likely to en counter defeat than the proposition for the prohibition of license. It seems to CONSTI'.UUTIONAT, CONVENTION., Thursday, 876 ik Auu 15 q7 EAE ADPOEIG 7 me that such is the object. I think that at any rate such would be the result. Mr. BIRNEY. During this debate a number of gentlemen have said thatthey were willing to vote for a separate submission of a provision similar to that in the present Constitution; and for this reason I have offered my resolution, corresponding in its form with the report of the minority of the committee on intoxicating liquors. That committee was, I believe, very nearly equally divided; andthe gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. D. GOODW,) presented a separate report, which I have followed in drawing this resolution. My object is to obtain a test vote on this question-to see whether gentlemen who have intimated a desire-to vote upon the simple proposition of prohibition are ready to do so now when the opportunity is presented. Mr. ROOT. I will ask whether the provision embraced in the resolution is not an alternative proposition for prohibition or license? Mr. BIRNEY. No, sir; the provision incorporated in my resolution is simply prohibition of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors-the same provision as is contained in the present Constitution with the omission of the words "as a beverage;" those words having been stricken out when this subject was under consideration in Convention. I have made the provision conform to the action already taken by the Convention. I believe that the provision incorporated in my resolution is the same as that which was inserted by the Convention in section thirty-one of the article on the legislative department. Now, sir, I have no objection to the amendment of the gentleman from Saginaw. For the purpose of reaching, if possible, some conclusion upon this question, I shall vote for his amendment; and if the amendment fails, I shall support the resolution as I have presented it. I desire a separate submission of this question. I am not particular as to the precise form of the provision. I shall be satisfied with anything which may be satisfactory to the majority of the people. My object has been to obtain a separate submission of a provision on this subject, in as brief a form as practicable. As the alternative form has been rejected, I have offered a provision in the simplest shape, that we may ascertain whether there is a willingness on the part of the Convention to submit this question at all. Mr. BILLS. Mr. President, I desire to state two objections to which it appears to me the propositionnow prezented is liable. My first objection i not a new one; it is an objection to the separate submission of the question. I do not propose to vote for any such submission. The other objection rests upon the ground that the proposition now presented by the gentleman from Saginaw is radical and extreme. I recognize the fact that the gentleman from Kent (Mr. WITHEY) throws down the gauntlet and says, "We challenge the extreme advocates of temperance on this floor to support this measure.'" He says that he has not himself been regarded as among the extreme temperance men; and I suppose I have the right to say the same of him. Now, I do not propose to stand here and advocate any measure, to be placed before the people simply for the purpose of having it defeated. I do not intimate-and I desire this to be distinctly understoodI do not intimate for one moment that such is the design of any proposition which has been presented here; but that such would be the effect of this proposition, I have no doubt. Why? Because the disposition of the people of this State, if I have rightly interpreted it, is not in favor of putting in the Constitution an extreme, radical measure, absolutely prohibiting the sale of liquor, and providing also for its seizure, confiscation and destruction. It is well known to members of the Convention that in 1853 a prohibitory liquor law was passed, containing a clause providing for the seizure and confiscation of liquors, and that this provision embraced in that law defeated its operation. Now, sir, we do not propose to advocate, nor to be forced to support, a measure so extreme, so radical, that it will defeat itself. I have a conviction —perhaps the same conviction is entertained by most of the gentlemen on this floor-that a proposition for prohibition of license, submitted either in the Constitution or out of it, would be adopted in this State. We should then have a statutory provision prohibiting the sale of liquors; and in the Constitution a prohibition of license. But it is hereproposed to incorporate in the Constitution, as a fundamental principle, an extreme measure, declaring intoxicating liquors to be contraband, and providing that the Legislature shall pass a law whereby they shall ]e seized, confiscated and destroyed; for there can be no other object in the seizure of liquors than their destruction. This, I submit, is a measure so extreme, so radical, as to be likely to defeat itself; and, however extreme' any of us may be on the subject of temperance, I ap prehend that none of us are so extreme that we desire to defeat our own object. I cannot consistently cast my vote for a measure that seems to look in that direction. For this reason, I shall oppose the proposition of the gentleman from Saginaw. Mr. COOLIDGE. I desire to ask the gentleman a question: was not the law of 1853, providing for the seizure and confiscation of intoxicating liquors, submitted by the Legislature to the people, and was not that law susE tained by a large majority of the popular vote? Mr. BILLS. Suppose that it was; yet the provision was declared unconstitutional by the courts; and the law was thereby defeated. The people would be very foolish, if they did not learn wisdom by experience, and would not now vote against such a proposition. Mr. COOLIDGE. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one other question? Mr. BILLS. Certainly. Mr. COOLIDGE. If we adopt a constitutional provision giving the Legislature the express authority to pass such a law, shall we not take away the ground on which the Supreme Court declared the law of 1853 unconstitutional? Mr. BILLS. Certainly not; for there is in this Constitution a protection to property. - Mr. PRINGLE. -Mr. President, twenty or thirty thousand petitioners have expressed their wish to have inelude[ in the Constitution the principle in substance of section forty-seven of Article IV of our present Constitution. This being their prayer, this being the ground upon which they choose to work, this being the position in which they are willing to go before the people of the State, I shall, unless convinced hereafter to the contrary, seek to grant their application, and vote to retain that provision. Hence, I shall not vote for this extreme measure, as it seems to me, covering ground that may just as well be covered by the action of the Legislaturecovering ground which the temperance men par excellence of this State do not stand upon, at least: so far as they propose a submission of this question. I prefer to treat these petitioners as they ask to be treated —to' act upon their proposition as they ask us to act upon it; and then submit the question in such a way as in our discretion may seem best. I am in favor of the separate submission of this question, with or without the alternative proposition, as may be thought best. I am notin favor of incorporating the provision in the body of the instrument; I do not deem that course prudent or-preferable; nor am I in favor of deviring such .DEBATES AND PROCELFA,DINGS . gust 15, 1867. 877 I 878~~~~~~~~ cog TiUi-L~Tird a proposition as shall, from its extreme radical ground, or for any other rea son, present a different question" from that which the temperaiice men of the State have asked us to present. These are the reasons which will induce me to vote against the proposition of the gentleman from Saginaw. Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, Imay be permitted, I trust, to express my astonishment at the position taken on this question by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BaLs,) in calling upon those who are recognized as the' firm and fast friends of temperance on this floor to vote against the proposition of the gentleman from Saginaw. For one, I consider this proposition emi nently and characteristically "fourth proof." If there is any vitality in prohibition, we have ii this section of the gentleman from Saginaw, a vital proposition. I believe it has been conceded by the temper ance men throughout the UUnion particularly in the State of Massachu setts-that, without a clause providing for search and seizure, a prohibitory law is an idle farce. Now, sir, if the temperance men of Michigan are be hind the temperance men of Massachu setts in this great moral reform, I de sire that we may know it. Here is an opportunity, not only to place in our Constititution a prohibitory provision, but to embody in it such elements as, when put into the form of law, may be used to enforce prohibition through out the entire State. I call upon the temperance men to show whether they are in favor of vigorous measures in behalf of prohibition. I think the people will understand that those who do not vote for this proposition thereby declare that, whatever prohibitory provision may be inserted in the Constitution, whatever law may be enacted by the Legislature, it need not be and ought not to be enforced. Mr. ROOT. Mr. President, it is certainly very amusing to me to see this new ",change of front," when the license men-those who have not only advocated license, but have even advocated drinking -whisky as "food"come round and are wiling to go farther, as they claim, than we temperance men or prohibitionists dare to go. I hope that this Convention will not be fooled by these propositions-I say this without any disrespect to any gentlemen present. We have fought the opponents of prohibition upon all sides-upon the front and the rear; and this I suppose is a flank movement. I d6 not know what else to call it These men, whom we have defeated time and again, now come forward and advocate a proposition so extreme that 'they know very well it canot be car ried before the people; and we see flocking into the ranks in behalf of this proposition, men who have advocated license and who have defended the drinking of whisky as " food." What does all thiis mean? Gentlemen of the Convention, this is a serious question; and I hope that we may understand out position. I trust that we shall be able to see the mean-' ing of all these movements in the front, and in the rear, and on the fiank,.and be prepared to stand upon the true principle of prohibition, placing it in the Constitution. This Convention can carry that measure; and as I have already said, it is the only principle that will insure the success of this Constitution before the people. I trust the friends of prohibition will under stand where lies their strength on this question, and will not be disconcerted by any of these side movements. Mr.; MORTON. Mr. President, Iregret very much to see so much dissatisfaction and contention here respecting a matter which I supposed had been settled. But as the gentleman from Eaton (Mr. BTRTCH) would say, I " foresaw" [laughter] that it would be difficult for the friends of prohibition here to agree upon anything at all satisfactory even to themselves, when they came to take into consideration the political necessities of party. I regret that there is not, in the majority of this Convention, sufficient "back-bone'.' to enable them to do what they all tell us is righ-to go straight forward for prohibition. They have got into a dilemma; they will -not stand ip to the rack. I will not call them "dough-faces;" for that term is only appled to Union men, such as I and my political associates, [laughter;] but there appears here a want of "back-bone," a yielding to the behests of party in regard to this matter. This is just as I anticipated. Gentlemen here do not want a temperance law on principle-one which they can stand by and fight for and adhere to. There is not power enough in this Convention to declare in favor of such a law. Hence all this struggle. Now, as the Convention has got into such a dilemma and cannot agree upon anything, I propose to try to relieve this embarrassment by offering as a substitute a resolution instructing the committee on the legislative department to strike out in that article the Clause providing for prohibition of license. This will leave the question just where it properly belongs-to the Legislature. JIf public opinion sustains prohibition, the Legislature will listen to public opinion and maintain the prohibitory law.' On the other hand, if public opinion'hould happen to favor the granting of license, why then we should not be cut off from the privilege of taking a social glass, as we have been for seventeen years past. [Laughter.] .Mr. FERRIS. Mr. President, I wish to occupy but a few moments upon the proposition of the gentleman from Sag inaw. I understand that it is a propo sition to embody in the Constitution a part of what prohibition essentially means. It is all gammon to keep pro hibition of license on the statute-book, unless we are to use the necessary measures to enforce it. Search, seiz ure and confiscation are a part of the necessary means to carry the prohibi tory law into effect; and the State police is another auxiliary requisite fo'efficiently enforcing such a law. It will be necessary, in my opinion, to adopt both of these means in our cities in order to enforce prohibition. This, in my view, is exactly what the prohibitionists mean when-they desire to have the LegisIature. prohibited from granting license. Now, sir, I, for one, want to go before the people on this question in what at present is its necessary shape. I do not want to go before them with a proposition merely prohibiting in idle words the granting of license alone. I desire to have included in this'issue other things that must necessarily be involved in it, if it is to have any effi ciency-the means which must neces sarily be resorted to to enforce prohi bition-the means without which a constitutional provision for prohibi tion must remain a dead-letter, as-it has been heretofore. Now, Mr. President, I desire to call attention to the manner in which the leader of this movement, as he claims to be the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. BLLS,)-speaks of this question. He does not want, he says, to go before the people with this hideous form of prohibition. He does not use exactly those words, but that is what his language means. He does not waift to go before the people with this ultra and extreme measure which, however, embraces only the left hand of the power necessary for the enforcement of prohibition, leaving out of sight the right hand of power, the State police. Hie does not want to disclose either of these tremendous forces, which are now necessary for the execution of a prohibitory law. He wants to go before the people simply saying, "Will you, dear souls, assist us in prohibiting the Legislature from granting license?" This is all he wants —this simple, smooth, oily, slippery-lm proposition, which has not hurt anybody for the last seventeen years, and Will not hurt any one for fifty years to Cox$ -'TIONAL CONVENTION. 878 Th da-i..1 Augut. 15, 1867. DEBATES AD ROOEEDIG 879 come; and then he wants to go to the Legislature and ask that body to take the sledge-hammer in its hand and enforce the law. Now, sir, as I said in speaking on this question the other night, the time has come when prohibition, if it means anything, means the use of the necessary force to carry it into effect. The time has come when we must use extraordinary power, if prohibition is to be enforced. I desire that we shall ask leave of the people to bring into operation this extraordinary power. I do not want to humbug the people with a proposition which does not present this question plainly. Mr. President, I shall support the proposition of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) because when we submit a question to-the people, we should submit it in such a shape as to be of some practical utility and prbduce some efficient results. We want the people's approval of prohibition, in view of the present exigencies of the movement. We want their approval not only of the prohibitory law, but of the means necessary to execute it. Mr. HIENDERSON. - Mr. President, I wish simply to say that I wish to record my vote, if I have an opportunity, in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Saginaw. If my recollection is correct, a similar provision in the law of 1853 was what obtained for that law its great degree of favor with the people; but when the Supreme Court, in consequence of that provision, pronounced that law unconstitutional, then as the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. CooLmIGE,) well said the other day, "the bottom fell out." Now, if such a provision obtained favor with the people at that time, it appears to me that with every true-hearted, earnest temperance man, it must obtain favor now. And with due deference to the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. ROOT,) I must say that it comes with bad grace from him to charge the gentleman from Saginaw, in the face of what has passed here, and the relations which that gentleman sustains to this body, with offering a proposition with a view to defeat prohibition. Mr. ROOT. I do not wish to be so understood; I did not intend any such thing. Mr. SUTlHERLAND. -Mr. Presi. dent, I am very much obliged to the gen. tleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HIENDE.soN,) for the words spoken in my behalf. I rose when he did, to express my surprise that -the amendment which I offered was supposed to be presented in the interest of those who are disposed to submit this question separately, or in a form to insure its defeat. If I thought that such would be its effect, I would most cheerfully withdraw it. I offer it for a very different purposefor the purpose of making the provision for prohibition, whether carried i the body of the Constitution or separately, effectual with reference to the end we have in view, the suppression of the evil. My proposition has been characterized as "extreme." I call attention to its particular phraseology, because I think a bare reading of it will be the best answer to such charges. The first portion of it is only a direct mandate to the Legislature to pass a prohibitory law. Now, what is the object of the present prohibitory provision of the Constitution? What is sought by those who ask its insertion in the new Constitution, if the object be not that the Legislattre shall pass precisely such a law as my amendment requires? If that is not the design, I am very much mistaken; I have mistaken the purport of the many speeches which have been made here on this subject; and I have mistaken the purport of the request embodied in the multitude of petitions which have come from different portions of the State. I take it that the design is to bring about a perfect prohibitory law. The provision which I offer as an amendment has the merit of authorizing, and in effect commanding, the Legislature to pass such a law to reach the evil directly. Mr. BILLS. I wish to inquire of the gentleman whether a law providing for the seizure of liquors would not be in conflict with the United States law. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I propose to allude to that in a moment. I say that this provision has the merit of directly asking for what we wan-a law prohibiting the sale. The provision in the present Constitution simply prohibits the Legislature from granting license. Now, is it license that we war against? Certainly not; it is the traffiac in intoxicating liquors. This provision directs the Legislature to prohibit that traffic -not indirectly by prohibiing license, leaving no other field for legislation, but by clear, direct prohbition.. They both reach the same end, one directly, the other circuitously. I say, then, that in the first part of the amendment there is nothing novel, nothing "ex treme." The only other portion of the amend mnent which' demands attention, is the clause relating to searches and seizures. And in this connection, I beg leave to answer the suggestion made by the gentleman from Jackson (Mr. PRINGLE.) His objection to this measure is that in it we propose to undertake what can be better done by the Legislature. A moment's reflection will show any gentleman that unless we insert in the Constitution this provision or something similar, the Legislature will be powerless to incorporate into any prohibitory law such a clause as is here contemplated. A similar clause in the law of 1853 was declared unconstitutional; it came in conflict with the Constitution of our State. I am asked whether, when we have obviated this objection-when we have provided against the contingency of a conflict between such a law and the Constitution of our State, we do not come in conflict with the Federal Constitution. The Constitution of the United States contains a clause providing that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. But, sir, this clause, if my recollection serves me aright, amounts only to this: that when property is taken by the Federal Government, it shall not be taken without just compensation. The provision is not supposed to have any operation upon the domestic concerns of a State. It standsin- the same category as several other provisions of the same instrument. For instance, there is in the Federal Constitution a provision that no person shall be brought to trial for a crime, except upon the presentment of a grand jury. This has been construed to have exclusive reference to the Federal courts; and we know that State courts are in the constant habit of bringing crimninals to justice upon information, without any indictment. The Federal Constitution regulates the relations of the citizen to the General Government; it has no reference to the internal concerns of a State. Mr. PRINGLE. I would like, with the consent of the gentleman from Saginaw, to make a single suggestion with reference to the explanation which I have made. My statement was that a considerable portion of his amendment embraces what in my ~udgment the Legislature would have power to provide, and would probably provide, in aprohibitory law. I refer to that part of the amendment providing for the imposition of a fine or imprisonment, or both, for any violation of the law. I do not know whether the gentleman regards that clause as an essential part of his amendment. Mr. SUTHERLAND. The words of the amendment, so far as they relate to that subject, are that the Legislature "may~enforce prohibition,,by prescribing suitable punishments." The amendment does not attempt to designate or indicate in any way what the punishments shall be, and was designed to preclude any such construction as that the concluding clause with regard to Au-&ur.t' 15, - 1867. DEBATES AND - PROC'F,FDINGS. 879 - 880 ()O~STA - ___ _ | _ _], _ _ _ __ the seizure and confiscation of liquor embraces the only punishment. Mr. BILLS. I desire to call the attention of the gentleman from Saginaw to the fourth and fifth articles of the amendments to the Constitution of the' United States. Article IV provides that "The right of the people to be secure In their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Article V is as follows: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval torces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private prop-,, erty be taken for public use, without just compensation." Now, sir, what I suggest in regard to this matter is simply this: that if liquors are to be denominated property, the power does not exist in the government of a State to confiscate such property'when in transit across it, and belonging to the United States or to persons holding it under the law of the United States as property; and that it would be a violation of their rights to take that property and confiscate it. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I will say, Mr. President, that the sections which the gentleman has just read from the Federal Constitution, have been construed to have reference to the relation of the General Government to the citizen, and the citizen to the General Government, and no reference to the laws which may be passed by a State. I alluded to the provision prohibiting the punishment of persons accused of crime, without an indictment. That provision, it has been held, does not apply to prosecutions in the State courts; and the other portions of the section, if my recollection serves me, have received a like construction. They have reference to the relation between the General Government and the citizen; and the validity of a State law is not to be decided by those provisions. I have no doubt that the Legislature, in passing a law pursuant to the provision I propose, if it should be adopted, will guardsagainst unreasonable seizures, and will so frame the statute that, unless the liquors are kept for sale-kept for such disposition as would be in violation of our Constitution and the law passed in pursuance of it-no right of seizure will exist; but in all cases where the liquors are so kept, the right to seize, confiscate and destroy will be effectual and operative. Mr. MUSSEY. Mr. President, before we vote on this question, I wish to define my position. I have uniformly and persistently voted against everything like separate submission, whether of this question or any other. I am, personally, strongly opposed to singling out any one provision of the Constitution and submitting it to the people as a distinct proposition. I wish to have the work of our hands go to them as an entirety; yet if this cannot be done, I do not intend to stay here all summer and quarrel about it. I may be willing to yield my opinion in regard to this point. Therefore I had hoped that we might, at the earliest possible time, get at this question, and submit to the Convention whether in the first place we are in favor of putting into the Constitution, or submitting separately to the people, a clause prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law authorizing the granting of license or the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage. That question, I had hoped, would be followed by another proposition in regard to separate submission. With those two questions decided, we should know just where we are. I do not wish to have them coupled together; I do not wish to have them so united that we cannot take a separate'vote on each of them. Now, I say that when such a proposition shall have been submitted to the Convention, and when a majority shall have voted in favor of prohibition and a majority in favor of the separate submission of the question, I will acquiesce in the will of the Convention. But so long as this subject is coupled with something else, so that we cannot have a direct question on the two propositions, I feel constrained to maintain upon this question the same position I have heretofore occupied. Iniregard to the proposition of the gentleman &om Saginaw, I do not doubt that he is as firm and sincere and honest a temperance man as any we have in this Convention, and is looking for that which he thinks is best. If he is prepared to go a little farther than I am, it only shows that I am a little behind the times. I presume he is simply up to the people; and I do not claim to be. I am hardly up to some of these new converts who have been converted into prohibitionists since they came here to this Convention. [Laughter.] Still I shall wade along as fast as I can. But, sir, I am quite inclined to support the proposition of the gentleman from Saginiaw. Certainly I should do so, but for that part of it proposing a separate submission; and I am not sure that I may not yet vote for it, if I have time to reflect before the vote is taken. I am anxious to ascertain how this Convention stands, first, on the question of prohibition; and, second, on the question of separate submission. When these points shall have been determined, I shall know how to act. I ask the Convention to accommodate me so much as to instruct me how to vote in regard to these questions. I wish to submit to the decision of the majority. Mr. CONGER. I desire to ask the gentleman whether the amendment does not itself bring up the direct question of prohibition, separate from any other question-whether, when the Convention shall have adopted this substitute for a part of the article, there will not then be another question in regard to submission? I understand the proposition is to adopt this Has a substitute for the prohibitory clause which has been inserted in the legislative article. Mr. MUSSEY. I understood that there was separate submission coupled with it. Mr. CONGER. Not with this. Mr. MUSSEY. Then I shall go for it, and I hope my brother from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) will strike hands with me on that. Mr. CONGER. I will, if the gentleman will come over to my seat. Mr. MUSSEY. I would do so, but for the trouble of going over there. [Laughter.] Mr. COOLIDGE. Mr. President I have been uniformly humble on this question, and I am growing more humble. If the gentleman from Hillsdale, (Mr. ROOT,) the champion of the other side, is "amused," I am also amused. I understood the gentleman, in his long, well considered and able argument on this question, to predicate that entire argument upon the fact that the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage is wrong, a sin, and should be condemned; yet now, when we come up boldly and propose that the sin shall be done away with, that the means of committing the sin shall be destroyed, and that in this way man shall be relieved from the possibility of being a sinner by removing the temptation, then the gentleman from Hillsdale is "amused." He "does not know what we are at." Well, sir, we have shifted our positions on this question. A few days ago the gentleman from Hillsdale thought he was in the advance; but now, behold, we have left him in the rear, and he does not know how in the world it has hap CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Thursday, 880 August 1- 87 )]AE ~1 ~OE)~s 8 pened. He talks about a " flank move ment." I do not know but that he is flanked. I think he is, and I believe he ought to open his eyes and see where he is going. Some days ago, when gentlemen on this floor told me that there had been a submission of this very question to the people in 1853, and that the people had approved of the measure, I stated that it was not so; that the Legislature had passed a law, the essence, the life, the efficiency, of which was a provision for the seizure of the liquors; that that law was submitted to the people, and approved by them; but as there was no constitultional provision authorizing such a seizure, the Supreme Court de clared that law unconstitutional; and thus the efficiency of the law was ta ken away. I supposed that every one knew that fact. Now, when we pro pose to introduce into the Constitution a clause which will enable the Supreme Court to declare a seizure law constitutional, then gentlemen turn round and say, "The people will not support this;" and the. gentlemen from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) is inclined to think - that, in spite of a constitu tional provision of this kind, a law proposing such an "extreme" meas ure would be unconstitutional. I sub mit that it would not be. So far as regards the Constitution of this State, it would not be unconstitutional, be cause the Constitution itself would pro vide for such a law. So far as regards the Constitution of the United States, I think the gentleman from Lenawee has been well answered by the gentleman from Saginaw (Mr. SUTHERLAND.) Now, sir, if it be held, as gen tlemen on the other side contend, that the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage is a wrong and sin, upon what principle is a provision of this kind opposed to the Constitution of the United States? So far as the courts of the United States have gone, they have declared that a man has the right to import liquor from foreign countries into a State, but the moment that he breaks bulk and the liquor be comes mingled for traffic in the State, it comes under the jurisdiction of the State law; the action of the United States law is at an end. If selling liquor as a beverage be wrong, if it be injurious, if it be against the public morals, and the public health and the prosperity of the State, if it be a nuisance, as has been argued by gentlemen on the other side, what is the difference in principle between seizing and' condemning that liquor by a State law, and seizing a-box of goods that has been brought from a country where the cholera or the yellow fever or the small pox is prevailing? The one ix property VoL 2 —No, lLl just as much as the other. I say that the argument is good for nothing. I say that this proposition of the gentleman from Saginaw is not a "dodge," is not a pretense; and I sup port that proposition for the very best reason, because a seizure clause is the only means of giving efficiency to a law of this kind. If there is a mad-dog running at large, you kill him; if you see a poisonous reptile threatening hu man life, you kill him. If there is any article or commodity, the use of which is evil, and evil continually, destroy that article and you prevent the evil; and there is no need of punishment afterwards. Mr. NORRRIS. Mr. President, I simply wish to put myself right on the record upon this question. In the first place, let me say a few words, following up the line of remark pursued by the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTH ERLAND,) and the gentleman from Ber rien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) as to the con stuction of a provision of this kind, in answer to the point raised by the gen tleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS.) It will be remembered that the law of, 1853 was thought to be unconstitution al by the lawyers who argued in oppo sition to that law, because it interfered witli or violated that provision of the Constitution of the United States providing that the obligation of con tracts shall not be impaired. The Supreme Court of this State in the case of The People vs. Hawley, 3 Mich., 330, made a decision which covers the entire ground of the question raised by the gentleman from Lenawee; and the authorities collected in the brief of the attorneys show that the position taken by the gentleman from Saginaw, is entirely correct; that) the Constitu tion of the United States does not step into the State and undertake to inter fere with the police power of the State in enforcing its laws. The points decided in that case, so far as they apply to this question, are thus stated in the syllabus: "In the exercise of its police powers, a State may prohibit, under penalties, the exercise of any trade or employment which is found to be hazardous or injurious to its citizens, without providing compensation to those upon whom the prohibition operates. "Where the exercise of such power operates to prevent the performance of a dontract previously made, the same principle applies; and the law is not within the prohibition of the Constitution of the United States." Now, sir, if, under the Constitution of 1850, a prohibitory liquor law containing a seizure clause did not interfere with the Constitution of the United States, a fortiori, such a law will be valid under a State Constitution expressly conferring such authority upon the Legislature. A further question was submitted as to the law of 1853 in the case of the People vs. Collins, 3 Michigan, 343; and in that case, the law was finally decided to be unconstitutional upon the simple ground that the Legislatiire had sought to delegate its power to the people, which it could not do. Now, sir, I take it that the brief discussion of this question has im pressed upon the mind of this Con vention, and has placed permanently upon the record for all future time, this point: that if any of the men who have protested on this floor that they are the friends of prohibition, Good Templars, etc., shall register their votes against this amendment, such a vote can be attributed to nothing else than either moral cowardice or political ne cessity. Mr. LOVELL. As "variety is the spice.of life," I suggest that we have a vote; and I therefore call for the- pre vious question. The previous question was not sec, ended; there being ayes 30, noes not counted. Mr. BLACKMAN. I have, not thought it necessary, thus far to-day, to explain my vote. I have thought that the vote on the record would ex plain itself sufficiently for my purpose. Yet I do not know but that I am enti tled to claim the privilege of saying something here; and in the first place I wish to protest a little-not very much-against the gentleman from Washtenaw, (Mr. NORRIs,) judging us beforehand, and setting us down as cowards, if we should not vote a cer tain way. I do not like to vote under that kind of influence, any more than under the strictures of certain news paper men. But waiving all that, I wish simply to say that, so far as the principle of this amendment is concerned, I am inclined to favor it. I have been satis fied all through this Convention, to take prohibition as it stands in our present Constitution. I should be satisfied now to take that prohibitory clause, and re-insert it in' the Constitution. But the other day, I offered here as an amendment a proposition embracing in part the provisions of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Saginaw. I am not at all satisfied that this provision is so stringent that it wQuld be defeated before the pe9ple. I have been of the opinion for some time that a provision of this kind would give efficiency to a prohibitory law; and as this question comes up and I am required to vote upon it, I believe that, s an amendment to the pending resolution, I shall sustain it, though I may vote against the resolution as amended, on the ground that I am not in favor of a separate sub August 15, 1867. !)EJBAT -ES AXD PROCEE]t)INGS. 88i -. CONSTITUTIONA Tl, CONVENTION. mission. With this explanation, I feel inclined to vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Saginaw, as an amendment to this resolution. Mr. T. G. SMITH. Mr. President, I am opposed to this resolution, and shall vote against it; but in saying this, I do not say that I am opposed to the principle embraced in it. I voted the other day for what has been termed here "united submission's of the clause for prohibition of license submission in the Constitution. I did so after considerable deliberation, and not until I had become satisfied in my own mind that such was the true course of policy to be pursued by this Convention. Having thus voted, I have notchanged my views; and I- am unwilling to vote for the separate submission of any proposition, until I am satisfied that we cannot carry that proposition in the body of the Constitution. I wish to see the question fairly tried. I think the majority of this Convention are entitled to have that question de cided; and I believe that it would be unwise on our part, and the people would be dissatisfied with our actiQn, if we should now adopt a proposition of this rkind, before we have settled the question whether the provision can be embodied in the Constitution. When it shall have been decided that we cannot thus embody it, then I shall be willing to go for separate submis sion. But I desire that we shall try whether we can obtain united submis sion. The legislative article has failed to obtain the vote of a major ity of this Convention for its adoption. Why? Because it con tained a provision for the prohibi tion of license? It does not at all fol. low. That article contains many other provisions. It contains one in particu lar, on account of which a laige num ber of the members of this Convention voted against that article. Now, sir, when both of these propositions have been adopted by a majority of this Convention, shall we, because, when put together, they cannot be carried through, abandon the struggle in the very first attack? I say, let us bring this Convention to a direct Note on each propoaition separately; and then if we should be defeated, we will take the next best thing. With this view, I have drawn up a resolution in the form of a substitute, though I do not know that it would be in order at this time.- It proposes in effect to direct the committee on the legislative department to report an ar ticle, omitting entirely the provision with regard t o prohibition of license; the object being that, if in that form, the Article should-be adopted, we can. then direct the committee on intoxicating liquors to report an article providing for prohibition of license. I think that justice to the people of the State demands that we should try this, before we abandon our colors and consent to a separate submission. I very much doubt in my own mind as to the wisdom or policy of the proposition of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHEIRLAND.) I do not believe the people expect any such proposition. I believe it proposes to go farther than they expect; and I think it would be very uncertain whether such a propo sition could be carried before the peo ple. Men may be in favor of a prohibi tory law, while they are unwilling to bind the matter up in the Constitution beyond all power of legislative con trol. If we are going to submit a proposition, let us submit a provi sion for:prohibition of license simply. The Legislature understands what that means; the people understand what it means. It will be recognized as an expression of the sentiment of this Convention against, the traffic in in toxicating liquors. Whatever other gentlemen may say, I am content with a provision of that kind in the Consti tution. With the influence which such a provision must have, I-am willing to leave the question to the Legislature. If it be in order, I submit the following substitute for the resolution: Resolved, That the committee on the legislative department be instructed to report forthwith an article entitled " Legislative Department," containing the same provisions included in the article on that subject defeated in this Convention on the 14th instant, with the exception of the clause in section thirtytwo, prohibiting the passing of any'act authorizing the granting of license for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Mr. CONGER. Mr. President, I cannot see how this is a substitute for the proposition under consideration, or how it has - any relation to it. The question under consideration I understand to be the amiendment of the gentleman from Saginaw, relating to an entirely different subject. For myself, I am tired of voting on negative propositions; I desire to vote on something positive. The PRESIDENT pro temsore, (Mr. TURNER.) The Cha.ir thinks that the proposition of -the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. T. G. SMITI,) is not in order at the present time. Mr. MTLLER. Mr. President, I wish simply to state that I have been satisfied-at least measurably satisfied -with the article on the legislative department. -Some provisions of that article did not meet my approbation; but owing to' my attachment to the principle: of prohibition of license, I felt very willing to waive all my objections and to vote for the a-rticle. I feel so at present; and so far as I may be able, I shall, while in this Convention, vote to-incorporate in the body of the Constitution the principle of prohibition of license. But if I should be unable to obtain that which I desire, I shall seek to obtain that which in my opinion is next best. I intend to vote for this propQsition of the gentleman from Saginaw. I'think it'a very strong measure. It may be stronger than the people will bear. Nevertheless, I shall vote for it, as being the best proposition now before the Convention. Mr. P. D. WARNER. Bir. Presi dent, I am opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Sagi naw, for the reasons which have been already stated by other members of the Convention, and which I need not -re peat. I consider that the proposition could not be adopted on a popular vote. I should be glad to see such a provision incorporated in -the organic law; but Ibelieve-it-woul-d — be impos sible to secure the success of such a proposition before the people. I I am, opposed also to the prop osition of the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BIRNsY,) because I am opposed to the separate submission of any single provision. I believe that any proposition which does not possess in itself suf ficient merit to recommend it to the favorable consideration and approval of a majority of the members elected to this Convention, is not worthy to be submitted separately to the people of the State of Michigan. But it has been urged here, in the discussion to-day, that the proposition prohibiting the Legislature from authorizing a system of license for the sale of intoxicating liquors is the only objectionable feature embraced in the article on the legislative department. Gentlemen have argued on the as-, sumption' that, if this provision were taken out of that article, there would be no objection to:the adoption of the article in this Conyention. I have not been able to comprehend the logic of that kind of argument. I be lieve that the article embraces other propositions which have hardly been referred to here to-day, but in which the people of the State are deeply in — terested, and which have influenced the action of members here in voting against the article. By reference to the journal, I find that another propo sition, now embodied in the legislative article, received, when voted up on: separately'.'by the. Convention, but. forty-two' votes,- against thirty four, while! the proposition for pro hibition of license received forty three votes, against thirty-three-sev enty-six members voting upon both s 13, r -88-2 Thurr,day, N I 1, l D A I propositions. Hence it is not only the question of prohibition that stands in the way of the adoption of the legisla-' tive article..And, sir, there are other provisions, besides that for prohibition and that for annual sessions of the Legislature, which are objectionable to some of the members on this floor. I need not refer to them; but such is the fact. Then why should gentlemen in this discussion continue to speak as if the question of prohibition were the only question in the way of the pas sage of the article? Now, Mr. President, I am in favor of prohibition. I am in favor of it from principle. I believe it to be, as a principle, right and just; there fore I favor it. I am in favor of adopting it as a part of the Consitution, and not'submitting it separately, as an open question, to the electors of the State. One reason why I am thus opposed to separate submission is because, of the 45,000 petitioners who have asked of this Convention action in regard to this question, I believe I speak correctly when I state that not one has asked a separate submission of the question. If I am wrong, the chairman of the committee on this subject will correct me. Mr. President, the people do not ask a separate submission of this ques tion; they have not desired it. They have expected this Convention to deter mine upon its own judgment, what is best for the interests of the State in re gard to the traffic in intoxicatingliquors, and, having thus determined, to place a provision on the subject in the body of the Constitution. When the labors of this Convention shall have closed, and the instrument framed by us shall be presented to the people for their approval or rejection, they expect to meet this question in the instrument, and not outside of it. Mr. FARMER. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question? Mr. P. D. WARNER. Certainly. Mr. FAR;ER. How many petitioners have expressed an opinion as to submission, one way or the other? Mr. P. D. WARNER. I have stated in my remarks that no one of these petitioners has said anything in relation to submission. They all ask either prohibition or license in the Constitution, not as a provision to be separately submitted. But it has been urged by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. FARMER,) that if prohibition should be placed in the Constitution, that instrument would not receive the support and approval of the people-the inference being that it would be rejected because it eontained prohibition; but the same gentlemB3 without supporting in any way that position, continued by saying that, if prohibition: should be submitted to the people separately, he had no doubt it would be approved. I acknowledge, Mr. President, that I was unable to see the force of that argument. It is contended, sir, that this is a moral question, and that not being a ques tion of a political character, the domi -nant party has no political responsi bility upon the subject, and hence a provision of this kind ought not to be embraced in the Constitution, but ought to be left for the separate deter mination of the people. Now, I ask gentlemen whether municipal aid to railroads is any part of the creed of the Republican party? The PRESIDENT pro, tempore, (Mr. TURNER.) The ten minutes of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) have expired. Mr. STOUGHTON. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from S~ginaw, (Mr. SUTH ERLAND,) because I believe that it will defeat the very object we have in view. If that proposition were submitted to the people separately, I do not believe it would be adopted; nor do I believe the people would adopt the Constitu tion if it should contain such a provis ion. And even if it should be effectu ally adopted as a part of the organic law of the State, I believe we should find more difficulty a thousand-fold in enforcing it than we have ever had in enforcing the pr6sent law. Mr. WITH EY. I desire to ask the gentleman whether, by prohibition of license, he does not propose the same thing, carried out by legislation, that the gentleman from Saginaw proposes to adopt as a provision of the Constitution? Mr. STOUGHTON. What I mean to say, Mr. President, is this: All past experience assures us that, while the people are willing to punish those who sell spirituous liquors in violation of law, they are not in favor of the destruction Qf property; and so far as I am informed, in every place where the search and seizure clause of the old law was put into effect, i~t produced a reaction against the temperance men, the temperance cause and the enforcement of the law. Such is my recollection of the facts in regard to the enforcement of that law. We are now asked to engraft such a provision into the Constitution, to bind the destiny of the State to it, so that we can have no other law. I cannQt consent to this; nor do I believe that the majorty of this Convention will adopt it as a part of the Constitution. The gentleman from WVashtenaw, (Mr. NORRIs,) has declared that if the temperance men refuse to vote for this proposition, their course must be at — tributed either to political necessity or maoral cowardice. Now, it will be recol lected that that gentleman (and I-re gret that he is not now in his seat) informed us a few days ago that the Republican party, the dominant party in this Convention, were trying.the doubtful experiment of "riding two horses." I would like to know in what position to-day we find that gen tleman and the. minority of this Con vention. - When the question was before this body whether we should have prohibition of license placed in the Constitution, we found the minority standing as a solid pha lanx (with one honorable exception,) against that provision. They asked for a separate submission of this ques tion to the people; and when their votes would have carried the question, and would have placed prohibition in the Constitution, they voted against it.' Yet to-day, when we might have placed the' whole question before the people as to whether we should have license or prohibition, they voted against the proposition, and thus dce feated it. Where, then, is their con sistency? Mr. MCoCLELLAND. Will the gen tleman permit me to correct him.? Mr. STOUGHTON. Certainly. Mr. M]CLELLAND. I at least, and I think a majority of the minority (which appears to be growing ccsmall by degrees, and beautifully less,") vo ted for submission;'but it will be rec ollected that it was separate submis sion in the form presented by the prop osition of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) and in that form only. Mr. STOUGHTON. I would ask whether that m'minority did not, this afternoon,. when the question was taken on separate submission, vote in the negative'? Mr. MoCLELLAND. It wa~ not. the same question at all. Mr. STOUGHTON. Perhaps not; but it is a distinction without a difference. The principle is the same. Mr. MoaCLELLAND. Will the gentleman permit me to state the differenc~? The one was the naked question of prohibition as it stands in the Constitution at present; the other was that provision, with the alternative proposition in regard to regulating, by tax or otherwise, the sale of this article. Mr. STOUGHITON.:Mr. President, let us see how this question stands. If the proposition with the amendment of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) had been adopted, we Should have appealed.. to the people of this State to say whether they would have prohibition or license. Yet upon that propo i August - 15, 186.7. DE TES — AWD- PROCEEDINGS*' 8.83 88:OSIUI~LC~V~I~ hrdy sition every member, I believe, of the minority, with one exception, voted against the amendment of the gentle man from Kalamazoo. Mr. NORRIS. I trust the gentleman will allow me to state what I under stand to be the fact. I think the proposition of the gentleman from Kalamazoo did not propose to submit any alternative question of prohibition or license, but, simply license or no license. Mr. STOUGHTON. Very well; I take the gentleman on his own ground. Then they voted against that proposi tion, whether we shall have license or no license, when the very thing which has been asked by numerous petitions sent up here, has been "a well-regu lated license law." Mr. NORRIS. I will state, if the gentleman will permit me, that no vote given by the minority since this ques tion first arose in the Convention, has been inconsistent with the proposition first advanced by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LoTHROP) and subsequent ly amended on motion of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) Every vote of those with whom I act politi cally, has tended in that direction. If we have been found with the minor ity of the Convention at one time, and with the majority at another, it is be cause sometimes gentlemen on the other political side have come over to us, not that we have gone over to them. We stand here simply asking that this proposition shall be submitted to the people in an alternative form. We propose to let them discuss and decide the question whether we shall have restriction, regulation, license, call it what you please, or whether we shall have prohibition., The only proposi tions which have been placed before us since the proposition of the gen tleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) was voted down, have been prohibition or no prohibition, license or no license. And we have steadily voted against such propositions. We shall continue to do so-.at least, we think we shall. We do not know how long it may be before we may get tired out,and be induced to seek the readiest means of getting rid of the question and bringing-the work of the Convention to a close, that we may go back to our homes, where we desire to be. But for the present we shall rest on that platform. One word further. I was not in my seat during a part of the remarks of the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGH3:TON.) I have understood he took occasion to pay his respects to me personally. Now, I wish to say that my advocacy of this search-and-seizure provision is just as sincere and just as candid as that of the gentleman from Saginaw. I shall, on the final question, vote against every such proposi tion. But I am distinctly pledged-. pledged by myself to myself, and to L nobody else, because I never make any pledges to anybody else-that if this prohibitory provision should be taken L before the people, and after a thorough canvass, prohibition should be reenac ted, and placed upon the statute-book by a respectable majority, I for one will turn in and do all I can to enforce [ it to the letter-yes, sir, to the last let ter; and for the purpose of enforcing it, I ask this Convention, if it endorses prohibition, to authorize such a law as can be enforced. and not to adopt a mere political humbug. This is my position. Mr. MoCLELLAND. Mr. Presi dent, [cries of " question,"j I am not goming to detain the Convention with any discussion of this question; I wish to make a single remark in reply to the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. L STOUG'HTON,) and I make it in all can dor. It is this that I think we had L better, all of us, or most of us, who have made speeches here, say as little about consistency as possible. Now, sir, so far as I am concerned in regard to this question, my course has been marked out from the beginning. I have not been able to see any good reason why the mere question of license should not be decided as it was in 1850. If you adopt the prohibition of license and nothing else, I cannot see any reason why it should not be engrafted upon the Constitution. But I did think, and I still believe, that the prop osition of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) was a perfectly fair one. I supported it when it was made, and I shall support it again, if an oppor tunity should be presented. Mr. SUTHERLAND. As the sen timent of the Convention may be divi ded on different parts of this amend-ment, I ask a division of the question, so that the question shall first be taken on that part of the proposition relating to prohibition, excluding the part relating to searches and seizures. I desire the question to be first taken on the portion embraced in these words: "The Legislature shall prohibit by law all sale or disposition of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors for use as a beverage, and may enforce such prohibition by prescribing suitable punishments." On this question, I call for the yeas and nays. ( The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. LAMB. I would inquire of the Chair whether an amendment offered as a whole to a proposition before the Convention, can be divided so as to have the question taken upon different parts? The proposition of the gen tleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTETRLAND,) is, I take it, a single proposition to amend. I make the point of order whether that amendment can be divided. I admit that the gentleman may make two propositions to amend. But the point I raise is whether he can offer one amendment and then have the question divided. The PRESIDENT pro tentpore, (Mr. TURNER.) The Chair is of the opinion that it is competent for the Convention to take a vote on the first part of the proposition separately. The question was taken on the first division of the amendment of Mr. SUTHERLAND; and it was adopted-there being yeas 55, nays 25, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Birney, Blackman, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Duncan* Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Huston, Longyear, Luce, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Norris, Pratt, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, VanValkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, -Winsor, Withey, Williams, Winans, Woodhouse, Wright, and Yeomans-55. NAYs-Messrs. Bills, Bradley, Brown, Crocker, Desnoyers, Divine, [Germain, Hixson, Kenney, Lamb, Leach, Lovell, McClelland, McKernan, Morton, Ninde, Pringle, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Shearer, T. G. Smith, F. (C. Watkins, Willard, and Winans -25. Mr. NORRIS (when his name was called) said: For the purpose of perfecting the pending proposition, I vote aye." But on the adoption of the resolution, I shall vote " no," unless it should provide for the separate submission of an: alternative proposition. The result of the vote -was announced as above stated. Mr. SUTHERLAND. Mr. President, the last clause of my amendment was offered in good faith; but if the fiends of prohibition generally think it unwise to press that part of the proposition, I will not insist upon it. [will withdraw it, if I am at liberty to do so. Mr. CHAPIN. I should like to hear the other part of the proposition. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The concluding portion of the amendment of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) is in these words: "and may, to the same end, grant power to search, seize and destroy or confiscate such liquors." - -;.X The gentleman from Saginaw can withdraw this portion of his amendment by unanimous consent. Mr. HENDERSON. MFr. President, I hope that the latter part of the proposition will not be withdrawn. It was this that induced me to support the first portion. A mere prohibitory provision has not, perhaps, all the force that is desirable; and a provision of this kind 881 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Thursday, 11 August 15, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 885 seems necessary to add force to that proposition. When gentlemen state their apprehension that this provision could not meet the approbation of the people, I think they form their opinion .upon the assumption that it will be mandatory upon the Legislature to enact such a seizure clause. This is a mistake. It can, under the language of the amendment, be adopted as a last expedient, when all other methods have failed. Mr. SAWYER. I wish to inquire whether the last portion of the amendment has been withdrawn? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair does not understand that it has been. Mr. SAWYER. It was that part of the amendment that induced me to vote for the first part. If the latter portion is to be withdrawn, I should desire to change my vote. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the adoption of the latter division of the amendment of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND.) Mr. NORRIS. I call for the yeas and nays on on that question. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. LAMB. Mri. President, we have been told here that a prohibitory law cannot be effective for the object aimed at, without the incorporation of such a clause as is here proposed. My opinion is undecided whether such is the fact or not; but-if we are to have a prohibitory law, it should be made an effective one; for most certainly the lav which we have had has been ineffective. It has been effective in a certain sense, but not in the direction in'tended or desired by its friends. It has tended to produce immorality and vice; it has tended to produce thieving, and every species of criminality that can be named in the vocabulary of the English language. Liquor has been driven from daylight into darkness; and its votaries have followed it there. Mll manner of criminality has been most successfully and completely oarried on and practiced, in these dens of iniquity. Now, if the temperance men of this State intend to have a law which shall be effective, let them come up and vote for this latter clause of the amendmegnt of the gentleman from Saginaw. 'Let them make their work perfect. Most certainly every member of this Convention understands very well that the prohibitory law has not prevented the sale or use of intoxicating liquors, but has simply had the tendency to drive it out of sight. It has had the tendency which I have described. It has taught immorality to the rising generation. They have not been allowed to come up and take their glass socially in a free and open manner; but they have been taught the sneaking operation of going into the dark' cellars of our cities and towns to procure liquor. I say that the tendency of this law has been destructive to the virtue of the rising generation; and if the temperance men of the State desire what they say they desire, let them now come up and make this law a strong and effective one. Let them insert in the Constitution such a provision that the Legislature will not be able to dodge it, but will be required to walk up to the work. The question was taken on the latter division of the amendment of Mr. SUTHERLAND, and it was not agreed to; there being yeas 35, nays 39, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Barber, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings, Henderson, Lamb, Longyear, Miller, i Mussey, Musgrave, Norris, Pratt, Sawyer, Sheldon, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Utley, Walker, White, Wineor, Withey, Williams, and Woodhouse-35. NAYs-Messrs. Andrus, Bills, Birney, Chapin, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Germain, Harris, Hixson, Holmes, Howald, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Murray, Ninde, Pringle, Purcell, Richmond, Root, Shearer, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Tyler, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Winans, Yeomans, and the President-39. Mr. NORRIS, (when his name was called,) said: Mr. President, I vote "aye" with the same conditions, and under the same reservations as applied to my former vote. The result of the vote was announced as above stated. ADORMN.I ADJOURNMENT. Mr. A T,EXANDER. I move that the Convention adjourn. Mr. HFENDERSON. I trust the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) will modify his motion or allow an amendment to be offered, providing that we take a recess till this evening. I do-not want to sleep until this question has been settled. Until it is decided, we cannot make any calculation within four days as to when we shall be able to leave here. Mr. ALEXANDER. I withdraw the motion to adjourn. Mr. HENDERSON. I move that the Convention take a recess until halfpast seven o'clock this evening. Mr. BILLS. I trust it is not the wish of the Convention to sit here this evening.'I do not desire it, and I think other gentlemen do not. We have had two long sessions to-day. Mr. ROOT. I hope that we shall not be required to sit here this evening. For my part, I shall not be able to be here. Mr. HENDERSON. I withdraw my motion. I simply expressed my individual wish. Mr. MORTON. I move that the Convention adjourn. -- The motion was agreed to; and the Convention (at twenty minutes before six o'clock, p. m.,) adjourned. - SIXTY-NINTH DAY. FRIDAY, August 16, 1867. The Convention met at nine o'clock, a. m., and was called to order by the PREsIDENT..: Prayer by Rev. Mr. POTTER. The roll was called, and a quorum of members answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. RICHMOND asked and obtained leave of absence during the day, for Mr. WRIGHT, on account of sickness. Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, I ask indefinite leave of absence, for myself after to-day. I hope to return early next week; but as there is some uncertainty about it, I ask leave for an indefinite period. Leave was granted. Mr. DIVINE asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence after to-day. Mr. CONGER asked and obtained leave of absence after to-day, until next Monday afternoon. Mr. STOUGHTON asked and obtained leave of absence after to-day, until next Tuesday morning.' PETITION. Mr. MILLER presented the petition of Isaac Delano, asking that the prohibitory clause be retained in the Constitution; which was referred to the committee on intoxicating liquors. - PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. BIRNEY. I move to take from the table the report- of the committee on arrangement and phraseology, rela tive to the Preamble of the Constitu-' tion. The motion was not agreedto. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. MUSSEY. I move to reconsider the vote taken on the 14th inst., by which the article entitled ", Legislative Department," was not adopted. Mr. CONGER. Mr. President, I cannot see to-dAy any reason for taking "up this article, which did not exist yesterday. It seems to me that if we progress in our work as rapidly as we did yesterday, the Convention will perhaps be able in a day or two, to determine the method of solving our present difficulties. I would be in favor of reconsidering that vote soon enough to bring it within the rule; but I am not in favor of briging up this I i CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. article so that every amendment, an every proposition in regard to the se tlement of our troubles, may be attac] ed to the article, going through wit all the formality necessary for that pu pose, and increasing the difficulty arriving at a conclusion. We can be ter solve our present difficulty by simple resolution. If the gentleman from Macomb (M MussEY) will state his object in makin this motion, perhaps I may be able see some good purpose in it. But th article, for which I have still a linger ing affection, has already gone throug perils enough; and I prefer that it sha rest, while the Convention carries o the battle upon resolutions awhile, u til we can see whether we can come t some agreement upon this question To-morrow, as I understand, will b early enough, under the rules, to mak the motion to reconsider. Mr. MUSSEY. Mr. President, th request of the gentleman from S Clair, (Mr. Co-GER,) that I should stat my object in making this motion, is reasonable and perfectly natural one I am glad to learn that the gentlema has so much natural affection. for thi afflicted child. It is perfectly nature with us all, when one child seems t be more afflicted than any other, t have a peculiar regard for that child. Now, I understand that the gentle man from St. Clair is about to leav the Convention, and will not be her to-morrow to look after this question This is one of my reasons, but not m primary/reason, for making this motion If we adopt an article of this kind and I presume none of us will thin] of submitting a Constitution withou an article on the legislative depart ment-there are but two ways in whic we can accomplish its adoption. One is to reconsider the vote by which the art'ple was rejected, and then, unles it can be passed in its presen form, recommit it with instructions so to amend it as to.make it acceptable to a majority of the Con vention,"thus saving the labor and de lay which would be involvedl in thE passage of an entirely new article. ~ I: we do not do this, then I apprehend that, either under instructions or otherwise,-the committee on the legislative department will report a new article in some -form to the Convention. A new article thus reported would be required to go through all the various stages necessary in the consideration of an article; and- it would perhaps take several days at least before we could bring it into the same position in which this article now is. Hence, I think it better that we should reconsider the vote by which this article was rejected, and either d bring the article directly before th - Convention, or place it in such a posi h tion that we can reach it at any time th If we can agree upon a form in which r- the article can be carried, thenf we can of embody the proposition in the shape t- of instructions to recommit the article a instructing the committee to report i in the shape which we may agree upon r. as satisfactory; and when reported, the g article can be put upon its passage. ] to think; that in this way we shall save is time; and I do not see any objection to r-.this course. It seems to me that it has h the advantage of economy of time, and 11 will be attended with less difficulties n and is less likely to distract and prolong - our discussions, than any other method o of procedure. n. I really hope that we may proceed in e this matter without any bitterness of e feeling, and with an earnest desire on the part of every member to arrive as e early as possible at some agreement in t. regard to this subject, that we may e close up our work and return to our a homes. I certainly have not made this e. proposition pith any feeling of hostility. bn Mr. BILLS. Mr. President, a prois longed debate under the order of mo 1 tions and resolutions, would not probao bly mature this article. I doubt much o whether any progress was made in that direction by our day's work yesterday. 3 Now, sir, I conceive it unwise to pro r tract a debate outside of an article, e simply for the purpose of ascertaining . the views, the sentiments and the wishes of the Convention, with regard . to-that article. The subject-matter of - this article has been so thoroughly k canvassed that probably the minds of t members of this Convention are fully made up in regard to it. It seems to me that the legitimate and proper e method of maturing the article in such e a'form that it shall meet the approbas'tion of a majority of the members, is Lt to bring it again-before us. I doubt not that the purpose and desire of the e gentleman making this motion to re~- consider, is to facilitate in this way - our business,- and to avoid a protracte ed debate upon motions and resolu tions, outside of any article. I consider the latter method of proceeding, at this stage of our business, but a waste of time. The motion to reconsider is but a legitimate and natural pro cess by which to revive aan article I which has been rejected, that it may be matured and perfected, that the views and sentiments.of dif 4erent members with regard to it may I be harmonized, and that finally it may * be adopted. In order, therefore, that we may facilitate the business of the Convention and arrive at a conclusion on this subject as speedily as possible, I-hope the motion to reconsider will e prevail,, and that thee- article will be - again brought before us. M. r. CONGER. Mr. President, the same method of reaching an agree a ment must be pursued in either case. e If this article should be brought back , here, every motion to amend it must t be in the form of a motion to recommit a with instructions. If -any'.such mo e tion should be- adopted,. the com mittee must report the article back in e accordance with the instructions, -going through a needless formality, and causing considerable trouble and loss of time and then when the articleis , reported, the whole dispute'arises again with regard to its adoption. So it must be with regard to every sepa rate proposition. It appears to me that the more direct way is for the Convention to go on until we shall, if possible, agree as to what is to be put into the article; and then the article -can be reconsidered, instructions to the committee can be- drawn up,: the article can be recommitted, and then reported back and voted upon, all being - done in half an hour. The principal cause of the delay, is - in the fact that the Convention has not t yet agreed upon its plan; and I submit that, as a mere parliamentary method . of disposing of business,it is prop er for the Convention to settle dis puted questions by simple resolu tion. In this way we shall make ad vances, if not by coming together, at least by ascertaining to what extent,we differ, and how we may come together. I hope the motion- to reconsider will not prevail. Neither the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) nor the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BuT3S,) has stated any reason which appears to me sufficient to justify the adoption of the course which they propose. Ir. LAMB. Mr. President, if we can have an understanding: by which this article may lie on the table, then the motion to reconsider, it appears to me, should be adopted; but without suclh an understanding, I thinkl it would be at this time highly improper to reconsider, with a view to present the matter in the manner suggested by the gentleman from Lanawee, (Mr. BILLS.) We can, as the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER) has correctly observed, arrive at a conclusion much more readily by the process which-he would inaugurate, than by any other; for, if we reconsider the vote on the adoption of the article and bring the article before us, questions of order must continually arise upon motions made. If the matter can be reconsidered to-day as well as to-morrbw, and if the article is to be permitted to lie on the table until we can -Friday', Auu X~ 187')BAE XPI PSCE)~S 8 come to a conclusion as to what we shall do in the premises, I have no objection to the motion to reconsider. Mr. SHEARER. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the Legislature shall pass a law to prohibit or regulate by tax, the sale of intoxicating liquors. The PRESIDENT. The resolution cannot be entertained at this time. The question is on the motion made by the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) to reconsider the vote by which the article entitled "Legislative Department," was rejected. Mr. FARMER. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. McCLELILA-ND. Mr. President, my impression is that we shall facilitate the business of the Convention by adopting the. motion of the gentleman from Macomb. When that motion shall have been adopted, then, as a matter of course, the gentleman from St. Clair, or any other gentlemen can move to recommit the article with instructions; and whatever instructions maybe adopted, the committee can report the article back at once, and we then have the matter be-. fore:the Convention. I Was opposed to the proposition of the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) because it proposed the drafting of a new article. Such an article, coming before the Convention, Would, by the rules, be referred to'the Com mittee of the whole. That committee could not be discharged except by a two-thirds vote; and thus a minority-one-third Of the Con vention-would have the power to defeat the Will of the major ity. At this stage of our business, time is of great importance to Us; and my own impression is that the true course to expedite the matter and shorten our session, is to adopt the motion to reconsider. I shall therefore vote for that motion. Mr. PRATT. I'desire to ask whether, if the motion to reconsider be now negatived, it can be again made within the three days prescribed by the rule? Mr. GIDDINGS. I suppose that it cannot; and I hope that the gentle man from Macomb will withdraw the motion, that it may be renewed here after. The PRESIDENT.. Under the gene ral rule, a motion to reconsider, once negatived, cannot be again: made; but the Chair does not feel it proper at this time- to decide what would be the resUlt of such action under the rules of the Convention. The question does not now arise for decision. The gen tleman.from Hillsdale, (Mr. PtATT,) simply asks the Chair to intimate what he will decide when the question shall arise. The Chair prefers not to decide the question in advance, nor to indicate what will be his decision. Mr. P. D. WARNER. My impression is that, though this motion to reconsider should be negatived, a similar motion would afterwards be in order. Mr. PRATT. If this motion to reconsider should now be negatived, then unless a similar motion can be made hereafter, the article will be in such position that it cannot be revived by thie action of the Convention. I believe that such is the effect of the rule. Hence it would be necessary to report a new article, and we should be detained here another week, or perhaps two weeks. My idea is that we had better adopt this motion to reconsider, and get this article before the Convention. Then the article can be laid on the table, or it may be disposed of in any other manner which may be deemed best. I think that this course will facilitate the business of the Convention. The PRESIDENT. The Chair would call attention to the peculiar wording of Rule 27: "No motion for reconsideration shall be in order, unless within three days after the decision proposed to be reconsidered, took place. A motion for reconsideration being put ansud lost, (except in the case of privileged motions,) shall not be renewed on tlie same day."1 Mr. GIDDINGS. There is then no difficulty about renewing the motion to reconsider to-morrow. Mr. CONGERI Mr. President, I do not wish to embarrass the action of the Convention; but I submit that it is hardly fair for the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) to press his motion now. Yet, lest the Convention might desire to act on this subject to day, I withdraw my objection to the motion, unless thegentleman will with draw the motion, which I think would be, after all, 4he more courteous way of doing. [Laughter.] I will wait a moment that the gentleman may have the privilege of withdrawing the mo tion, if he wishes to do so. Mr. MUSSEY. I hardly know how I ought to: act about this matter, but Mfr. CONGER. I do not yield to the gentleman, except to withdraw the motion. I prefer -that the motion should pievail, and the article be laid on the table, rather than that we should put ourselves in such a position that we could not to-day take up this article, if we should find it desirable to do so. It is barely possible, Mr. President, that after the refreshment of last night's slumbers, and with the coolness of our morning thoughts, we may to-day be more successful in coming to a conclu sion than we were yesterday. Mr. LAMB. As the Chairman -.of the committee, (Mr. CONGER,) waives his objections on this point, I hope that the yeas and nays wil not be called on the motion to reconsider, but. that it Wil be adopted without occupy ing time.. Mr. FARMER. My object in call ing for the yeas and nays, was that we might get a vote plainly and distinctly upon this proposition. I am free'to say that I am opposed to taking a vote now on the question of reconsideration. I think that this question can be more readily settled without taking that vote. There are, I apprehend, - but two points, to be decided here, or in fact, one; and that is the question of separate submission. If we can agree upon that, I apprehend there will be no difficulty: in agreeing on the reconsideration of the article, and then adopting it. If there should be a decided majority in favor of retaining in the article the propositions which it is proposed -to submit separately, then I have no doubt the article can readily be brought back here and adopted. If, upon a fair determination of this question, there should be a-majority in favor of the separate submission of one or both of these propositions, I apprehend that then the minority will be ready to abide by that decision, and have the article brought back and passed in that shape. There are two distinct propositions which some members of this Convention are desirous of submitting separately. One of these is the question of annual or biennial sessions. I am decidedly in favor of annual sessions; but if it be necessary to assent to biennial sessions in order to carry the article through this Convetin, I am ready, very ready, to waive my prefer.: ences in accordance with the will:of the majority. I am decidedly in favor of submitting prohibition of license as a separate question; but if a decided majority of this Convention should say that a provision for prohi bition of license must go into the body of the= Constitution,. I am ready to consent to putting it there. I am desirous that we should settle these points before we bring-this article again before the Convention. With this view I was desirous of hav ing a distinct vote on the motion to re consider. I shall vote against this motion. If the motion be now nega tived, we can reach the article by a similar motion to-morrow,:when this; other question shall have been decided. The question was takenr on the mo tion of Mr. MUSSES, and it was agreed to; there being yeas 73, nays 11, as fol lows: - YFEs —s1earz., Alexander, Andrus, Bills, . DEBATES AND' PROCEJMDIXGS.. August: 16, 1867. 888 CONSTLIT'UTIONAL CONVENTION. Birney, Blackman, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Des noyers, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Ferris, Germain, Harris, Hazen, Hen derson, Hixson, Holmes, Howard, Hull, Hus ton, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, McKernan, Miller, Morton, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Norris, Pratt, Pringle, Purcell, Rafter, Rich mond, Root, Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, T. G. Sinith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Val kenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, F. C. Wat kins, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard,Winans, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, Yeomans, and the President-73. NAYs-Messrs. Aldrich, Barber, Brown, Coolidge, Daniells, Farmer, Giddings, Holt, Lamb, Miles, and Winsor-11. The PRESIDENT. The motion to reconsider having been agreed to, the question now recurs onthe adoption of the article entitled "Legislative Department." Mr. CONGER. I move that the article be laid on the table. Mr. WILLARD. On that motion I ,demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. BILLS. I hope that the Convention will decide to take up this article, or to retain it in its hands, and go forward with the work of maturing it. The PRESIDENT. The motion to lay the article on the table is not de batable. -Mr. BILLS.'I will not debate it, but I can see nothing to be gained by delay. The question was taken; and the motion of Mr. CONGER, that the article be laid on the table, was not agreed to; there being yeas 40, nays 44, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Barber, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Chapin, Cool idge, Conger, Daniells, Duncombe,Elliott, Es tee, Farmer, Ferris,Giddings, Hazen, Holmes, Holt, Hull, Lamb, Longyear, Lovell, McKer nan, Miles, Miller, Murray, Norris, Pringle, Sawyer, Shearer, Stoughton, Turner, Tyler, Utley, F. C. Watkins, Winsor, Withey, Wood house, and the President-40. - NAYs-Messrs. Andrus, Bills, Birney, Case, Chapman, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers, Di vine, Duncan, Germain, Harris, Henderson, Hixson, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, Morton, Mussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Pratt, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Root, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Sutherland, Thompson, Van Valken — burgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winans, Williams, and Yeomans-44. Mr. CONGER. I rise to a personal explanation. I voted for the motion to reconsider, upon the express proposition of the gentleman making the motion, (Mr. MUssEv,) that the article should be laid on the table; and those who voted with me believed that such was the intention. When I vote in favor of- a motion made by any gentleman, I act upon the assumption that his object is to do what he says. Yet the gentleman has just voted against laying the article on the table. Mr. MUSSEY. Mr. President, I do not wish to have imputed to me any want of good faith in this matter. I say now, as I said before, that I have no objection to this article.- being laid on the table; and if my vote would have laid it there, I should have voted in that way. But, sir, there is a strong desire on the part of many members of the Convention, to test one single question; and I think the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) will not object to it. I mean the question in regard to annual orbiennial sessions. I -have, prepared rather hastily a motion designed to test that single question; so that we may know how we stand on that mat ter, and by deciding it, get it out of the way. When that question shall have been determined, I should hope, so far as I am concerned, that the ar ticle would be laid on the table. I admit that, according to parliamentary courtesy, it is the right of the gentle man from St. Clair, to control this ar ticle; and out of courtesy to him, I have deferred making this motion. I do not wish to be charged with any want of good faith on this question. Mr. CONGER. I said what I did in explanation of my vote in favor of the motion to reconsider. I said what I did that the friends of this article might know in what position they will be placed hereafter. There was an almost unanimous vote in favor of re consideration, the object being to put the article within the reach of the Convention. The object was not to attack annual sessions. No friend of annual sessions dreamed that he was bringing that question up here to sub mit it to a separate attack. Gentlemen of the Convention voted almost unani mously in favor of the motion, upon the agreement of, the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MussEY,) that he would go in favor of laying the article on the table. I have nothing to say about the faith of the matter, good or bad; but that was the understanding with which we voted. Mr. LONGYEAR. I desire to say for myself that, in voting for the motion to reconsider, I was governed by precisely the same considerations which have been stated by the gentlemanfrom St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER.) It certainly would have been but fair on the part of the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MussEY,) to \have stated, before the question was taken upon his motion, that his object was to attack annual sessions. If he had made that statement, the vote, I apprehend, would have been very different. Hr. MUSSEY. I stated that I had no objections to laying the article on the table. I so state now. I did not expect, when I made the motion to reconsider, to make this motion in regard to annual sessions; and I have no ob jection now to laying the article on the table, if such is the will of the Con vention-not the least. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. Mr. Presi dent, is there any question before the Convention? - The PRESIDENT. There is no question before the Convefntion, except on the adoption of the article entitled " Legislative Department." Mr. MILLER. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, As the sense of this Convention, that section eight of the article" entitled '"Legislative Department " being so changed as to provide for biennial, instead — of annual sessions of the Legislature, then the said ar ticle, as niiow in other respects perfected by the action of the Convention, should be passed by the same. The PRESIDENT. This is hardly a proposition pertinent to the article under consideration. This is an entire ly independent resolution, which can not be entertained at the present time. Mr. P. D. WAR-NER. — move to recommit the article to the committee on the legislative department, with in structions to amend the same by sub stituting the following for section eight: " The Legislature shall meet at the seat of government on the first Wednesday of January in the year 1869, and on the first Wednesday of January in every second year thereafter, and at no other time or place, unless as provi ded in this Constitution. The time ot meeting shall be at eleven o'clock in the forenoon; and the time of final adjournment shall be at twelve o'cl6ck, noon." The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that this motion cannot be entertained without a suspensions of the rules. Section eight, if the Chair remembers correctly, was a substitute. The Convention, by adopting that sub stitute, approved the text of that sec tion, and it is not, in the opinion of the Chair, in order, except by a suspen sion of the rules, to iistruct the com mittee to amend that section or any part of it. Does the gentleman from Oakland (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) move a suspension of the rules? - Mr. P. D. WARNER. I would like to have the rules suspended, that the proposition might be adopted; but I do not believe that we should be able to obtain a vote in favor of suspension. The PRESIDENT. The Chair then decides that- he cannot entertain the motion. Mr. MoCLELLAND. I offer the following resolution:.. _Resolved, That the article on the "Legislative Department" be recommitted to the committee-on that subject, with instructions to report it back with that part relating to the sessions of the Legislature in such ftorm that it may be separately submitted whether the sessions shall be annual or biennial; and also that part in regard to license and intoxicating liquors in separate form, so that the alternative propositions before the Convention on the 7th of August, Inst., may be presented to the people. Z 4~~~~~~~~~~ I -V-ri'-day Augu'~~~~~~~ 16, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 889~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_ ~ Mr. President, there is, to saythe least, a respectable number of the mem bers of this Convention opposed to an nual sessions; and I think the fairest way to decide that question is to sub mit it to the people. If the people are in favor of annual sessions, they will say so; if not, they will declare their opposition; and of course, we are wil ling to abide their decision. In regard to the second proposition embraced in the resolution, it is the proposition of my colleague, (Mr. Lo THROP,) as amended by the adoption of the substitute of the gentleman from Kent, (IMr. WITHEY.) I think that that is a fair proposition, and I am willing to go before the people with that as an alternative proposition. I had the honor to be, in the Con vention of 1850, the chairman of the committee on the legislative depart ment. In regard to the prohibitory clause in the Constitution of 1850, every member of that committee was opposed to me. I thought at that time that I saw the evils which would flow from the operation of that provision. Those evils, in far greater measure than I anticipated, have been realized. I opposed. that provision strenuously in committee, but was voted down. I then refused to report it to the Convention, and one of my col leagues was designated to report it, I reporting the other portions of the article. That provision was adopted by the Convention of 1850. It has now been in operation nearly seventeen years. Acts have been passed not only.in pursuance of that provis ion, but in my judgment going much farther; and those acts have been failures. On the question as now pre sented in this Convention, other gentlemen: differ with me. Now, I say, let the people decide whether they will have the one provision -or the other. If the single proposition for prohibition of license is to be submitted, I am opposed to submitting it in any other form than in the body of the Constitution, because, by several different popular verdicts upon the question, the approval of the people has, I think, been expressed in favor of prohibition. The alternative proposition has never been before the people. M~y opinion is that, if we present it to them they will adopt it. But if you present the single question of prohibition of license, those who are generally in favor of licensing or taxing the sale or trafficin intoxicating liquors, would go with-the prohibitionists;: and the result would be a large popular majority in favor of prohibition of license. NoW, sir, the general sentiment of this State, is, I doubt:not, opposed to anything like free trade, as it may be Vole 2-No. 112. called,:in the sale of intoxicating liquors. I believe that the majority of this State are in favor of restricting this traffic in some way or other, either through the medium of license, or through the medium of taxation. Hence, unless you present the ques tion in such a way that one of the two propositions can be adopted, my own impression is, that you will have a large majority in favor of the prohibition of license as embodied in the Constitution of 1850. If the alternative propositions were presented, then as a matter of course the prohibitionists would have to contend, not only against those who are in favor of the sale of intoxicating liquors in any shape or form, but also against those who are in favor of restricting the sale by license or tax. For these reasons, I sustain the proposition heretofore offered by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) Mr. MUSSEY. I offer the following as a substitute for the resolution of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLELLAND): Resolved, That the article be recommitted to the standing committee, with instructions to amend sections eight and nine, so that they shall read as follows: SECTION 8. The Legislature shall meet at the seat of government on the first Wednes day of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and on the first Wednesday of January in every second year thereafter, and at no other time or place, unless as provided in this Constitution. The time of meeting shall be at ten o'clock in the forenoon, and the time of final adjournment at twelve o'clock, noon. SEcTION 9. Each House shall choose its own officers, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to attend at the opening session of the House of Representatives, with a list of the names of the members elect, and he may administer the oath of office to the members. Each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings, and judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its members, and may,' with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members elected, expel a member. The reasons for such expulsion shall be entered upon the journal with the names of the members voting on the question. No member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause, nor for any cause known to his constituents antecedent to his election. Mr. CONGER. I hopef that the gentleman from Macomb, - (Mr. Mus:SEY,) will modify his resolution, so as to present in the first proposition simply the question of annual sessionsnot embracing the whole section. Without having before me this resolution, and section eight as it has been adopted, I cannot tell to what extent the resolution proposes to change that section. I think we are not prepared to instruct the committee to make any other change in section eight than that with regard to annual sessions. Mr. MUSSEY. The effect of my substitute is simply this: it proposes to change section eight so as to provide ' for-biennial instead of annual sessions; and to change the hour of meeting of the Legislature from eleven o'clock in the forenoon to ten o'clock.- These are the only changes made in section eight. Mr. BLACKMAN. Is there not an other change in fixing the place of meeting of the Legislature? Mr. MUSSEY. Yes; I think there is. I will state further that the Chair ruled a few moments ago, that as section eight was a substitute in serted by the Convention, no part of that section could be changed, unless the proposition was to change at the same time other provisions. I propose to change section nine by making it the duty of the Secretary of State to do at the opening of the ses sions of the Legislature, just what the law convening this Convention, made it his duty to do hero to attend with a list of the names of members elected, and to administer the oath of office. The provision does not declare that he shall administer the oath; it simply provides that he may. It is made his duty to attend; but if he should not attend, then the House of Representa tives will be at liberty to proceed in his absence, in some other way. These changes bring the proposition within the ruling of the Chair. I will state further that my only ob ject in introducing this proposition, was to get the expression of members of the Convention in regard to a point which has been quite prominent in the minds of many members; and a number of gentleman have expressed their unwillingness to vote for the legislative article so long as section eight shall stand in its present form. I have desired to test the sense of the Convention upon the form of section eight as embraced in this resolution. I am not particular in regard to any portion of the proposition; I am not tenacious in regard to a single change which is here proposed; and I say that, whether these changes be made or not, it will not make a particle of difference with regard to my vote on the article. I have no feeling whatever in regard to either of these sections. But I wish to find out, by votes rather than by talk, how the Convention stands. If the wish of the Convention is in favor of these changes, let it be known; and we shall then know what next to do. If the majority should not be in favor of this substitute, then we next vote upon.the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McC(T,T,TJD. ) If a sufficient number of members can be obtained in favor of that proposition, to carry the article with the dhanges there proposed, let that fact be known, and I shall be glad Augtist - 16, 1867. DEBATES -AND PROCH'.FDIN-GS., 889 89 CO|ZT~TTO COY*I~ Friday,-v-s s to ascertain how we can come together, so as to get out of the dilemma in which we now are. This is my only purpose. Mr. CONGER. Mr. President, the gentleman from Macomb has effectually illustrated, by his words and acts, what I tried to illustrate before the motion to reconsider was adopted. The gent,leman desires, by this amendment, to test whether we can send the article to the committee with certain instructions, and whether the article can be carried when reported back. I said, before the motion to reconsider was voted upon, that we should hamper ourselves, by sending to the committee propositions about which the Convention had not agreed; that although a majority might adopt a motion to recommit with instructions, yet it would still be uncertain whether there would be a sufficient number to carry the article. I said that, in endeavoring to ascertain by means of resolutions, the propositions upon which a sufficient majority could agree, we should save much time and avoid cumbering the journal. The gentleman from Macomb, (ilr. MussEY,) declared this morning that he had no other object in moving to re consider than to lay this article on the table. Now, what does he do? Mr. MUSSEY. I beg to correct the gentleman. I did not make any such statement. I said I had no objections to the article being laid on the table, if such was the wish of the Convention. Mr. CONGER. Well, sir, I will let my proposition stand, and allow its ac curacy to be decided by the record of the reporter. Now, what does the gentleman do? Instead of taking out the two matters which have been the subjects of dis pute before the Convention for days, if not for weeks, and submitting them as the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. Mc CLELLAND,) proposes, to the sense of this Convention, he thinks to combine against a proposition which has been adopted by this Convention a sufficient force to send it back, and by a re-com mittment to strike out the proposition which has been adopted in favor of annual sessions. Now, Mr. President, I have been ap proached on this subject with the in quiry whether I would be willing to submit annual sessions separately if prohibition could be submitted sepa rately; and the other friends of annual sessions have been approached in the same way by the gentleman and his friends. Mr. MUSSEY. Not b)y me. Mr. CONGER. I mean in conversa tion. We have honestly and in good faith acceded to that proposition, but not with a view of dividing and weakening ourselves-not with a view of being overruled by others-of frittering away our efforts by yielding on one side, and not being met in good faith on the other. "Fair play is a jewel;" and the older I become, the more thoroughly I am convinced of the force of that maxim. If it was the object of gentlemen t6 weaken the forces of the friends of annual sessions by getting them to yield in one form or another-to consent to divide on that proposition, and let it go in separately, and then to spring a trap upon them, and defeat that measure by a combination, or by bargain and sale with other propositions-if that was the object (which I do not charge at all,) it was the most consummate strategy that could have been adopted. It is artful; it may be successful. I cannot say how worthy it is df honorable gentlemen of this Convention, if such has been the object. I leave that for others to decide. Now sir, I have said, and I say again, that although I am strong in the belief that annual sessions are really for the best interests of the State of Mich igan, in every sanse, and although I am urgently desirous that a provision for annual sessions should be inserted in the body of the Constitution although I have labored for that end, and shall still labor for it so long as it may be proper, I assented to the proposition, (and perhaps in this I have done wrong to myself and my friends,) of those who desire just as strongly that prohibition shall be inserted in the Constitution; and that the two questions shall go to the people separ ately for their decision. Yet, the mo ment the article is brought back into this Convention, and a proposition is made to submit those two questions separately, the gentleman from Ma comb, (Mr. MussxY,) moves to take out one of them. He has the right to make such a motion; I find no fault in regard to the matter; but I ask gentlemen who have talked other wise with me on this subject not to have that single question sent to the committee. If there is any good faith among the gentlemen who asked me to yield on this point, and with whom I agreed to yield, then good faith de mands that the two propositions should go together. If there is no good faith in regard to such a matter, very well; then we are afloat again. I have mere ly been mistaken in my judgment of those with whom I have associated; and I have mistaken the purpose for which I was asked to yield. I can accede-to the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne. I have consented, as a gentleman and a man of honor, to agree to the separate submission of these two propositions. In this spirit, I have consented to submit separately a proposition which, if I had the power, I would much prefer to retain in the body of the Constitution. I am still willing to join with other gentlemen in submitting these two separate propositions. Will other gentlemen, who have agreed with me that they should be submitted separately, now vote to take out one of these propositions? I shall await with considerable interest the call of the yeas and nays, to see whether I have been mistaken in my estimate of those with whom I have dealt. Mr. BLACKMAN. I wish to ask the gentleman from St. Clair one question: Did we not yesterday try these two questions together on the proposition of the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB)? Did we not then take a vote which tested the sense of the Convention upon submitting these two propositions? Mr. CONGER.-' We took a vote on submitting these two questions in one sense, but not in the form of the prop osition as presented to-day. The reso lution of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND,) proposes to submit the proposition of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) in regard to pro hibition, together with the question of annual sessions. This is the first time that this particular proposition has been presented. Now, the resolution of the gentle man from Wayne proposes to submit this proposition: "The Legislature shall provide for the regulation and-restriction, and may prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks, and shall im pose a tax upon the traffic therein. "The sale of such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers and common drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited, and all necessary laws shall be passed to enforce such prohibition. The annual tax in any case upon the traffic shall not be less than $200. "No license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors shall be authorized." I This is the form in which the gentleman from Wayne proposes to sub mit the proposition in regard to prohi bition; and coupled with this is a prop' osition to submit separately the ques tion of annual or biennial sessions. Now, this proposition has not been be fore the Convention heretofore. It has not been acted upon at all No such proposition has hitherto been pre sented. Mr. BLA_CKMAN. Will the gentle man yield to me one moment further.? Mr. CONGER. I will yield to the gentleman, if the time is not to be taken out of my ten minutes. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) cannot yield; without having the time taken out of his ten minutes 890 CON9'XITG'XIONAT, CONVENTION. Fi-iday, DEBATES AND PROCEE)INGS. Mr. CONGER. Well, I will yield to the gentleman from Van Buren, anyhow. Mr. BLACKMAN. I am very much obliged to the gentleman. I simply wish to inquire whether the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne does'combine with the other proposition, the question of annual sessions? Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir; it does. I understand that the resolution of the gentleman from Wayne proposes to submit to the people the question whether there shall be annual or biennial sessions, and also to submit the proposition which I have read in regard to prohibition. Now, let us have a fair vote on these two questions together. We never have had such a vote. Let gentlemen who have asked me to consent to the separate submission of annual sessions, show whether they are willing to act on this subject in what I understand to be good faith. Mr. BRADLEY. I move to amend the resolution of the gentleman from Wayne, by adding an instruction to the committee, to report the following provision: "When this Constitution shall be submitted to the electors of the State for adoption or rejection, an additional section in the following words shall be separately submitted: The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors, but shall prohibit their sale as a beverage." Mr. MUSSEY. Mr. President, I deny unqualifiedly and unconditionally any breach of good faith, any violation of any pledge, or anything of the kind. I deny further that I have ever proposed to any member of this Convention any agreement to favor or aid in any form the separate submission of any one proposition, whether it be in regard to prohibition or any other subject. I stated yesterday that I was personally opposed to singling out for separate submission any one proposition, any portion or provision of the Constitution, which we propose to submit to the people for their ratification or rejection; that I desire to submit the instrument as a whole. I would rather yield some of my personal preferences in regard to particular provisions of the Constitution, and have it submitted as a whole, though the entire instrument may not concur with my views and feelings, rather than to submit any separate proposition, whether on the subject of biennial sessions, or railroads, or anything else. I never have made to the gentleman from St. Clair any proposition with regard to the separate submission of any question. I never proposed anything of the kind, or favored it. I say this without any reservation. In regard to the two questions now proposed to be submitted, I consider that the resolutions offered yesterday by the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB,) virtually included the two propositions now suggested; namely, that with regard to annual sessions, and that with regard to prohibition. That resolution was voted down. Now, what was the next step? The next step, it seemed to me, was to get an expression of the views of the Convention on these questions separately; and I think that we are now in such a position that we can obtain such an expression of the views of the Convention. Some gentlemen are opposed to annual sessions, and will not vote for'the article so long as it may contain a provision of that kind. We have now an opportunity to ascertain by the vote to be taken on this substitute, how many there are who would vote for the article, if it provided for biennial sessions in lieu of annual sessions. Now, I submit whether there is anything unjust, unfair or dishonorable in presenting such a proposition. If the majotity of the Convention do not agree upon this point, then we come back to the next question-the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, proposing to submit separately these two propositions-taking them out of the article, and thus relieving it of whatever may be obnoxious and objectionable in these two propositions. When we shall have voted on that resolution, we shall know whether there is a sufficient number of members to carry the article without these two provisions. It appears to me that there is no occasion for charging any one with a want of faith, or with taking a course that is dishonorable. I must confess that I am too stupid to discern the point of any such charge. I do not wish to appeal to the passions or prejudices of any member to obtain his vote for or against either proposition. I hope the vbte which is about to be cast will be given coolly and deliberately, and with the view of arriving at an agreement as to the form in which this article can be adopted. More than that, when the vote shall have been taken and a majority of the Convention shall have declared either in favor of biennial sessions or in favor of annual sessions, I shall feel that I, as one member, am bound to submit. I do not propose to contend further in regard to that matter. I have no feeling about it. I do not think it is of sufficient importance to justify me in contending with a majority of the Convention after a decisive vote shall have been taken.>'I hope we shall consider this matter without any bitterness or acrimony. I do not feel hashly toward any member because he disagrees with me on any of these points. I feel that every other individual has as good a -right to his opinion as I have to mine, and undoubtedly entertains his opinions as honestly and conscientiously as I entertain mine. But I am not pledged, either in honor or otherwise, to yield my opinion, unless it be in order to come to an agreement with the majority. Now, sir, I shall be satisfied with the result of the vote, whichever way it may go; and more than that, I do not desire this article to be recommitted under any circumstances, with any sort of instructions, unless there be a majority of all the members of this Convention in favor of such a proposition -unless we can have an assurance before the recommittal that, when the article is reported back with the amendmnents embraced in the instructions, it can be adopted. I am very sorry that the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CoFGER,) should imagine (it seems to me altogether imaginary) that there is any want of good faith in this matter. Yesterday was spent in talk; and I felt at the close of the day that we had accomplished'but very little. Now, I hope that we shall spend to-day in voting, and see whether we cannot in that way better forward the business of this Convention. I think we can accomplish most by voting, and we now have an opportunity to vote. Mr. STOUGHTON. The gist of the proposition of the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MussEY,) if I understand it correctly, is to strike out from the article under consideration, the provision for annual sessions, and in that form attempt to force through this article. To that proposition I am opposed upon principle, because I believe it would be inherently wrong. If the majority of this Convention had decided upon biennial sessions and tipon prohibition as it now stands in this article, I should very cheerfully hate voted for it. But, sir, a majority of this Convention decided in favor of annual sessions. 'Mr. BLACKMAN. If the gentleman will refer to the votes, he will see that a large majority voted in favor of biennial sessions by non-concurring in the report of the committee. Mr. STOUGHTON. It is dodging the issue to say that at some other time the vote was different. I under take to say that the records of the Con vention show that on the last vote taken upon this question, the Convention voted in favor of annual sessions; and I presume- that, if the question were again to be brought before the i I i 891 August 16, 1867. t I 89 ()-TTUI- COVsI~:rdy Convention, the vote would be the same. At all events, the Convention has voted in favor of annual sessions. It has also voted in favor of placing prohibition of license in the Constitution. The article thus framed was brought before the Convention, and, upon the question of its final adoption, failed. Now, it seems to me that when an article cannot command a sufficient number of votes for its adoption, the fair and honest course is to refer the special matter of difference to the people. I think that we may in this case very appropriately talre an appeal from this Convention to the people, who ultimately must decide this question, and from whose decision there is no appeal-whose verdict cannot be questioned. Now, sir, the proposition is made here to strike out annual sessions, and attempt in that way to force the article through. I hold, sir, that this question of prohibition of license, this temperance question, is a great moral question, that must stand or fall upon its own merits; and, sir, any combination, any bargain, any sale here, for the purpose of getting that question into the Constitution, or getting it out of the Constitution, will be followed by disastrous results. Such a course is wrong in principle-wrong in every possible light. We ought not to adopt any such proceeding. Why, sir, do gentlemen think they can thusforce this article through the Convention? When the friends of annual sessions find that they are openly and boldly to be sold out in this way, will they not say it is unfair? If this is the proposition-and I understand it fo bethen I shall fight it upon this line, and upon every other line. Mr. BIRNEY. I move to amend the substitute so as to instruct the committee to report section thirty-two, omitting the last clause, but providing by resolution for the separate submission of that clause, with an alternate proposition. If the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) designs to withdraw his substitute, I will ieot offer this proposition. Mr. LUCE. I trust the gentleman will not withdraw it. I wish to say one word in reply to the sound and fury which we have heard this morning. Mr. BIRNEY. If the gentleman from Macomb does not propose to withdraw his substitute, I wish to explain the object of my amendment. The design of my proposition is to obtain a vote of this Convention upon. the separate submission of prohibition. Now, while I-am in favor of annual sessions, I am perfectly willing to vote for the submission of that question, provided the question of prohibition be submitted; but I am-not willing toe vote upon the former question before I know what gentlemen are disposed to do upon the latter. I am prepared to vote for the resolution offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. McCLETT,AND.) The gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) has offered a substitute, which would require us to vote simply upon the question of annual or biennial sessions. I have offered my amendment for the purpose of securing a vote upon the question of submitting prohibition separately, before the vote is taken upon annual or biennial sessions. By voting upon this amendment first, we shall get the sense of the Convention with regard to the separate submission of prohibition; and then, those of us who are disposed to unite and submit the other- question, can so vote. Unless the vote shall be first taken upon this amendment, I shall feel compelled to vote against the substitute of the gentleman from Mlacomb. Mr. LUCE. Mr. President, I deny the imputation that there has been any "bargain and sale" here. Such an imputation is certainly unbecoming the gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON.) He ought never to have made an intimation of any such thing as "bargain and sale." In the first place, those of us who believe in biennial sessions had been out-voted; the friends of annual sessions succeeded in inserting their provision in the article. But:when it was put on its passage, the article failed. A large portion of us then turned around and voted for the seperate submission of these two propositions. That failed. There must be some way out of this difficulty. I propose to vote to put biennial sessions in the article, and then try to put it on its passage again. If it fails again, then let us unload something else. Any charge of "bargain and sale," or anything looking like it, is altogether unfounded and unwarranted. I have entered into no combination or bargain with any gentleman here, or. any number of gentlemen; and I shall continue to vote as I have done, upon my best judgment of questions as they arise. One word in regard to the proposition offered by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND.) I shall certainly vote against that proposition. I explained the other day my objections to the provision with regard to the liquor traffic, as embraced in the proposition of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) which the resolution of the gentleman from Wayne proposes to submit. I stated that under that proposition the Legislature eannot pass a prohibitory law. It is a doubled and twisted- -thing; and I do-. not believe it can become, or ought to become, any part of.the Constitution. While I am.ready to,vote for submitting the question of annual or.biennial sessions, or the naked proposition for prohibition of license, or prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors, and to submit them separately, I will neverv —ote for the proposition now offered by the gentleman from Wayne. Mr. -HOWARD. Mr. President, I am in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) and I hope it will not be withdrawn; for the reason that I believe it is necessary in this Convention to take a vote- upon a proposition of that kind, before we can arrive at any conclusion upon this subject-before we. can extricate ourselves from the difficulties that now surround us. I will state my reasons for this conviction. I believe there are men enough in this Convention to.prevent the adoption of any -article which: shall submit the question of prohibition and annual sessions separately. There are men enough here who will vote against any, such proposition, believing that we have strength enough to carry prohibition in the body of the.Consti-' tution. We never shall adopt any article here, we never shall arrive-at any conclusion upon this subject, until we ascertain whether or- not that belief is correct. The prohibitionists-those-who are in favor of embodying the prohibitory clause in the Constitution-believe that the article can be carried with that provision; they believe that they have a majority in the Convention to carry it, if the article is untrammeled with other controverted questions. Now, I favor the proposition of the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MussEY,) because I believe that, by a vote upon that proposition, we can ascertain whether those who oppose any compromise in this matter are correct or not. Let us take a vote upon the question of prohibition in the Constitution; let us take that vote separately and alone, as nearly as possible; and from that vote, gentlemen who have been in favor of prohibition from the beginning, gentlemen who opposed yesterday the compromise offered by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, -(r. BRADLEY,) who opposed other propositions made by way of compromise, will learn whether they have on their side a majority which will justify them in taking the course which has been persistently taken from the beginning. Now, Mr. President, the remarks of th,:a,tlemz tom S J'oosph,': (Mr. ',892 CONSTJL'.rUTION-AL CONVENTION. Friday, Augur 16, 1867. DEBATES AD?ROOEEDINGS. 893 STOUGHTON,) appear to me altogether uncalled for. Nor do I believe in the theory advanced by the gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONaER.) There has been no " bargain and sale" here, so far as I am aware. There has been no proposition except to place these separate questions before the Convention upon their own merits. Let me ask gentlemen what impropriety there is in submitting each and every one.of these propositions to the Convention, to succeed or to fail upon its own merits. Is there any propriety, anything unfair or unjust, in seeking to present the proposition for prohibition of license as a separate proposition before the Convention? Or is it- fair to say that we must tie up and trammel many of the advocates of prohibition by this obnoxious proposition for annual sessions? Shall we ever in this way arrive at any conclusion? Many gentlemen who voted against the adoption of the article with prohibition in it, did so because they were opposed to annual sessions, and because they would not support an article containing a provision for annual sessions. They will vote for an article embracing prohibition, if the provision for annual sessions be omitted. They believe they have a majority of the Convention to carry the article in that way. I do not believe it. Much as I regret the fact, I do not believe that their conviction is correct. I say, then, to gentlemen who are so anxious for a compromise, let us ascertain now the fact in regard to that matter. Let us not go on day after day voting upon two or three propositions together, without arriving at any conclusion upon any one of them. Let us vote here upon the question of prohibition alone. Let it be submitted to the Convention separate and apart from every other proposition; and then, if we cannot carry it, let the propositions for annual sessions be proposed and voted on in the same way. Mr. CONGER. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Why did not he and his friends put the proposition of instructions in that naked form, and not tack to it another subject entirely foreign, as he himself admits? That would have been a manly way to do. Mr. HOWARD. I was coming to that very point. I undertook to do that twice yesterday, and was defeated -once by being ruled out of order, though I acquiesced in the decision of the Chair, believing that he was-right and I was wrong. Now, I say that the proposition submitted by the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. MUSSEY,) promises to bring us nearer to a conclusion than any other proposition yet presented. It proposes to submit these propositions separately to the Conven tion. The gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) charges us with "trading" in regard to this matter. Now, sir, I apprehend that if any of us who voted heretofore for-annual ses sions see that, by changing our votes and supporting biennial sessions, we can harmonize the action of the Con vention, we have a right to do so. It is a duty which we owe, not only to the people, but to ourselves, -to act and vote here, without a sacrifice of prin ciple, for the purpose of harmonizing the action of the Convention. And this question takes us a little farther back toward the origin of this difficulty. Those members who voted against the article because it contained the provision for annual sessions, were not, I maintain, justified in their action, if, as they now say, the principle of prohibition is paramount in their minds to every other question. If that was their view,-they, in voting against the article,- were sacrificing what they regarded as a vital principle to a question of mere expediency. The gentleman from St. Joseph, (Mr. STOUGHTON,) has charged us with ",trading," with "-bargain and sale," for the purpose of defeating the proposition for annual sessions. The only foundation which he can have for such a charge is in the willingness on the part of some members to accede to the views of those who favor biennial sessions, and go to work on the solid principle of prohibition, untrammeled, to see whether we have force enough to carry it in that way. There has been no " bargain or sale." There may have been a change in the course of members upon what they regard as subordinate questions. I believe there has been such a change. For one, I am free to say that I care nothing about these imputations of "bargain and sale." I am willing to sacrifice my preference for annual sessions for the purpose of bringing the question of prohibition before the Convention, untrammeled. If the majority of this Convention to-day are opposed to annual sessions, does the gentleman from St. Joseph want us to carry that through by riding it upon some other proposition or principle? If a majority of the Convention are now opposed to the proposition, whatever may have been their action heretofore, will the gentleman ask us to stick to that proposition and to carry it through to the bitter end? Now, sir, whatever may have been the vote heretofore on that question, I do not believe that- there are now flfty-eie;sb'erM of thin CoUvention in favor of annual. sessions. I believe that there are-perhaps a sufficient inum ber to carry the single separate propo sition of annual sessions by a bare ma jority; but when we take from. that majority, those who are willing to sac rifice the proposition for annual ses sions, for the sake of what they believe to be a principle of much more impor tance, we shall find that-thegentleman is wrong in his idea of undertaking to carry through this proposition by riding it upon some other. I have advocated prohibition in'- the Constitution. I am in favor of it; I shall vote for it so long as there is a hope of carrying it through." But when that hope vanishes-and it will never vanish in this Convention until gentlemen see, by a fair vote, that they cannot carry it-then I am willing to join hands with the submissionists, and to perfect the article as'best we may; and to this end, I ask gentlemen to give us the bare proposition, unconnected and untrammeled with any other, that we may determine by a vote- whether we have the power to carryprohibition or not. Mr. SHEARER. Mr. President, I am willing at all times to bow to the majesty of the people. I am always willing that the people shall settle any great and exciting question like that which is now before us. I am in favor of the proposition of my colleague, (Mr. MCCLELLAND;) and I was in favor of the similar proposition presented yesterday by the gentleman from Lapeer, (Mr. LAMB.) I think, sir, that we shall save the Constitution by separately submitting these two exciting questions. These are not mere questions of statutory and constitutional law; they are questions which affect the domestic and social concerns of the people; and if the people are not.qualified to settle these two questions, then I ask, who can determine them properly? Mr. President, I-came here to assist, to-the extent of my humble ability, in perfecting our Constitution, so as best to meet the wishes and interests of the people; and I would not wish to clog this instrument, which is to cost our State nearly a hundred thousand dollars, by introducing into it any irritating question of a domestic or social nature, which may endanger the adoption of the instrument. So far as devotion to the temperance cause is concerned, I can compare notes with any man in this State. I have been a temperance man from my youth. But, sir, when a question of this kind comes up, I believe in submitting it to the people. It is a question which agitates the public mind; and I say we should let the people settle it. You may get a mere majority; in favor of D-'E —BA. —T-EES A.ND PROC.P,'FDINGS. August 16, 1867. .893 894 CO^STITUTIO~AL;ONVE~TIO~. Friday, putting a provision of this kind into your Constitution. But when it goes before the people, they will probably defeat the whole instrument. Now, shall we endanger the whole Constitution for the purpose of carrying out a particular notion which we have embraced with regard to temperance? No, sir; it is not a mark of wise men or statesmen to let their own preferences or their own dogmas sway them from the great principles of correct government. We have incorporated into the Constitution which we are framing, the principle that the colored man shall vote. I had supposed that when this great rebellion took place, and in the course of its progress resulted in freeing the colored men, that would be the end of our duties to the negro. But it seems to be the programme that the colored man shall vote throughout the United States. Now, if we desire to incorporate a principle of this kind in the fundamental law, why should we not let our constituents decide upon it separately? Though we ourselves are willing that the colored man should vote, why should we not let the people declare their will upon this important question? As I have already said, I am willing and desirous that all exciting questions shall be settled by the people; and when thus settled, they will be settled permanently. Let these exciting questions be voted upon separately, and we shall avoid endangering the adoption of the Constitution. When we are framing an organic law for the State, we should be careful to insert in it nothing which may tend to its destruction. Although as a member of this Convention, I am one of the minority-although I am ranked as a Democrat, claiming, however, to be a sort of Democratic Republican-I should dislike very much to have the people say, "Why, Mr. SHEARER, you went up to Lansing and spent three or four months in framing a Constitution, and now it has failed." Gentlemen may say that the responsibility is with the majority; but I say the minority share that responsibility; and I desire that the Constitution which we may frame shall not fail when it comes to be voted upon by the people. One of the questions presented by the resolutions now before us, is that of annual or biennial sessions of the Legislature. The other day I sought by an amendment to limit the length of the sessions to forty or fifty daysa limitation which I think would best suit the interests of the people. That proposition was voted down. Yet, sir, from the little experience I have had as a legislator, I re,1 ~ati~ted that, if we have annual sessions, unlimited in length, the Legislature will never adjourn until its members are worn out by hard labor, as we have been in this Convention. They will sit here as long as there is a dollar in the treasury, making nonsensical laws, and confusing our statutes by frivolous amendments. When I was in the Legislature, some twenty-five years ago, that body passed a large number of most important and valuable laws, although it sat only forty-five days. In 1842, more was accomplished in a single session, for the best interests of the State, than has ever since been done at any one session, however long. We had then a new State. Great principles were to be established. The wheels of government were to be set in motion. Yet the work was all done in forty-five days. I hold, Mr. President, that a limitation of forty or fifty days for the sessions of the Legislature is a valuable restriction. If that cannot be obtained, then I shall favor biennial sessions, although the members of the Legislature may have to sit here for a long period, wearing themselves out with protracted work. But, sir, in regard to both these questions-the question of annual sessions, and that of prohibition-I believe we should submit the matter to the people. I believe that, by permitting the people to vote upon prohibition, we shall contribute more to the temperance cause, than by any straight jacket which we may attempt to place upon the people. What has prohibition done heretofore? It has been a mere dead letter in the Constitution. The proposition of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) for which I voted the other day, I am ready to vote for again. I am ready to vote for any provision which promises to be salutary in its effects. Sir, in the city which I partly represent, there are two or three thousand little boys, running around the streets, learning to drink, and rapidly becoming drunkards. We want to stop such a state of things; and to do so, we must go to the root of the evil. A similar state of affairs is found in the village of Plymouth, where I reside, and in -almost every city and village through out the State. Now, if we cannot pro hibit entirely the sale of liquor-if we cannot suppress the traffic altogether -let us go as far as practicable in re moving its evils.. The PRESIDENT. The ten min utes of the gentleman from Wayne (Hr. SHEARER,) have expired. Mr. BRADLEY. With the consent of the Convention, I will withdraw my am. dmen t to the resolution of the gentleman from Wayne. It may embarrass the action of the Convention. The PRESIDENT. If there be no objection, the amendment will be withdrawn. There was no objection. Mr. WILLIAMS. I came here this morning to vote-to vote until we could arrive at some proposition upon which we might unite. I presume that most of the members came here for the same purpose. I think we have talked long enough about this matter. Now, let us act. I call for the previous question. The previous question was seconded; there being ayes 57, noes not counted. The main -question was ordered, which was upon the motion of Mr. BIRNEY to amend the substitute proposed by Mr. MUSSEY. Mr. McCLELLAND. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. NORRIS. I suppose the amendment of the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BIRNEY,) to be an alternative proposition between prohibition and license. Mr. BIRNEY. That is what it mneans. The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. BIRNEY, and it was not agreed to; there being yeas 13, nays O, as follows: YEAS —Messrs. Birney, Crocker, Desnoyers, Giddings, Hixson, Lamb, Morton, Ninde, Norris, Pratt, Rafter, Richmond, and Winans-13. NAYs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Hull, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Purcell, Root, Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, VanValkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, F. C. Watkins, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, Yeomans, and the President-70. The question then recurred on the adoption of the substitute offered by Mr. MussEY. Mr. ANDRUS. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to inquire to what extent the previous question operates with regard to this question-whether it extends to all the motions pending in regard to this subject, or whether it was exhausted with the question just taken? The PRESIDENT. The Chair holds that it applies to the entire motion to recommit, but it will not reach the article. Mr. GIDDINGS. I thought that was probably the case. I am very glad to know it 1 i 1 i i CONSTITUTION.A T., CONVENTIO-N. Friday, .894 A-u~ 16 186:EAE AN RCEIIG The question was taken on agreeing to the substitute of Mr. MUSSEY, and it was not adopted; there being yeas 36, nays 47, as-follows: YE&s-Messrs. Andrus, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Burtch, Duncan, Elliott, Germain, Harris, Henderson, Hixson, Holmes Howard, Huston, Kenney, Luce, McConnell, Miller, Morton, Mussty, Pratt, Root, Sawyer, Shearer, Sutherland, Thompson, Tyler, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D.Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winans, and Yeomans-36. NAYs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Barber, Birney, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Duncombe, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings, Hazen, Holt, Hull, Lamb, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, McClelland, McKernan, Miles, Murray, Musgrave, Ninde, Norris, Pringle, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Shearer, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Sutherland, Turner, Utley, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, and the President-47. Mir. MORTON, (when his name was called,) said: Mr. President, I am decidedly in favor of annual sessions of the Legislature. I believe that they would be conducive to the best interests of the State, provided we could have their length limited; but as a limitation of this kind has not been adopted, I vote, aye." The result of the vote was announced as above stated. The question then recurred on the adoption of the resolution of Mr. McCLELLAND. Mr. McCLLELAND. I trust I may be permitted to read the alternative proposition in regard to prohibition, referred to in my resolution, as there appears to be some diversity of opinion in regard to the matter. Provision No. 1 of the amendment of the gentleman from Kent (Mr. WITHEY) is, as amended by the Convention, in this form: "The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors." Provision No. 2 is as follows: " The Legislature shall provide for the regulation and restriction of the sale of intoxicating drinks, and shall impose a tax upon the traffic therein. The sale of such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers and common drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited, and all necessary laws shall be passed to enforce such prohibition. The annual tax in any case upon the traffic, shall not be less than one hundred dollars." Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I call for a division of the'question, so that the question may be first taken on provision No. 1. Mr. McCLELLAND. I believe that my resolution is not susceptible of division in that way. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the impression that the instructions are incapable of division in the manner suggested by the gentleman from Oakland (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH.) Mr. VAN VATKENBURGH. Then I would offer an amendment. - The PRESIDENT. An amendment would not be in order at the present time, the previous question having been seconded and the main question ordered. Mr. CONGER. Does the previous question cut off amendments, or only debate? The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that the effect of the previous question is to preclude the offering of amendments. The question is now on the resolution of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MC(LELLAND.) Mr. GIDDINGS. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Will it be in order to move to strike out the second proposition? The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that it would not be in order. Mr. HENDERSON. I rise to an inquiry. Among some members of the Convention, the impression prevails that the latter part of the resolution refers to the original proposition offered by the gentleman from Kent, (Mfr. WITHEY.) Others have thought it refers to the proposition subsequently offered, embracing the clause obviating the objection with regard to the power of the Legislature to pass a prohibitory law. In order that we may vote understandingly, it is proper that we should know distinctly which of the propositions of the gentleman from Kent is intended to be referred to by the language of the resolution. I ask the gentleman fromn Wayne to read the latter provision again. Mr. McCLELLAND, I read it to the Convention but a moment ago. It will be found in the journal of the proceedings of August 7th, the words " as a beverage" being struck out, and the word "liquors" substituted for the word "drinks." The question was taken on the resolution of Mr. McCLELLAND, and it was adopted; there being yeas 46, nays 36, as follows: YE.As-Messrs. Aldrich, Birney, Chapin, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings. Hazen, Henderson,'Hixson, Holt, Hull, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McKernan, Miles, Morton, Murray, Ninde, Norris, Pringle, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Shearer, Stoughton, Sutherland, Turner, Utley, Walker, F. C. Watkins, Winans, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, and the President-46. NAYs-Messrs. Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapman, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Germain, Harris, Holmes, Howard, Kenney, Lamb, McConnell, Miller, Mussey, Musgrave, Pratt, Root, Sheldon, T. G.Smith, Stockwell, Thompson, Tyler, Van Valkenburgh, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard, and Yeomans-36. Mr. LEACH, (when his name was called) said: Mr. President, I never before felt called upon to explain a vote, and I do not propose now to do so, but simply to say that I trust upon the final action on this subject, the vote which I now give, will be fully justified. I vote "aye." Mr. LAMB. Not being able to come to a conclusion satisfactory to myself from the examination which 1 have been able to make in the limited time allowed under the operation of the previous question, I am compelled to vote "no." The result of the vote was announced as above stated. Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I rise to ask a question for information. Members will probably concede that I need it. [Laughter.] The motion to recommit with instructions, having prevailed, I wish to inquire whether, -when the committee shall have made their report, it will be in order to add a new section? The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that, when the committee shall have reported, the question will be on concurring in the report of the committee; and at that time amendments to the report will be in order. Mr. WITHEY. I move to reconsider the vote just taken, by which the resolution of the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. MCCLELLAND) was adop; ted; and I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. Mr. PRATT. Mr. President, I suppose that the object of this motion is to tie up this matter so that it cannot be reached again by the Conven'tlion. If that is considered manly and fair, we ought to understand it. Mr. GIDDINGS. It is about as fair as the previous question. Mr. WILLARD. I call for the yeas and nays on the motion of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY.) The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. LAMB. May I say one word by way of personal explanation? The PRESIDENT. With the permission of the Convention, the Chair will indulge the gentleman. Mr. LAHB. I hope that parliamentary strategy will not be resorted to in this Convention. - hr. WITHIEY. I object to any remarks on this question. Hr. LAMB. I have done. [Laughter.] The question was taken on the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider, and it was not agreed to; there being yeas 32, nays 47, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Birney, Coolidge, Conger, Crocker, Daniells, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Giddings, Holt, Hull, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, McClelland, McKernan, Morton, Ninde, Norris, Pringle, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Shearer, Stoughton, Turner, Utley, Winans, Winsor, and Withey-32. NAvs-Messre Andrus, Barber, Bills, Black DEBATES AND PROCEXf.)INGS. Augut - 16,,1867 895 89 COTTTOA COs E; S. h F rfi da man-, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Corbin, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Germain, Henderson, Hixson, Holmes, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Lamb, Luce, McConnell, Miles, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Pratt, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Thompson, Tyler, Yan Valkenbhrgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, White, Willard- Wi?liams, Woodhouse, Yeomans, and the President-47. The PRESIDENT. The question now recurs on the motion of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) to reconsider the vote by which the resolution of the gentleman from Wayne -(Mr. MCCLELLAND) was adopted. Mr. MUSSEY. I hope that the motion to reconsider will not be adopted I think that the friends of this measure have the right to have this article reported in the manner indicated in the resolution, and then to test the sense of the Convention upon it. If it can be passed in that form by a majority of the Convention, let it be done. I do not think it worth while to trifle in regard to this matter. Mr. WITHEY. With the consent of the Convention, I am willing to withdraw the motion to reconsider. There being no objection, the motion was withdrawn. COMPENSATION OF MESSENGERS. Mr. LAMB. At the request of the messengers occupying a place on this floor, I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the compensation of the messengers of this Convention be increased to two dollars and fifty cents per day. - Mr. THOMPSON. I move that this resolution be laid on table. The motion of Mr. THOMPSON was agreed to; there being ayes 42, noes 22. So the resolution was laid on the table. Mr. FERRIS. - I move that- the Convention now take a recess. The motion was not agreed to. FINANCE AND TAXATION. The PRESIDENT. If there are no further motions and resolutions, the next business in order is the third reading of articles; and under this order, the Convention has before it the article entitled "Finance and Taxation.," The article was read the third time. The PRESIDENT. The question is now on the adoption of this article. STATE'INTEREST IN tAILROADS, ETC. Mr. PRINGLE. Mr. President, I should not feel that my duty as a member of this Convention had been entirely discharged, if I should fail- to call attention to one or two of the sections contained in this article, and to the propriety as I think, of making certain amendments. Section eleven provides that, "The State -shll- not be a party to, or be interested in, any works -of internal improvement, except the ship canal at the Sault Ste. Marie, nor engage in carrying on any such work, otherwise than in the expenditure of grants to the State, of land or other property." This provision, in its main features, is in my judgment right. It is a safe rule for the State to adopt. Still I understand it to be the policy of our general laws to impose specific taxes upon certain works of internal improvement and to make those taxes a lien upon the improvements themselves. Thus, a specific tax is imposed upon railroads-a tax of one per cent. upon the cost of the roads; and that tax constitutes a lien upon the roads. Suppose that the State should enforce such a lien, should sell the property, and under the lien become the owner of the road. Now, under this provision, that the State shall not-be interested in any work of internal improvement, could. the State even maintain a suit for trespass against an individual who should carry off the iron or the ties? I desire also to suggest another case. Certain leading corporations of this State-the Michigan Central railroad and Michigan Southern railroad-and I think the Detroit and Milwaukee railroad, and one or two other railroad companies, the most important corporations of this State, are under special charters containing a provision allowing the State to purchase those roads upon certain terms and: conditions. Now, nobody wishes the Stateto purchase the Michigan Central —or the Michigan Southern, or any other of these roads; yet the question has been seriously discussed," whether it might not at some time be the duty of the State to avail itself of the right reserved in those charters, in order to take back the roads and bestow them upon some company organized under our general laws. This question has been agitated to some extent in regard to the Michigan Southern'railroad,: and also the Michigan Central: railroad. Now, although that: right/: is reserved in those charters, yet-the State would, by this section, be prohibited from exercising it. I do not believe that the State should own, and undertake to run, either of these railroads-not at all. It should not incur- any risk with regard;to them. But suppose that the people along the line of the Michigan Southern road for instance-the people of Adrian, Coldwater, Hillsdale, etc.-should- take it into their heads that it would be for their interest to get up a new company; under the general laws of the -State, which should do business for the people along that line, upon a little more liberal system than that: on which the. present company is conducted; sup pose that those people should ask the State to avail itself of its right to pur chase that road, and to bestow it upon such a company under the general laws, the company raising money to indemnify the State. Then again, while I would not have the State hazard its credit by engaging in works of internal improvement while I would not have the money of the whole State expended upon a particular section of the State- yet it has occurred to me that, by way of remission of taxes for a time, or by some equivalent means, it might be possible for the State to help railroads, and thus assist in developing some portions of the commonwealth which need development. Now, section eight of this article provides that "the credit of the State-shall not be granted to, or in aid of, any person, association or corporation." Now, suppose that the credit of the State were granted to the amount of two thousand dollars a mile, to any railroad company that should build a road, and that then a specific tax to the amount of two hundred dollars a mile were imposed year after year. That would be equivalent to a tax of one per cent. on the value of the road, supposing it to be constructed cheaply. This annual tax of two hundred dollars per mile would, in the course of ten or twelve years, furnish a fund by which the two thousand dollars would be- paid. It would be entirely paid in ten years, without the interest; and in less than twenty -years it would be paid, including the interest. Now, sir, the motion which I desire to submit is that this article be recommitted, with instructions to so modify section eleven as to reserve the right to the State to enforce liens for specific taxes upon works of internal improvement, and also to reserve the rights reserved in the charters of existing railroad companies to the State to purchase.the same upon certain terms and conditions; but such-right shall only be exercised in the case that organizations under the general laws'of the State shall advance the moneys necessary to be paid- in such manner as to saveall risk of loss to the State; and that such committee be further instructed to so modify section eight that the credit of the State may be granted for the purpose of aiding in the construction of railroads by offeringa pre-mium for their construction, to an amount per mile not exceeding the sum, both principal and interest of which would in twenty years be reimbursed by the specific taxes:imposed upon the same. Mr. LEACH. Mr. President, I am CONSTI-TUTION'TAT,- -CONVENIPIOX. lpriaay -- 16 lS7 DEaTE AID PR,OEDG aware that the gentleman from Jack son (Mr. PRINGLE) proposed to offer instructions of this kind; but after care fully considering the matter, I must say that the proposition does not strike me. favorably. This article was very carefully considered by the committee that reported it. It was also very carefully considered and fully dis cussed in committee of the whole; and I am sorry that the gentleman did not at that time offer his proposed amend ments to this article. We are now near the close of the session, and all of us are anxious to finish our business here. I apprehend that if we should at this stage re-commit the article with instructions, we should open the way for a discussion of perhaps some days onl this question. Now it seems to me, Mr. President, that, if there is anything in the article on "Finance and Taxation" in our present Constitution which has met with universal approval, it is the two sections which are substantially repeat ed in sections eight and eleven-of the present article. Section eight is pre cisely the same as one of the sections of our present Constitution; and section eleven is the same as another section, except that we have inserted the words "except the ship canal at Sault Ste. MAarie," so that there should be no question about the authority of the State with regard to that canal. Hence, Mr. President, I am opposed to the motion to re-com mit, because I am opposed to-the chan ges which are proposed here. I be lieve that the people of the State do not demand, anc would not approve, such changes. Besides, I believe that if we should amend the article as pro posed by the gentleman from Jackson, we should open a very wide door which might give entrance to great evils. I do not care tp discuss this matter; I do.not apprehend that discussion is necessary. I am confident that this Convention will not approve the proposition which the gentleman from Jackson has submitted. Mr. PRINGLE. I do not wish to say anything more at present, except that these propositions are offered in good faith, and would have been offered heretofore, if I had happened to be present at the time when the discussion upon these parts of the article took place. I think that the question is worthy the consideration of the Convention; and without any desire to delay the adoption of the article, or to interfere in any way with the business of the Convention, but simply with a view to give members an opportunity to consider this matter, and see, as I think they will, that- my proposition will open no "'wide door," but will VoL 2-No. 117. effectually bar any avenue to evil, I move that the article be laid on the ta ble, so that my proposition may be printed in the journal, and may be taken up again to-morrow morning. Mr. GIDDINGS. I ask the gentle man to withdraw that motion, that I may make a single remark. Mr. PRINGLE. I will do so. VIr. GIDDINGS. Idesire simplyto say that, while I do not agree with the gentleman from Jackson in regard to the amendment which he proposes, I think that, if the two sections referred to were struck from the article, thereby leaving the whole subject to the Legis lature, the article would be consider ably improved. I think myself that I shall not be able to vote for.the article with these two sections, simply because I believe they embrace subjects which should be left to the Legislature-that we should not encumber the Constitu tion with provisions of such a nature. There may arise some occasion on which we shall not desire to have these provisions in the Constitution. I can not agree with the gentleman from Jackson in some portions of the in structions which he proposes; but if these two sections be not stricken out, I shall probably vote against the article. Mr. WITHEY. I hope that the gen tleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRINGLE,) will withdraw his motion, in order to allow me to offer an amendment to section twelve. -Mr. PRINGLE. I withdraw my motion for that purpose., Mr. WITHIEY. I move to amend section twelve by inserting after the word "property," the word "business;" so that the section Will read: "The Legislature shall provide a uniform rule of taxation, except on property, business and corporations, paying. specific taxes. Taxes shall be levied on such property as shall be prescribed by law." the PRESIDENT. It will be necessary for the gentleman to put his proposition in the form of a motion to recommit with instructions. Mr. FERRIS. The amendment of my colleague is so simple and so manifestly proper, that I suppose it may be adopted by unanimous consent. The PRESIDENT. If there be no objection, section twelve will be amended in. the manner indicated by be gentleman from Kent,'(Mr. WITHEEY. ) There was no objection; and section twelve- was amended by inserting after the word "property," the word "business." - Mr. MaCLELLAND. I do not see any necessity for the course proposed by the gentleman from Jackson, (Mr. PRInGGL) In my opinion, no such con tingency as he has suggested can ever arise in this State. I do not believe that the State will have any diffculty of the sort to which he alludes, in col lecting the specific taxes payable by our railroads to the State. But if those contingencies should ever arise, it would be very easy for the Legisla ture to submit to the people a consti tutional amendment, to change the provisions of this article. I for one would never vote to leave this ques,tion open, so that the Legislature might commence in this State any sys tem of internal improvements. I think that these sections are very satisfactory in their present form; and I shall vote against the proposed instructions. Mr. LEACH. Before the gentleman from Jackson renews his motion to lay the article on the table, I wish simply to say that those who are satisfied with the article as it is, will most certainly vote against this proposition, so that we may put the article on its passage to-day. Mr. PRINGLE. As I before stated, I think that the propositions which I have submitted are at least worthy of consideration. I know that there are a good many people who would like to have them considered, and who do not believe that they involve anything dangerous to the interests of the commonwealth. If the article can lie on the table, and this question be considered after the instructions shall have been printed, I shall be content that tie vote be taken without debate. I move that the article be laid on the table. The motion to lay the article on the table was not agreed to. The question recurring on the motion of MIr. PRINGLE to recommit the article with instructions, the motion was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question now recurs on the adoption of the article. On this question, in accordance with the rule adopted by the Convention, the yeas and nays will be taken. The question was taken; and there were yeas 74, nays 2, as follows: YEAs'-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Bills, Birney, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapin,- Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, farmer, Ferris, Germain, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Hixson, Holmes, Holt. Howard, Hull, Huston, Kenney, Lamb, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McClelland, McConnell, McKernan, Milos, Miller, Morton, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Pratt, Pringle, Rafter, Root, Sawyer, Shearer, *Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler,.Utley, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, White, Willard, Winans, Witbey, Williams, Woodhouse, Yeomans, and the President-74. NAYs-Messrs. Giddings and P. D. Warner, -2. The PRESIDENT. A majority o b DEBATES.AND. PROCP-PDINGS. A.u. — as t -'16, 1867. n - . 897 898 CONSTI".UTiO AT, CONVENTION. Friday, the members elect to this Convention having voted in favor thereof, the article-entitled "Finance and Taxation" is adopted. The article as adopted is as follows: FINANCE AND TAXATION. SECTION 1. All specific State taxes shall be applied in paying the interest on the primary school, University and other educational funds, and the interest and principal of the State debt, in the order herein recited, until the extinguishment of the State debt, other than the amounts due to educational funds, when such specific taxes shall be added to and constitute a part of the primary school interest fund. SECTION 2. The Legislature shall provide for an - annual tax, sufficient, with other resources, to pay the estimated expenses of the State government, the interest of the State debt, and such deficiency as may occur in the resources. SECTION 3. The Legislature shall provide by law a sinking fund to be applied solely to the payment and extinguishment of the principal of the State debt, other than the amounts due to educational funds, which sinking fund shall be continued until the extinguishment of such State debt; and every law hereafter enacted by the Legislature, creating a debt or authorizing a loan, shall provide a sinking fund for the payment of the same. SECTION 4. The unfunded debt shall not be funded or redeemed at a value exceeding that established by law in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight. SEcTION 5. The State may contract debts to meet deficits in revenue. Such debts shall not in the aggregate at any time exceed fifty thousand dollars. The moneys so raised shall be applied to the purposes for which they were obtained, or to the payment of the debts so contracted. SECTION 6. The State may contract debts to repel invasi,n, suppress insurrection, or de tend the State in time of war. The money arising from the contracting ot such debts shall be applied to the purposes for which it was raised, or to pay such debts. SECTION 7. NO money shall be paid out of the State treasury, except in pursuance of ap propriations made by law. SECTION 8. The credit of the State shall not be granted to, or in aid of, any person, asso ciation or corporation. SECTION 9.,o scrip, certificate, or other ev idence of State indebtedness shall be issued, except for the redemption of stock previously issued, or for such debts as are expressly au thorized in this Constitution. SECTION 10. The State shall not subscribe to, or be interested in, the stock of any com:' pany, association or corporation. SECTION 11. The State shall not be a party to, or interested in, any work of internal im provement, except the ship canal at the Sault Ste. Marie, nor engage in carying on any such work, otherwise than in the expenditure of grants to the State, of land or other prop ert y. SECTION 12. The Legislature shall provide a unitorm rule of taxation, except on prop erty, business and corporations paying speci fic taxes.Taxes shall be levied on such prop erty as shall be prescribed by law. SECTION 13. All assessments hereafter au thorized shall be on property at its cash value. SECTION 14. The Legislature shall provide for an equalization of-assessments on all tax able property, except that' paying specific taxes, to be made in the year eighteen hun dred and seventy-one, and every fifth year thereafter, by a State Board of Equalization, to consist of one member from each Senatorial district, to be elected as shall be prescribed by law. Alter the year eighteen hundred and seventy-three, the said Board of Equalization shall be constituted Ii u.h manner as the Legislature may ~lrect SECTION 15. Every law which imposes, continues or revivesra tax, shall distinctly state the tax, and the object to which it Is to be applied; and it shall not be suficient to reler to any other law to fix such tax or object. SECTION 16. A full account of the State indebtedness, and an accurate statement of receipts and expenditures of the public money, shall be attached to, and published with, the laws passed at every regular session of the Legislature. SECTION 17. The state shall not assume any indebtedness of a county, township or city. The article was referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, for arrangement in numerical order. Mr. FERRIS. I move that the Convention now take a recess. The motion was agreed to; and the Convention, (at five minutes after twelve o'clock, p. m.,) took a recess until half-past two o'clock, p.m. ; AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at halfpast two o'clobk p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum answered to their names. CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN MUNICIPAL. The Convention proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled "Corporations other than Municipal," which had been ordered to its third reading. The article was then read a third time. 'time., The question- was upon' the passage o the article. I The question was taken, and it resulted, yeas 70, nays 8, as follows': YEAs —Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Daniells, Desnoyers, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Huston, Kenney, Lamb, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Miller, Murray, Musgrave, Ninde, Pratt, Pringle, Purcell, Root, Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, P. D. Warner M. C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winsor, Williams, Woodhouse, Yeomans, and the President-70. NAYs-Messrs. Crocker, Giddings, Hixson, McClelland, Morton, Norris, Richmond, and Walker-8. The PRESIDENT. A majority of the members elected to this Convention having -voted therefor, the article entitled "Corporations other than Municipal" is passed. The article as passed was as follows: SECTION 1. Organizations ior the construction of railroads, for the purpose of banking, insurance, mining, telegraphing, transacting business as common carriers, and religious so. cieties, shall be incorporated only under generaHlaws. No special charter shall be granted, nor shall the ifranchises given thereby be enlarged wlthout the assent of two-thirds of the members elect to each House. Every act passed pursuant to this section may be amended, altered or repealed by a majority vote of the members elect to each House. SECTION 2. The stockholders of every corporation or association for banking purposes, issuing bank notes or paper credits, to circulate as money, shall be individually liable for all debts contracted during the term of their being stockholders of such corporation or association, equally and ratably to the extent of their respective shares of stock in any such corporation or association. SEcTION 3. The Legislature shall provide for the registry of all bills or notes issued or put in circulation as money, by any bank organized under the laws of this State, and shall require security to the full amount of notes and bills so registered, in interest bear ing stocks of this State, or ofithe United States, which shall be deposited with the State Treas urer, for the redemption of such bills or notes in lawful money of the United States. SECTION 4. In case of the insolvency of any bank or banking association, the bill-holders thereof shall be entitled to preterence in pay-, ment over all other creditors of such bank or association. SECTION 5. The Legislature shall pass So law authorizing or sanctioning the suspen sion ot payments by any corporation. SECTION 6. The Legislature shall pass no law-altering or amending any act of incorpo ration granted prior to- the first day of Jan uary, eighteen hundred and fifty-une, without the assent of two-thirds of the members elected to -each House. No such act shall be renewed or extended. SECTION 7. No corporation lhall hold any real estate for a longer period than ten years from the time ot acquiring the same, unless such real estate shall be actually occupied by such corporation in the exercise of its fran chises. No real estate shall hereafter be withheld from market for a longer period than ten years, for the use or benefit of any corpo ration. SECTION 8. The stockholders in any corpor ratio,n shall be individually liable for all labor done in behalf of such corporation during the time of their being such stockholders, equally and ratably to the extent of their re — spective shares in the stock of such corpora tion. The article was then referred to the committee on arrangement and phra seology, for arrangement in the Con stitution in its numerical order. ELECTIONS. The Convention then proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled "Elections," which had been ordered to its third reading. The article was then read the third time. The question was upon the passage of the article. Mr. BURTCH. I do not think that this article will meet with a favorable response from me. I would be in favor of so amending it that all persons who are subject to military duty, should have the right of elective franchise; also by striking out-the word "male" where it appears in the article; leaving it so that all persons should have the right of elective franchise. As that cannot now be done, I cannot support the article. Mr. LUCE, (in his seat.) That is a pity-. -' Ik The' quetion wma ther taken upon August 16, 1$67. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINS. 899 the passage of the article, and it resuited yeas 67, nays 15, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Birney, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapin, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Divine, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris Germain, Giddings, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Howard, Hull, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McConnell, Miles, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Ninde, Pratt, Pringle, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley,Van Valkenbtirgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, Yeomans, and the President-67. NAYS-Messrs. Burtch, Chapman, Corbin, Crocker, Desnoyers. Hixson, Lamb, MecClelland, McKernan, Morton;' Norris, Purcell, Richmond, Shearer, and Sutherland-s15. Mr. RAFTER, not responding when his name was called, Mr. McCONNELL moved that Mr. RAFTER be excused from toting. Mr. MUSSEY. I hope that motion will prevail. I do not think a man should be compelled to vote "no," nless he wishes to. The motion was agreed to; and Mr. RAFTER was accordingly excused from voting. The PRESIDENT. A majority,of all the members elected to this Convention having voted therefor, the article entitled "Elections" is passed. Mr. PRINGLE. I move to amend the title by striking out the word "Elections," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Elective Franchise." The motion was agreed to, and the titled amended accordingly. The article as passed was as follows: SECTION 1. In all elections, every person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in this State tITee months, and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote ten days next preceding an election, belonging to either of the lollowing classes, shall be an elector and entitled to vote: First. Every male citizen of tjie United States. Second. Every male inhabitant of this State who shall have resided in the United States two years and six months, and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, pursuant to the laws thereof, six months preceding an election... Tkird. Every male inhabitant residing in this State on the twenty-iourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirtyfive. SECTION 2. In time of war, insurrection or rebellion, the right to vote, at such place and in such manner as shall be prescribed by law, shall be enjoyed by all persons otherwise entitled thereto, who may be in the actual military or naval service of the United States, or of this State: Provided, Their votes shall be, made to apply to the township or ward in which they are residents. SECTION 3. All elections shall be by ballot, except ot such township officers as may be authorized by law to be otherwise chosen. SECI CON 4. Every elector, in all cases except treason, felony, misdemeanor, or breach of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during his attendance at election, and in going to and returning from the same. SECTIoN 5. No elector shall be obliged to attend court as a suitor or witness on the day of electlon, or Xo do military duty thereon except in time of war or public danger. SECTION 6. No elector shall be deemed to have gained or lost his residence by reason of absence therefrom in theservice of the United States or of this State, nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this State or of the United States, or of the high seas, nor while a student at any seminary pf :learning, nor while kept at any alms-house or other asylum at public expense, nor while confined in any public prison. ' SECTION 7. Laws may be passed to preserve the purity of elections, and guard against the abuses of the elective franchise. SECTION 8. No soldier, seaman, or nmarine in the army or navy of the United States shall be deemed a resident of this State, in consequence of being stationed in any military or naval place within the same. SECTIoN 9. No idiot or insane person shall be entitled to the privileges of an elector. SECTION 10. Any inhabitant of this State who may be hereafter engaged in a duel, shall be disqualified from holding aany office and from voting at any election. SECTION 11. The Legislature may authorize townships to hold their elections within the corporate limits of adjoining cities. The article was then reerred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, for arrangement in the Constitution in its numerical order. SALARIESB. The Convention then proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled "Salaries," which had been ordered to its third reading. The article was read the third tiine. The question was upon the passage of the article. Mr. VANVALKENBUGH. I move that this article be recommitted to the committee on salaries, with instructions to amend the first section by adding to it the words, "the above named salaries to be paid quarterly." Mr. DUNCAN. I move to amend those instructions so as to reduce the salaries of th6 judges of the Supreme Court, and the judges of circuit courts from three thousand to twenty-five hundred dollars. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I ask unanimous consent to have section one amended by the-addition of the words I have suggested. Mr. LucE and others objected. Mr. BIRNEY. I will say to the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. V~N VALENnBURGiH,) that although he seems to think there has been an oversight in this section, there is no such specification in the present Constitution as he has suggested. I take it the statute would regulate that matter. That is the present practice, and there would be no change, unless there is some alteration here. The question was upon the amendment of Mr. DUNc.A. to to the motion of Mr. VAN VALIEKBURGH. Mr. DUNCAN. I call for the yeas and nays on my amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered.:, Mr. CQQLIDC-F. I dire to oy: one word. It is known that when this article was under consideration on its second reading, I expressed my opinion as being unfavorable to the change in the salaries of the circuit judges, which the Convention made from twenty-five hundred to three thousand dollars a year. I was opposed to raising the salaries of the circuit judges, as was then done, and I simply stated the reasons Why I was opposed to it. I have had no cause since that time to change that conviction. Among other things, I stated at that time that so far as three of the circuits in the State were concerned, I was confident that the judges did not occupy in their official duties any more than one-half oi their time. That remark was made the subject of comment by two or three gentlemen, who expressed great surprise that I should have made such a statement. But if gentlemen will now turn their attention to the reports from the county clerks of the number of days that the circuit courts have been held in: those counties, and make all allowances for the duties which the judges may have had to perform at chambers, I think they will see that my statement was fully authorized, not only as to the three circuits about which I thought I knew, but as to a large majority of the circuits of the State. I have no doubt of the correctness of my statement. And although I have no personal feeling at all upon this matter, I should be unwilling to vote for this article, because I believe those who have sent me here would not justify my course in so d6ing. And there is another thing: I do not think, as the matter now stands before this Convention, that these salaries are properly graduated. I do not think that the salaries are in proportion to the services which must of necessity be rendered, taking also into consideration the ability of those who hold the offices. And there is another thing which I wish here and everywhere to guard against. Of course the circuit judges, the judges of the Supreme Court, and the attorney general must of necessity be lawyers. In my estimation, taking all things into consideration, there is a tendency here to give to lawyers a larger salary, in proportion to the business talents and learning required, and the amount of labor to be perform ed, than to other persons. I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. DOrcNO,) will be adopted. and that this article will be recommitted with the instructions moved by him. Mr. ROOT. It will be recollected by members of the Convention that there have been sdme~ fears expressed fg the ~fety of the Got i A I 900 CO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TITU~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AL ()ONYE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. Friday,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ when it comes before the people. Now, there is nothing the people so well understand, and will look upon more suspiciously than they will upon high salaries. If we have any fears in reference to the Constitution before the people, let us be' careful and not place these salaries too high. I am in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. DuNcAN:) Although I am not so well acquainted with the duties of these judges, yet I take it that the gentleman from Berrien (Mr. COOLIDGE,) understands their duties; and I shall, for this time at least, join hands with him on this proposition. Mr. DANIELLS. I agree with the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) that we have agreed to pay the lawyers morein proportion to their services than,some others.' I believe they ought to have more. Mr. COGLIDGE. Because they are poor? Mr. DANIELLS. Because I do not believe we pay other men enough. My friend from Hillsdale (Mr. ROOT,) says nothing affects the people so quickly as high salaries. That may be so in Hillsdale county. But there are other things that affect the senses of people among my constituents a great deal more; that is, whether the duties of the office shall' be performed with ability and with purity of heart. The question of picayunes do not affect my constituents that way. I think I shall continue to'vote that the judges shall have three thousand dollars a year. Mr. ROOT. Picayunes do not grow in Hillsdale county; I do not know but they do in Clinton county. Mr. DANIELLS. Well, there is a disposition to cultivate them in Hillsdale, I think, whether they grow there or not. Do you think that the people believe a circuit judge ought to have no more than they agree to pay their school teachers? Teachers of union schools get twenty-five hundred dollars a year; and the people give them that much because they have the opportunity every year to vote for the men who procure those teachers. Yet the people direct their agents to hire the teachers at that price. I do not believe the people will look upon capable judges as being over-paid at three thousand dollars a year. That is my conviction; and that is the opinion of the people of my district. Mr. COOLIDGE. I wish to correct the statement which has been made, I was going to say, a hundred times here. Teachers of union schools in the cities do not receive two thousand dollars a year, as a general rule. There are places in the State, where the urn sohool ji compos~d of twelve hundred scholars, that teachers of classical learning and of the highest literary ability, are employed at fifteen hundred dollars a year. Mr. STOCKWELL. I move to fur ther amend the instructions by reducing the salary for the Governor from three thousand dollars to twenty-five hundred dollars a year. Mr. LOVELL. I find myself peculiarlyplaced in regard to this article on its passage. I held in my hand the report of the committee on the schedule. When we talked of fixing the salary of circuit judges at three thousand dollars a year, I understood we were to have but ten circuit judges; I think that was clearly and distinctly stated. Yet ini the schedule I find provision made for eleven circuit judges. And from the cursory examination which I have been able to make of it, in my judgment one certainly, and probably two of the judicial districts provided for here in the schedule, which now have only two judges, have far more judicial duties to perform than some of the others, and they will be coming to the Legislature at their very first session, and demanding an additional judge. Now, it looks to me that it is going to tend directly to this, that we are going to have fifteen judges, at three thousand dollars a year each. If that is where we are drifting, I think the salaries named here are too high. I think that ten judges can do all the judicial work of the State, and ought to have three thousand dollars a year each for doing it. But if we are going to have fifteen judges, I.think they ought not to receive more than twentyfive hundred dollars a year each. I would like to see this article on salaries laid upon the table, until we have disposed of the schedule, so that we can tell how many judges we are to have. I move that the article be laid upon the table. Mr. CONGER. I hope that this article will be laid upon the table, so that we may consider the article on the legislative department, which the committee are prepared to report now. The question was taken upon laying the article on the table; and upon a division, ayes 17, noes 35, it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendmeent of Mr. STOCKWELL to amend the instructions so as to reduce the salary of the Governor from three thousand to twenty-five hundred dollars a year. Mr. CONGER. -Jpon that question I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mir. SToE, and it was not agreed to; yeas 39, nays 41, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Blackman, Brown, Coolidge, Corbin, Crocker, Duncombe, Elliott, Farmer Germain, Henderson,. Hixson, Lamb, Lovell, Luce, Miller, Morton, Murray, Musgrave, Ninde, Norris, Richmond, Root, Sawyer, Shearer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Thompson, Tyler, Utleyv, Walker, M. C. Watkins, White, Winans, Yeomans, and the President-39. NAys-Messrs. Bills, Birney, Bradley, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Conger, Daniells, Desnoy ers, Divine, Ferris,. Giddings, Harris, Holmes, Howard, Hull,. Huston, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, McClelland, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Mussey, Pratt, Pringle, Purcell, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Sutherland, Turner, Utley, Van Yalkenburgh, P. D. Warner, F. C. Wat kins, Willard, Winsor, Withey, Williams, and Woodhouse-41. The question recurred on the amendment of Mr. DUNcAN to the instructions, so as to reduce the salaries of judges ot the Supreme Court, and judges of th6 circuit court, from three thousand to twenty-five hundred dollars a year. Mr. THOMIPSONI. Is it competent to divide this amendment so as to have a separate vote upon reducing the salaries of the circuit judges? Mr. CONGER. No. The PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks that perhaps the gentleman can accomplish his object better by moving an amendment. The yeas and nays had been ordered upon the amendment of Mr. DuNcAN. The question was then taken, and the amendment was not agreed to; yeas 36, nays 45, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bradley Brown, Burtch, Coolidge, (Oorbin, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Farmnier, Germain, Hazen, Henderson, Hixson, Kenney, Lamb, Lovell, Lue, Morton, Murray, Musgrave, Ninde, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Thompson, Tyler, Walker, M. C. Watkins, Willard, Winans, and Yeomans-36. NAYs-Messrs. Bills, Birney, Blackman, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Conger, Crocker, Daniels, Desnoyers, Divine, Estee, Ferris, Harris, Holt, Howard, Hull, Huston, Leach Longyear, McClelland, McConnell,McKernan, Miles, Miller, Mussey, Norris, Pratt, Pringle, PurceJl, Richmond, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Sutherland, Turner, Utley, Van Valkenburgb, P. D. Warner, F. C. Watkins, White, Winsor, Withey, Williams, Woodhouse, and the President-{45. Mr. LOVELL, (when his name was called,) said: I desire to explain my vote. I think, as near as I can get at the intention of members who control this matter, that we are to have immediately an additional number of judges. I therefore vote "yes!" The question recurred upon the motion of Mr. VAN YTALENBURGH to recommit the article to the committee on salaries, with instructions to amend the first section by adding thereto the words "the above named salaries to be paid quarterly." The motion to recommit was not agreed to. Mr. P. D. WARNEi. I ask unani I 900 CONSTITUTIONAT., CONVENTION. tr'iday, 0 AuguI - ~.'.' mous consent to have this article amended by striking out the words-", The judges of the circuit court shall each receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars;" also by inserting after the words-,, The judges of the Supreme," the words "and circuit." The force of the proposed amendment will be evident to every member of the Convention. It is to avoid a repetition which is entirely unnecessary. That portion of the section will then read-"'The judges of the Supreme and circuit court shall each receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars." Mr. NINDE. I-would suggest to the gentleman to change his amendment so as to make that portion of the section read-" The jadges of the Supreme court and the judges of the circuit court shall each receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars." Mr. P. D. WARNER. Very well; I will accept the suggestion, and modify my amendment accordingly. The PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the amendment of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. P. D. WARNER,) as modified? Mr. CONGER. I object. Mr. P. D. WARNER. Then I move to recommit the article to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, with instructions to make that amendment. Mr. CONGER. If it is only a change in the arrangement of the phraseology, I will withdraw my objection. Mr. P. D. WVARNER. There is no change of salary. Mr. CONGER. That is the point I was thinking about. Mr. MUSSEY. Could not this change be made just as well bythe committee after the article has been passed? M r. NINDE. We could not take the responsibility. Mr. MUSSEY. I hope the change may be allowed to be made now by unanimous consent. Mr. CONGER. I have withdrawn my objection. I thought there was a thousand dollars at stake. Mr. P. D. WARNER. The objection having been withdrawn, I withdraw my motion to recommit, and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be now made.; There being no objection, the section was amended accordingly. Mir. ALEXANDER. I move to recommit this article to the committee on salaries, with instructions to strike out section one, and report a section providing that the salaries of the Governor, the secretary of State, the State treasurer, the commissioner of the State land office, the superintendent of public instruction, the auditor gen-l eral, the attorney general, the judges of the Supreme and circuit courts, shall be fixed by law, and shall not be increased or diminished during the term of office for which they were respectively elected. I submit this amendment to this Convention with a full knowledge, as a matter of course, that we have spent no little time in the consideration of these various salaries, which to the persons interested and to the people, are of no little importance, and which will have no little, influence upon the adoption of the Constitution by the people. I believe that the policy of leaving this matter of salaries to the Legislature is really the best policy for this Convention to adopt; I believe it isthb safest policy for the success of the Constitution itself. I believe, also, that it is the practice of nearly every State in the Union to have the salaries of their public officers fixed by their Legislatures. It is well known to every-member of this Convention that these are fiactuating financial times; that what may be to-day a proper salary for a public officer may not be a proper salary for him six, eight or ten years hence. I believe it would be wisdom to leave a discretionary power with the Legislature to regulate these salaries, from time to time, as exigencies and emergencies may demand. I believe that this will meet with less objectiofwhen it comes before the people, from the fact that the Legislature are just as competent to fix those salaries as this body, and that it is just as, safe to leave it in their hands*as it is in this body, chosen by the same mode from the people. It does seem to me that it would be highly preferable, and that it would meet with much better success, and there would be less contention over it, if the Legislature is authorized to fix these salaries. Mr. B;RTCH. I beg leave to differ with the gentleman who has just preceded me, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) for this very cogent reason: the time that would be spent by the Legislature with reference to these salaries, the amount of expense in connection with paying the Legislature and keeping the government running in that kind of way, would more than pay the full salaries of the. officers, independent of any increase for the war. The amount expended in consequence of the Legislature being constantly asked to increase or diminish the salaries would be more than the full amount-of pay set forth in this article as it now stands. As the Constitution will now appear, it will be tweedledum and tweedledee; that song will have to be sung to the tune of thousands and thousands of dollars in the State of Michigan, if we have to go on in tis way. Mr. ROOT. I am rather in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Berri.en, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) though without any hope of success, for I have long since learned that when a certain part of this Convention move in a~certain direction they move to win., They have a power here which there is no need of a farmer, or a pill-man, or any other class in this Convention saying anything about. Yet I believe that this matter of salaries, fixed as they are in this article, at present, will have a great tendency to defeat this Constitution. I for one am very anxious that the work which comes from our hands shall be approved by the people. As I have said before, there is nothing in the Constitution which will attract the attention of the common people throughout the State like these high salaries. I do not wish to be styled a picayune man. For my own part, if I did not think it Would endanger the Constitution, I might consent to go for this article as it now stands. But I shall be compelled to vote against it, if it remains in its present form. I came here with a firm determination to vote for every article that came before us. But I cannot go home to my people with a vote sustaining these high salaries, with any argument which will convince them that it is all right. Mr. MUSSEY. I would like to ask the gentleman from HIillslale, (Mr. ROOT,) and all others who prefer the system proposed by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER,) if they believe, high as these salaries are now, there would be any prospect of their being reduced by the Legislature?Have the Legislature in the past given us any evidence at all that they would be likely to reduce salaries; that-they are not quite as free in the expenditure of money as this Convention? Have we any reason to suppose the Legislature in the future will be any different in that respect? If it is the wish of this Convention to reduce these salaries, I shall not ob-; ject. But when gentlemen talk about sending this matter of salaries to the Legislature for them to change them from time to time, with the hope of saving money, I think they are looking in the wrong direction for relief.- I do not look for it in that direction at all. I think all would be better satisfied, both the people and the office-holders, to have something fixed, though it may not be at high rates.:.-.~ In regard to this tune which is sung so often, in reference to endangering the Constitution, there is not an article I August 16,.1867. -DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. .901 CONSTIT'UTIONAL CONVENTION. which has been passed, but what the lines are set to that music, for it can apply to one just as well as another. And I really had worked myself up into the belief that the Constitution was to be defeated beyond all question, no matter whether this is this, that, or some other, because that same tune has been set to almost every article. Now I have looked over the various articles we have passed, and I am pretty well satisfied with our work. And I think the people of the State will think about as well -of it as some of the members of the Convention.' At all events, I think we better stand by our work and not condemn it until it is done. If a earpenter, for instance, should commence a job of work, should score off his stick, and before he got through with it should condemn it as a poor piece of timber, I should call him a poor workman. Let us go through with our work, and then pass upon it, and not undertake to condemn it by instal ments. I cannot keep the account of these instalments of condemnation of the Constitution. Mr. ROOT. I rise to reply to the gentleman from Macomb, (Mr. Mus Mr. MUSSEY. Pitch in; give me-a big pill. Mr. ROOT. It seems to be the settled policy of this Convention to re lieve themselves from responsibility. Whether the Legislature will make sal aries higher or lower, I have not refer red to that matter. I feel that it is too much responsibility to put these high salaries into the Constitution. I do not believe it will be adopted if sent to the people with these high salaries in it. Mr. SAWYER. So far as the sala ries are concerned, they may be a trifle too high at the present time. But in asmuch as we have established them here, I do not think it is policy to leave them to the Legislature. I think, with the gentleman from Eaton, (Mr. BURTcH,) that it would cost about as much in the time taken up by the Legislature as we would save. And another thing, we shall want to call upon the lawyers to carry this Constitution before the people, and if they understand that they have got salaries fixed about as they want them, we shall expect the lawyers to do all the talking before the people, in favor of the Constitution, from now until the time of the election, and to do it free of expense. We may as well pay them here in the shape of salaries to judges, as in any other way. We always call upon lawyers to do the talking for us, when we want to carry anything; and X will go for these salaries as they ares rather than leave the matter to the Legislature. Mr. HOLT. I wish to offer a substitute for the instructions moved by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER.) I move thai the co mmittee on salaries be instructed to amend section one of this article by adding to it the following: " The Legislature may change the salaries herein provided, at the regular session in the year 1879, and at the regular session in each tenth year thereafter, but not at any other time. " The'question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. HOLT, and it was not agreed to. The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. ALEXANDER, to recommit with instructions, and it was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the passage of the article; and being taken, it resulted, yeas 53, nays 31, asfollows: YEAs-Messrs. Andrus, Bills, Birney, Blackman, Burtch, Case, Chapin, Chapman. Conger, Crocker, Daniells, Desnoyers, Divine, Estee, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, Harris, Holmes, Howard, Hull, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, McClelland, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Miller, Murray. Mussey, Norris, Pratt, Pringle, Richmond, Sawyer, Shearer, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Sutherland, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh P. D. Warner, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Winsor, Withey, Williams, and Woodhouse-53. NAYs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Bradley, Brown, Coolidge, Corbin, Dtncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Farmer, Hazen, Henderson, Hixson, Holt, Lamb, Luce, Morton, Musgrave, Ninde, Purcell, Rafter, Root, Sheldon, Stockwell, Thompson, Walker, M. C. Watkins, White, Winans, Yeomans and the President -31. Mr. RAFTER, (when his name was called,) said: I desire to say that I vote "no," because I am opposed to that p,rt of the article which Prelates to judges, and also to other portions of it. Mr. HAZEN not answering when his name was called, Mr. MUSSEY moved that Mr. HAZEN be excused from voting. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. HAZEN then voted "no," as recorded. Mr. McCLELLAND having voted in the negative, afterwards said: I voted against the article because the Legislature have not power under it to increase or diminish these salaries. I perceive that they have power to diminish, but not to increase. I believe I will change my vote, and vote " aye." The PRESIDENT. A majority of the members elected to this Convention having voted therefor, the article entitled " Salaries" is passed. The article as passed is as follows: SECTION 1. The Governor shall receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars. The Secretary of State shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The State Treasurer shall receive an annual: salary of twenty-five hundred dollars. The Commissioner of the State Land Office shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five hundred dollars. The Auditor General shall Teceive an annual salary of twenty-five hundred dollars. The Attorney General shall receivean annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Judges of the Supren e Court and the Judges of the Circuit Court shall each receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars. The above named officers shall not be entitled to any fees or perquisites for the perbformance of the duties of their respective offices, but all perquisites received shall be paid into the State treasury. Itshall not be competent for the Legislature to increase the salkaries herein provided. SEcrTION 2. The Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Commissioner of the State Land Office, and Auditor General shall superinrtend in person the duties of their respective offices. The article was then referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, for arrangement in the Constitution in its numerical order. TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING LIQUORS. The PRESIDENT.- The next business in order is the consideration of unfinished business, being a resolution offered by the gentleman from Bay, (Mr. BIRNEY,) onyesterday, and which was amended to read as follows: Resolved, That at the election, and at the same time when the votes of the electors shall be taken for the adoption or rejection of this Constitution, an additional sectioii to article numbered -, in the words following: "The Legislature shall prohibit by law all sale or disposition of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors for use as a beverage, and may enforce such prohibition by prescribing suitable punishments," Shall be separately submitted to the electors of this State for their adoption or rejection, in torm following, to wit: A separate tallot may be given by every person having the right to vote for the revised Constitution, to be deposited in a separate box. Upon the ballots given for the adoption of the said separate section, shall be written or printed, or partly written and partly printed. the words, "License bfor the sale of liquors-No;" and upon the ballots given againtt the adoption of the said separate section, in like manner, the words, "License for sale of liquors-Yes." And on such ballots shall be written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, the words, " Constitutional License," in such manner that such words shall appear on the outside of such ballot when folded. If at said election a majority of the votes for and against the said separate section' shall contain the words, "License for the sale of liquors-No," then there shall be inserted in the said article numbered, the said additional section, as aforesaid separately submitted, to be numbered as section, in said article. Mr. CONGER. I move that the reslution be laid on the table. Mr. BIRNEY. I was going to ask leave, with the consent of the mover of the amendment, (Mr. SUTHERLAD,) to withdraw t'ie resolution. Mr. SUTHE'RLAND. I have no objection to that. Mr. CONGER. I will withdraw for that purpose the motion to lay the resolution on the table. No objection being made, the resoi lutioi was with&drwn;' 902 Friday, -1 August 16, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINS LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. CONGER, by unanimous consent, submitted the following report from the committee on the legislative department: The committee on the legislative department, to which the Convention has recommitted the article entitled " Legislative Department," with certain instructions, have had the same under consideration, and have instructed me to report the article back to the Convention, with the amendments made thereto, in pursuance of such instructions, to ask the colcurrence of the Convention thereto, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. O. D. CONGER, Chairman. Aug. 16, 1867. The report was received and the committee discharged. The amendments reported by the committee were as follows: FIRST AMENDMENT. Strike out of said article section eight, and insert in place thereof the following: "At the election when this Constitution shall be submitted to the electors otl this State for adoption or rejection, there'shall also be separately submitted to such electors the two following propositions:, First. SECTION 8. The Legislature shall meet on the first Wedniesday of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixtyLine. and on the first Wedesday of January ot each year thereafter, but at no other time except as provided id -.his Constitution. The time of meeting shall be at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and the time of final adjourn ment shall be at twelve o'clock, noon. Second. SECTION 8. The Legislature shall meet on the first Wednesday of January, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and on the first Wednesday in January of: every second year thereafter, but at. no other time except as provided in this Constitution. The time of meeting shall be at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and — the time ot final adjourn ment shall be at twelve oclock, noon. A separate ballot upon each pr position may be given ny any elector, which shall be deposited in a ballot box provided for that purpose. On the ballot in favor of the adoption of the above proposition No. l, shall be the words, "Annual sessions? Yes;' and upon thb ballots in favor of the above-proposition: No. 2. shall be the words, "Biennial sessions? Yes;" and upon the head or outside of all said ballots shall be the words,. Annutl or Bien nial sessions," placed in such a manner that the same shall be visible when the ballot is folded. If upon the canvass of such ballots cast at said election, a majority thereofshall be found to contain the words, "Annual Sessions, Yes," then said proposition No. 1 shall be command stand as section eight, of Article ,'o! this Constitution, if the same is adopted; but if a majority of such ballots shall contain the words "'Biennial Sessions -Yes," then the above proposition No. 2, shall become and stand as section eight, oc Artilei,')t this Constitution, if the same is adopted. SECOND AMENDMENT. Strike out of section thirty-two, of said article the-words, "nor pass any act authoriz-' ing the grant of license for thee sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors," and insert in the place thereof the following: At the election when this Constitution shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection, there shall also be separately submitted to such electors the two following provisions: - Ni. 1. - soio -. Tke LegIMtilet, i-ti -rio PM. ny act authorizing the grant of license iobr he sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating iquors. No. 2. SECTION -. The Legislature shall provide fr the regulation and restriction, and may t rohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks and t hall impose a tax upon the traffic therein. :" The sale of such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers and common drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited, and all necessary laws shall be passed to enforce such prohibition. The annual tax in any case pon the traffic shall not be less than $200. No license for the sale ot ardent spirits r intoxicating liquors shall be authorized." A separate ballot upon each provision may be given by any lector, which shall be deposited in a ballot-box provided for that purpose. Otl the ballots'in favor of the adoption of the above provision No. 1, shall be the words " Prohibition-Yes;" and tipon the ballots in tfavor of the above provision No. 2, shall be the words "Restriction-Yes;" and upon the head or outside of all said ballots, shall he the words, "Prohibition or Restric- tion," placed in such manner that the same hall be visible when the ballot is folded. If upon the canvass of such ballots cast at said election a majority thereof shall be found to contain the words " Prohibition-Yes," thent said provision No. 1 shall become and stand as section,'of Article, of this Contitution, if it shall be adopted; but if a majority of such ballots shall contain the words, " Restriction-Yes," then the above provision No. 2 shall become and stand as section , of Article, of this Constitution, if the same be adopted. The question was upon agreeing to the amendments reported by the committee. Mr. HOWARD. I move to amend the second amendment reported by the committee on the legislative department, by providing that so much of it as relates to the sale of spirituous or intoxicating liquors to minors, persons under guardianship, and common drunkards, shall be incorporated in the body of the Constitution, together with an adcditional clause that nothing therein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the Legislature from prohibiting the sale of such liquors to any or all other personsthan those enumerated. Mr. CONGER. I rise to a question of order. My point of order is that a provision to be inserted in the body of the Constitution is not germane to the amendment reported by the committee on the legislative department. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that it must be an amendment to the amendment reported by the committee. Mr. HOWARD. I propose that so much of the amendment reported by the committee as relates to the sale of spirituous or intoxicating liquors to minors, common drunkards, or persons under guardianship, be put into the body of the Constitution, with the proviso that nothing therein contained shall be construed to prevent the Leg. islature from prohibiting the sale to other persons than those enumerated. I hope the gentleman from St. Clair , (Mfr. Coae)'will m ake no objeetion o that. Perhaps he wil not, if he understands my object in making the proposition. Mr. CONGER. I think my objecion is well taken. The amendment of the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. HOWARD,) does not relate to the amendment of the committee, but to the article to which they have reported amendments. Mr. HOWARD. It is an amendment to nothing' except the report of the committee, It is true it changes the report by placing in the Constitution so much of the report as I have embraced in my amendment. In other words, I propose to take the question upon the sale of liquors to minors, common drunkards, and persons under guardianship, from the proposition to; be separately submitted, and place it in the Constitution at once. Mr. CONGER. I would submit to the gentleman, if he wishes that clause to be in the Constitution, that he move to amend the first proposition reported by the committee by adding that clause to it, as it is in the second proposition. Then it will be in the Constitution whichever of these propositions the people may adopt. But a proposition to be placed now in the body of the Constitution is not an amendment to the amendment reported by the committee. Mr. HOWARD. My object is to place that provision in the Constitution. And I am surprised that any gentleman, especially one who has been in favor of compromise with the extreme prohibitionists, as they are term ed, should make any objection to it. It must have a tendency to carry the article through, as amended by the report made just now. Mr. CONGER. I desire to, have no personal issue with the gentleman now. If it is desirable when the time comes to see who is most in favor of prohibi tion, we will discuss that matter then. If it is desirable to have that provision in the body of the Constitution, there will be a time when that motion'can be properly made. But I think the proposition is out of order to take it out of this amendment and put it in the body of the Constitution, and, therefore, I make that point of order. I am in favor of this amendment just where it is. Mr. HOWARD. I am not in favor of it in the place where it is. I will take the ruling of the Chair upon my amendment. The PRESIDENT. By an examina tion of the amendment reported from 'the committee, perhaps the gentleman might be able to-reach the object he desires to accompuish by an amendment. In the opinion of the Chair I I r 903 CONSTITUTIONAL CON VENTION. amendment now proposed by the gentleman is hardly in Qrder. Mr. HOWARD. I am willing to accept any suggestion that may be mnade. Mr. BILLS I desire not to present anything out of order. Therefore, for the purpose of being informed, I would inquire if it would be in order to amend the report of the committee, as made under the instructions sent to them, by offering as a, substitute for the amendment reported by that committee, the following new section to be added to the legislative article: SECTION-. The Legislature shall not pass any law authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors." I propose to strike out so much as relates to the subject of intoxicating liquors in the amendment of the com mittee, and substitute that in its place. The'PRESIDENT. The Chair will entertain the motion, after the gentle man from Genesee (Mr. HOWARD,) shall have modified his proposed amendment. Mr. HENDERSON. I suppose the motion of the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. HOWARD) is the one before us now for consideration. WhileI am in favor of having the provision he proposes placed in the Constitution, and hope in the end to see it there, placed there by our hands, and not submitted to the people, I cannot see what advantage can be gained by pressing it here in connection with a proposition to sub mit to the people. Mr. HOWARD. I have understood that in order to get in the proposition it must come in by way of amendment to the report just made by the committee. If it can be incorporated in the body of the article in any other way, I do not desire to embarrass or encumber this report by it. Mr. -HENDERSON. If it is necessary to do it in order to get it in, I hope it will be pressed. Mr. HOWARD. I so understand. Mr. -LUCE. The gentleman from Genesee (Mr. HOWARD) is clearly right -in one respect. If we concur in the amendment reported by the committee, it will not then be subject to amendment. We do not want to put that provision in the body of the Constitution, and then submit-it also separately to the people in an alternative section. Of course, if he makes the motion he must do it now, in order to strike it out of the report of the committee. I think he is clearly right in that respect, if he proposes to get it out of the report of the committee. Mr. HOWARD. If I understand the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LUEa,) I could not offer this, in his opinion, after the amendment of the committee has been concurred in. But I under stood the ruling of the Chair yesterday to be that it would be competent for the Convention to add a new section to the article when it was before them. If this provision I have suggested should be in both, it would be doubly strong. It would probably then be an operative clause, if the people should ratify it in the proposition separately submitted to them, and it should be in the Constitution, too. I should have no objection to having it n both. Mfr. HEFNDERSON. The only ques tion seems to be this: whether in the event the Convention agree to this amendment, which I consider very de sirable, a separate section can be added to the article. If not we must press it here, or not have it at all. Mr. CONGER. The Convention have the power now to recommit this article again to the committee, with in structions to insert that provision in the body of the article, or if this report of the committee is adopted, they can afterwards recommit the article again to the committee, with instructions to incorporate the provision in the ar ticle. And I wish to say here that whatever disposition is made of it, those of us who are in favor of propo sition No. 2 desire to have that clause remain in it; that is what we ask of the Convention, to have it a part of that proposition. Mr. GIDDINGS. I think the gen tleman can get unanimous consent to insert that in the body of the Consti tution at the proper time. I do not think any objection will be made to it by any member of the Convention. Mr. LAMIB. If the whole matter is open, by reason of the proceedings we have had, by way of reference or recommittal, then all well for the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. HOWARD,) to proceed in the way he proposes. If that is the ruling of the Chair, I have a matter also to present. But I supposed we could not reach by indirection that which we could not do directly. The committee on the legislative department have been definitely instructed, and as I understand, the report of the committee must be dealt with on that ground. As I understand the rule, the main body of the article cannot now be reached at all. The PRESIDENT. The Chair desires to say that he does niot understand that any question of order has been raised. So far as the suggestion of the gentleman from Lapeer (Mr. LAMB,) is concerned, the Chair will say fhat he understands the body of the article is not now open to amendment. The question now is upon concurring in the amendments reported under instructions by the standing committee; and those amendments, like any other amendments reported by a committee, are subject to amendment. Mr. LAMB. As I understand it, the idea of the gentleman from Gene see (Mr. HOWARD,) is to reach the main body of the article indirectly, by means ofo an amendment to the report of the committee. The PRESIDENT. The Chair does not understand that any question of order has been raised. If any shall be raised at any time, he will endeavor to decide it. MIr. HOWARD. Then my proposi tion would be this: To strike out of proposition No. 2, of the report of the committee, so much as relates to the sale of spirituous or intoxicating liquors to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers and common drunkards, and add to the report of the committee those words to be incorporated into the Constitution, with these additional words:'" Nothing hereinm - contained shall be construed to- prevent the Leg islature from prohibiting the sale of such liquors to any or all other persons than those enunierated." I think that will cover all objections. Mr. McCLELLAND. I submit that nothing now is in order, unless it is an amendment to the report of the com mittee; that any amendment that is offered must be germane to the propo sition contained therein. And unless the proposition of the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. HOWARD) is strictly in order, I object to it. The PRESIDENT. The proposition of the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. HOWARD) has not yet been sent up in writing. Mr. MIcCLELLAND. I object to it, also, on-the ground that the Legislature have full power over that whole subject.' The PRESIDENT. When the proposition of the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. HOWARD) iS sent up in writing the Chair will rule upon it. The Chair will say to the gentleman from Wayne (1Mr. ]MOCLELLAND) that he should hardly deem it proper for him to rule that an amendment was out of order on account of not being germain. That is a question for the Convention to determine rather than for the Chair to decide. Mr. HOWARD. I offer the following amendment to proposition No. 2 of the report of the committee: strike out so much thereof as relates to the sale of spirituous or intoxicating liquors to minors, persons under guardianship, and common drunkards. The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD.) IV d6 ,, rl Y,., 90,t 0 Augut 16, 1867. DEAT AND PROC]11EI)GS. 905 Mr. CONGER. On that amendment I call for the yeas and nays. Mr. HOWA-RD- Imakethat proposition with a view of preparing the way to put in the body of the Constitution the language which I propose to strike out of the report Gf the committee. If there.is any objection to placing that language in the body of the Constitution, I would be glad to hear it. I do not wish to cast any imputation upon any individual who has voted upon this, question of prohibition. But I do say that if those who started out in favor of prohibition in the Constitution, being in the majority in this Convention, shall finally permit the separate submission of the question of prohibition, they will have conceded: all that ought to be required of them; they will have gone as far as any- man, no matter what his views may be, ougt in reason to require them to go. Now, sir, I have said repeatedly that the temperance men of this State were in favor of prohibition of the sale of ardent spirits, and were iin favor of having it in the Constitution. I repeat it now. I believe that a majority of this Convention have been in favor of the same thing, and are to-day. And if they could get at the question fairly, without looking at its political bearing, they would put it in the Constitution,.and submit it with the Constitution to the people. Gentlemen object to this proposition, because they say we have laws already which regulate the traffic in the sale of ardent spirits to minors, common drunkards, and persons under guardianship. If the temperance men of the State were willing to leave, entirely to the Legislature this question of traffic in ardent spirits they never would have sent to this Convention petitions: asking us to act upon this matter at all. But there are men in the State who are not willing to leave. this to the Legislature. We have heard it said in: this Convention that, if we insisted Upon and were successful in carrying Out our prohibitory measures here, the time would come when the Legislature would sweep the prohibitory -clause from the statutebook, and we would have in the Constitution the bare prohibition of license, and nothing more. bow, if that time ever comes, if in the history of "thi-s State we ever arrive at a time when as Legislature shall be found who will-be un.willing-to pass a law regulating the sale of spirituous or intoxicating liquors, I wish to have.n the Constitution a clause which will protect the minors, the young men of whom so much has been -said here. I want a clause in the Con:~tiution Vot. 2-No. 114. which willU forbid the sale of ardent spirits to drunkards, that class of -men who above. all othersshouild be protected. If it shall be possible th' the. Legislature will ever be under the con'reol of any..political party, for -a sufficient-length of Utime to swe'ep.from thestatute book every law in regard to the traffic in intoxicating liquors, under the cry that has been raisedc that we' could not and should not legislate upon moral questions, I wis to have in the Constitution a- clause that will protect -.the people of the State. against the sale to'mino'rs and common d-runkards. Let me ask gentlemen of this Convention if this is right? I say what I know, when I say that there are temperance men in this State, who have been very active in getting up -these petitions, who, if they could be securedl in their desire to have a perpetual prohibition in the Constitution of the traffic in ardent spirits so far as minors, common drunkards and persons under guardianship were:concerned, would be satisfied to stop there; they would ... ~~.. e.; - t-b ol ask for no other legislation. That provision is certainly shorn of all the objectionable features which gentlemen have urged against the prohibitory clause; it certainly has none of those objectionable features. Every temperance man ought to be willing to stand upon that platform, and say that he will go for a proposition that proEbits the sale of liquors to minors; every man should be williing to do that. Itis not objectionable in- any aspect of the case; it is not open to any-of:the objections raisedsand: urged against the.'prohibitory clause in the Constitution. Then, I say, let us have it; iet us strike out that langu.age from the report of the committeee, and put the samein the Constitution anld submit; that Constitution -with the' language ini it, to the people. I have said here before that there were men who wouldi look in the Constituti~nonfor the prohibitory clause, and who would feel disappointed if they did not find it -there; men who claim that it should be there; men who believe that the moral sentiment of the people will be outraged by leaving it out: of the. Constitution. Those men should be' able to fined it in the Constitution, and find it too without:-opposition from thiis Convention, a clause protecting minors and inebriates- from -this traffic in liquors, those classes:that we all should:wisb and desire to protect. The young men of this country, as we have been told by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. SHE.ZL:a): are; fast. acquring habits of intemperance. Ninety-nine out: of every hundred inebriates' acquire those habits in their youth. They grow UPon th tl them, unti l all he evisof-an intemperate life: follow i' the triin of those early acquired habits.' Let us: cut off this traffic with our young-men'. Let us raise our voice, and cast ourvotes, irrespective of party, or any.pOlitical policy, or any party'feeling in this matter, against the sale of intoxi — caa'tig liquors' to young men, and-to inebriates. - - If we vote this proposition down, if we have not. the moral'-sentiment and — icourage to place a proposition of thiskind in the Constitution, it will be' an. insult to the temperance sentiment of the State. We have gone as fr in'disregarding the voice of the petitions sent here in favor of prohibition in the Constitution as we ought to go. We have ignored that voice that has comeup- here from twenty-five thousand petitioners upon this subject. They have asked us to put a prohibitory clause in the Constitution. Shall'we turn a deaf ear to the appeal of: the young men who desire- to0hav this temptation removed -fr(om them? to the fathers and mothers of this State, who ask us to remove this temptation from their children? Shall we turn a deaf eai to every petition that has been presented here?' Shall we ignore that which comes under our observation every day-that the evil of- intemperance on the part of the youth of this land is the growing' and -crying evil of this State? Now, gentlemen, if you seek to comproamise the different parties on this question, let me ask you why object to this proposition? Comeup and place this clause nm the Constitution. Then; if iwe are to have a separate submbission of the other question, it will be. more palatable. Then -the Con/stitution will be such an instir, ment as will receive the hearty support of the most radical temperance imen}in the State; it will be ann instrument that the temperance organizations in-the State can conscientiouslyl and heartily support. But ignore this clause for prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors to young men and to inebriates, an-d you will have' ignored a claim which the prohibitionists of the State have upon you, for legislation in behalf of the great reform Whiich.they tare carrying on. It ought -not to be ignored; it will be a policy which will weaken the article that must sooner or later be presented to this. Convention; and if passed,- must receive the notes.of 'men. wh came here, and who all the t.imoe they have been here, have been in favor of prohibition. This is. all'I ask. Mir. CONGER. -I do not know what this wonderful appeal is made to us for. There has been nobody here, that I have heard, who has' made the least 'N ro I )49 TX,,G, IQ p Au B-,t 16, 1867.. 05.. 11 -. D.... objection to inserting this provision in the Constitution. I have said I was willing that it should be placed there, when it'is proposed at the proper ttime. Mr. HOWARD. Will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. CONGER. After I get through. No one so far has objected to having that provision in the Constitution. There is no dispute about the benefit of it to minors and drunkards. But the question now under consideration is not in regard to minors and drunkards. And I do not propose to be urged, or led or driven, from the consideration of the question that is before us. But I will say to the gentleman that last week others urged upon him to adopt that very provision somewhere as a part of the COnstitution of this State, to give that very provision a chance to exist, if not in the body of the instrument then somewhere else; but he steadily opposed it. If he will remember that, and place it alongBide of his speech upon the subject to-day, he will see that he has gathered from others the ideas and eloquence he has turned upon us. By reference to the proceedings of Thursday, the 8th of this month, he will see that there was a distinct proposition made to submit to the people an alternative proposition having in it the very clause the gentleman wants to strike out of the report of the committee, as the only place where its friends could prevail upon this Convention to permit it to go; and upon the list of yeas and nays opposing the giving that provision any chance in this Convention, or in the article, is the name of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. HIowAD.) We struggled earnestly and long to give that provision a resting place somewhere in our proceedings, that it might at last go into the Consti-tution, into this article. But we failed; we failed by only a very few votes, and we failed because one of those votes was cast by the gentleman himself. And now with what grace shall he turn upon those who have at last suc ceeded in giving so great and glorious a provision a chance to go into the Constitution-with what grace shah he turn upon us and demand that we shall strike out the provision we have put in here, and which he proposes to place in the body of the Constitution itself, although he has opposed its be ing put anywhere heretofore? Let the gentleman look over the record of his votes, and he will find that he never has voted for this proposition separately, or to go into the article. Or if he does find such a vote, I will retract this portion of my remarks. And I say to the gentleman, that if there is any desire to amend proposition No. 1, by adding to it this very valuable clause, the paternity of which belongs to.the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. WITHEY,) I will vote with him to place it there, th that if either of these propositions shall be adopted by the people, that clause will go into the body of; the Constitution; for if there be ten votes for either of these propositions, one or the other must go into the Constitution., hAnd if it is so good a clause as I think it is, I will join with the gentleman in perfecting proposition No. 1, by attaching this clause to it. But I do ask him, and other gentlemen in this (Convention, not to spoil the work of our hands, by attacking the choicest provision; of our proposition No. 2. We have labored long and faithfully to secure it a place, and have at last secured it in the- reporti of the committee. Why will he seek to damage our proposition in this way? Why will he take away one of the things which give so much merit to proposition No. 2? Is that fair warfare among honorable men? I venture to say that the friends of proposition No. 2 will join with the friends of proposition No. 1, for whatever they may desire to perfect proposition No. 1, and not for whatever anybody may desire to destroy it. That is honorable, that is manly, that is courteous. I will go with the gentleman to any extent in perfecting any proposition to be submitted separately to the people. Let the gentleman perfect proposition No. 1, and not take a portion of vitality out of No. 2. I submit that fair-minded men will not attempt to destroy this work of our hands. If they will give us an alternative proposition, then let us have it in the form that we desire; that is, so far as it is not objectidnabl. We say that we desire to have this clause in our proposition, to show what our work is, what we advocate, what we vote for. - If the gentleman will move to attach this clause to proposition No. 1, he shall have my vote, and when the time comes, too, to incorporate it in the body of the Constitution, leaving our work unsullied and unstained by striking this clause out of it, I will join with him in putting it there. If that is not a fair and manly proposition, for one member of this Convention to make to another, I should like to hear the criticism upon Mr. HOWARD. I have known, from the course that the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER) has pursued from the beginning, that it was necessary for him to put himself somewhere on the record, that he might somewhere be recognized as a temperance man. He has had the opportuity, and I hope he will keep it. He has had the opportunity of perfecting his own proposition, and I have: no desire to destroy it. If it was necessary for him to make the speech he has, in order that he might have one temperance sentiment on the record, consistent with his action heretofore, he has had the opportunity. - I disclaim any idea whatever of destroying the alternative proposition. I did yesterday come out manfully and say that I was willing to meet the gentleman in the way of compromise. I made my proposition, and it was rejected; or the sense of the Convention was so far taken that it became necessary to withdraw it, with the express understanding that it should be renewed. I only repeat it now, with this fair statement, that I do not care where the gentleman puts it. If it will weaken his alternative proposition I will adopt his suggestion, and put it in some other place. I do not make the proposition with the view of injuring his alternative proposition. I offer it simply as a compromise, having seen that we might sit here a week, and come to no conclusion in this matter. And if the gentlemen will not meet us thus far in this compromise, I will go against the article. And I believe there are enough here in favor of prohibition to defeat the article, unless we can have our way far enough to have in the Constitution, subject to no separate submission, a clause prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors -to minors and drunkards. If the gentleman thinks he has the votes to carry the article without it, let him try it. If he has not, then I submit he is not the one to dictate terms to us. I am willing to take his word now or hereafter, or at any time, and put that provision wherever he wants it. I will take from his proposition no part that he is not willing I should take. I only demand, in the name of the prohibitionists upon this floor, who have consulted upon this question, that we shall have somewhere a proposition like the one that is proposed here. When we get that, then I trust we will have come to a time when we can abandon the old grounds that have divided us here, and kept us apart so long, and come to gether. That is all I ask. I do not wish to be misrepresented in the matter. I do not want to destroy the alternative proposition; I would not if I could, under any circumstances. Mr. WITHEY. I wish to ask the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. How ARD,) one or two questions. I under stood him to say that with this clause . t,,.; -. I CONSY.UTLJ'XIONAT,:'CONVEN-TION. .Friday, 906 Auus 16 187 EA-1AD~OED~b in proposition No. 2, he could not sup port it. He desires to strike it out of that proposition, and at the same time have it placed in the body of the Con stitution. Mr. HIOWARD. Yes, sir. Mr. WITHEY. If the portion to which he refers is stricken out of the second proposition, and placed in the body of the Constitution, will he then vote for the proposition as it will re main, with the alternative form? Mr. HOWARD. I think I stated, plainly and fairly enough, when I was on the floor before, that the time had come when we must see that we could not get together on the ques tion of prohibition in the Constitution. But if we are compelled to support any proposition of separate submission, we should prefer to have it as palata ble as possible, by having this provision placed in the body of the Constitution. The, natural inference from that would be that I intended, after saying that we could not carry- the question of prohibition' in the Constitution, to' join hands with the'Other members of the Convention and adopt the article. I so stated yesterday, I so state to-day. I have not' shown any factious spirit in this matter at all. Mr. WITHEY. - I have not referred to the gentleman as Showing a factious spirit..- I understand that if this change is made as proposed by himself, he will then support the Separate submission of this question., '-Mr. HOWARD. If this clause is put in the Constitution, as a matter of necessity, not having the power to.put prohibition in the Constitution, I shall vote for the article so perfected and have so intended.. But without this in the article I shall not do so. Mr. WITHEY. I do not myself have very much preference in reference to this question. Personally I would as soon the clause referred to by the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. HowARD,) should be stricken out from this place and placed in the body of the Constitution, as to have it: otherwise. But I would not consent to that, except upon the distinct and positive understanding that those who favor that will support the separate submission of this or some other proposition to the people., M[r. H:ENDERSON. Weil the gentleman yield to me for a -question.? Mr. WITHEY. Certainly. -M:r. HE-NDERSON. Will[-the.gentleman from Kent,' (Mr. WITHEY,) a.d his associates, in the'event this clause is stricken out, accept the motion "of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) and submit separately to the people the section offered by, him-?,., Mr. WITtEY. I do not know that that has anything to do with this prop-: osition'of the gentleman from Gene see, (Mr. HOwARD.) Mr.' HOWARD. The question put by the gentleman from Calhoun (r. HIIENDERSON,) certainly presupposes what all will concede; the right of the prohibitionists to perfect- their side of the proposition. While I do not pro pose to interfere with the alternative side, I merely ask that this saving clause should.be placed inl the Consti tution. The proposition of the gentleman from Lenawee (-Mr. BmILS,) is certainly more palatableX to, us.': That I understand the gentleman does not object to, because he says that he is willing that we should perfect our side of the proposition. Mr. WITHEY. I will not consent personally -to any change in the proposition reported by the commit-/ tee under the instructions o-'f the Convention, unless with the distinct understanding that whatever change is made, is made for the separate submission of the question, and that those gentlemen will stand by it. If they propose to — make the change and put it in the body'of the Constitution, I will consent personally to no change whatever. But I will consent to allow them to make any change they please, if they will pledge themselves to go for the separate submission of the question: - - M r. HENDERSON.'It wass upon that condition I asked the question.' Mr. WITHlEY. With no other view will'-I' cconsent to anything being stricken; o ut. " Mr. BILLS. I have:not risen for the purpose of negotiating', or even interfering with negotiations that may be going on between the gentleman from Kent (Mr. WITHEY,) and the gentleman from Genesee (Mr. HowARD.) I do not rise for the purpose of participating in that bargain. And when'the- gentleman from Kent (Mr. WITHEY,) says he does not consent to anything except ":they" positively pledge themselves'to go for this separate submission, if by-the term'~they" he refers to me in company with others, I beg to be dismissed from that company. I do not propose to'stand here to make a bargain as to what I will do to-morrow or next day, or what I will do five or ten minutes hence, in reference to this, that, or any other proposition.. Nor do I propose to"indulge in any criticisms of a personal character upon anybody. I do not propose to scold, or to find fault:with otherse if -they scold. If it suits their taste-to scold because we interfere with the proposition now before'the Convention, that is a mere matter of taste With them, and I do not know that we have any right, to find' fault with it.' - But I do desire such a presentation 'of this matter to the Convention, that we can have a distinct vote first or last -I do not care which-upon the prop osition, disencumbered of all embar rassment, to incorporate in the Consti tution the provision contained in this proposition No. 1. Then, if that shall fail, I desire a distinct vote of the Con vention if they will submit to the people the provision entitled proposi -tion No. 1:. "The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors." I want a district vote upon the prop osition to present -that as a separate provision to-be submitted to the peo ple, leaving out of it the alternative proposition; so that when it shall be presented to the people it shall be pre sented in such a form that every elec tor -may vote upon the proposition whether he will or will not have that provision in the Constitution; that he may'vote "yes" or "no;" that he may not be compelled to vote "yes"?' or "yes," without the privilege to vote against either of'these propositions. That is my objection to the presen tation of alternative propositionS.- It does not seem to me to comport with the dignity and duty of this Cbnven tion to present- propositions in.that manner to the electors of this State.' I deem it to be the duty of this Conven tion, if we propose to submit anything to the electors, to submit- propositions :to them so that'-they -can vote precisely as we vote. We vote upon propositions here "yes" or. "-no." Now I desire that whateve-r- we shall present to the people, shall be presented in precisely the same manner. I submit that the submission of alternative propositions, when the only vote that can -be given on- either of them is' "yes," is not-a proper submission to the people. -It does not allow the elector to say that he will not have either proposition in the Constitution; one or the otherhe must take. Mr. NORRIS. If this provision should be incorporated in the Constitution, obviating the objection the gentleman raised just now, would he vote for it?, M: —r. BILLS. I will answer the question by repeating what I said, whenI first arose.' I do not rise.to engage to tell any gentlemen on this floor what I will do to-morrow. M'Hr. NORRIS.: I will say' but this: the proposition can be so framed that the people can vote "yes" and " no" on both, by having a double vote.- It is a mere matter of detail, which cam~ be very leasily arranged.' i t DEBATES AND PROC-F,'P.DINGS. August 16, 1867. I90T i* 908 CONSTIT'IYT O T CON V NTION. Saturday, .. I Y Mr. BILLS. I was discussing -ithe proposition now before us;:.not what -might possibly be.before us.'My vote :has. ever been cast for simple prohibition of. license in the Constitution. Whether I will. not or will vote for'any separate submission, depends upon the !future.'I will not pledge myself.to 'aanybody, or even to myself,.a's what I may do. to-morrow upon that question.d ... I say most cheerfully that if this Convention shall in'their wisdom judge best to present to the people the- proposition even in its alternative form, I 'will submit to it; not.that I approve of it, but I will submit to it, because:. it is the judgment of the. Convention, and not because it is. my. judgment. AndI wil not scold at. this Convention, I will.-not find fault with this Conven,tion,, for doing so.. '':.!t'I simply propose to exercise-my duty in that regard, and urge that proposition which in. my judgment seems to be the best. My views upon that subject have. been- sufficiently indicatred. The. proposition specially before the Convention seems to me -to be undesirable, provided we adopt in the Constitution, or submit separ:ately to. the people,- the proposition vhich I-have just read. It would: seem to be unnecessary to incorporate in the Constitution any provision prohibiting the sale of liquors to minors, or to any other persons enumerated in that .pr6position No.- 2.-..... -':A-nd i-for -that reason -I -desire tht :thi nmatter may be laid-upon the-table, .hiah w::e may- have b.efore — — us printed.in : the.j ourna-l -the report of the committee, —nd be. able.-to act upon it intelli'gently. It is exceedingly embarrassing t,6.ropose amiendments to a matter in -the condition in which, this is, ~and submitl them in -a i, manner ,that - shall be satisfactory.to those prosmg - the amendment, and fair towards those who have perfected :?this'proposition. If,we can.have this -:report;-laid upon the table, and printed in the. journal, we can take it up in the morning and come to a vote upon -the .:several propositions. intelligently, and ~without the embarrassment.:that.-. we .mare now under; the one party proposing amendments -to a -subject not- before them in a tangible form, and therefore:not able to attach -those amendments in- a satisfactory manner. I, therefore, -move.that this ireport-be laid upon the table. Oand printed im,the journal, i.:.-:::.-..-:;. -Mr.; BLACKMAN. Will the gentle-man. withdraw that. motion -.fo'r.a ~moment.? - - i: Mr. -BILLS.. Certainly; for a:sugugesht.i -..n Mr. BLACKM~AN. -I wish. to say that I have not authorized anybody to speak for me on this subject, or to make any compromises. I prefer if my position is to be:stated, to -state it myself.' I tried to do -as much this ,!forenoon,,- on the proposition that was then under consideration, but I was cut ffbi at -that time by-the'previous question.: In regard to the proposition of the gentleman from Genesee, (Mr. Ho.W-: iRD,) I do not know whether all the friends of..prohibition'desire to have that provision placed in the"Constitution in that form. If they do, it strikes :me that if we should come to that conclusion, the suggestion. of the gentleman.from bit. Clair (Mr. C'Oi En,) is as good and-fair a way to meet it as-any. That is, if we are to -present alterna'tive propositions -to the people at all, "then'ifi.that cilause is contained in both propo:sition's, -as one or: the other of ~them must be'adopted, it will go into Ithe.'Constitution inevitably. Therefore, I doe not.see why; that would — not'be just as good a way to get at it a's the other.... But I wish to say further.'that I am not in favor of presenting an alternative proposition'of this kind. I would prefer. first to put the- simpleprovision for prohibition, into the Consti,tution. .If that is not thought best by the majority of the Convention, my nexts preference would be to submit to the people that same provision, as a single proposition byitsef, to be voted upon ".'yes," or "no." I want the opportunity of. voting upon'that particular question, and taking the'sense of the Conventibn upon it..: If.that fails, then I will be prepared tl' consider this other.proposition.. -Mr,. BILLS. I now renew:the' motion to lay this report on the'-table. M:lMr. BIRNEY.. I' desire'to say, be..fore that motion.is put, that tit seems -to me it is entirely: unnecessary. Te report of this. committee:is fully print ed in the.'proceedings of fthe 8th -instant. I see. no necessity of laying it: ion.the table in order to have i~t printed. .. The motion to. lay the report on the table was agreed to; ayes 35, noes 29. ;Mr.-.ESTEiE. I move that the Con;'vention now adjourn..... The -motion was agreed to; and ac cordingly- (at five o'clock p:. m.,) the Convention adjourned. :- SEVENTIETH DAY. - SATURDAY, August 17, 1867. The Convention -met at nine o'clock -a.: m., and was called to -.order by the PRESIDENT. -E-P.rayer byRev. MYr. SPENCER.- - The Aroll was' called, and a:.quorum of members answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. CROCKER. I ask leave of absence for myself,for an indefinite period, on account of business engagements which make it necessary for me to return home. Leave was -accordingly granted. Mr. MIORTON asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence'for Mr. WRmIIHT, on account of sicknless. Mr. RICHMOND asked and obtained leave of absence for himself, for to-.dayand Monday next. -. - LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Mr. LUC,E. I move to'take from the table, for consideration at this time, the article entitled "Legislative- Department," -with the special report made by ~~~~~~~~~~.. ~..,..,: *w.-..*Y the committee thereon. .The motion was -agreed to... The PRESIDENT. The Standing committee, too whom this. article'was recommitted with certain instructions, reported the following amendments: FIRST- A-MEND-DENT. —--: Strike out of said article section eight, and insert in place thereof the following:. "At, the election when this Constitution shall- -be-. submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection, there shall also'be separately submitted to such electors the two following-propositions:.-. :.-.First. SECTION- 8. The.LegislatuLre shall meet-on the first Wednesday of"January, in the year one thousand eight hundred; and :sixty-nine,.and on the: first Wednesdayv. of January of- each yeas; thereafter, butit at no other time except as. provided in.this-Constitution. The time of m eeting- shall, be at eleven o'clock in the forenoon,- and'the time of final.adjournem'ent shall',be'atwtwelve o'clock, -noon. Seond. SElCTION 8.'The. Legislature' shall meet on the first Wednesday.of January, one thousand eight'hundred and sixty-nine, and on the first" Wednesday of January of every . second year- thereafter, but at no'. other time except as provided in this'Constitution. -The time of meeting shall be. at eleven- o'clock"in the forenoon, and the time of final adjournment shall be at twelve o'clck, no'on. - A.' sepalrate bal'ot upon -,each proposition nmay be given by-any elector, which shall be deposited in'-' a- ballot-ox provided for that purpose. '' On the ballots in favor of the adoption of the above p~roposition No. 1, shall'be the words, " Annual'sessions-yes;" and upon the ballots in favor of the above proposition No. 2, shall be the words, "Biennial sessions-yes-;" and upon- the head'or outside of all said ballots. shall be the words, "Annual or- Biennial sessions," placed in such a manner that-the same shall be visible when the ballot is tolded. Itf upon- the canvass of such ballots cast at said election, a majority thereof shall' be found to'contain the words, "Annual, sessions-yes," then said, proposition No.- l'shall become and. stand as Section eight, of Article of this — Constitution, if "the -same- is adopted; but if a majority of such ballots shall contain the words,''"-Biennial sessions :-yes," then the above proposition:No. 2 shall become and stand as section eight, ofArticle -'.", of this Constitution, if the same Is adopted. _ D VSECOND AMENDMENT. SECON ~M MENT.' Strike out of section 32, of said article, the words,,"nor pass any-act authotiz-ing the grant of lic6nse:for the sale of ardent -.-spirits or intoxicating: liquors,"' and insert,.-in the place thereof the following: August'1T, 1867. DEBAR~~~~~~~~ A-D?ROP,G :909 'At the election when-this (oinstitution shall be" submitted: to- the electers ot. this State-for adoption or rejection,.therefshall also0 be separately submitted tO such'e.lectors the tWo following provisions: NO. 1. SE,cTION: -. The Legislatureo shall not: pass any-act authorizing the grant or license for the sale ot ardent'spirits or intoxicating liquors. ago. 2. SECTION —. The Legislature'shall provide for' the regulation:and restriction, and may prohibit the sale of intixicating drinks, and shall impose'a tax upon the'traffic therein. The sale of such drinks to'minors, persons under -guardianship, paupers -and common drunkards, shall -be wholly prohibited,. anid all necessary laws shall be passed to enforce such prohibition. The annual tax'in'! any case upon the traffic Shall Inot be less thanf $200.- No license or the'sale Of ardent spair its or intoxicating liquors shall be authorized. A separate ballot ppon:'each provision'may be given by any elector, which' shall'be deposited in a ballot-box provided for that purpose.'on/the balits in favor: of the' adop tion of- the aboe provision No.'1 -"shall be the words, "Pirohibition-Yes;" and upon the ballots in:fa'vor ot the above provlsion No. 2, shall be the words, "Restricioni-es;' " and upon the head or outside of all said.ballots shall be t'hie"Words, "'P'rohibition or Re+ striction,. placed in such'.ianner -th't ath same Shall be visible when-: the:'balt is'folded. It. upon the canvass of -such ballots-east'.at said election, a majority thereoftsha-ll bef6uad to" contain the words, "Prohibtion-Yes:," t'hen said provsi'on No. 1 shall become'e: and stand as section -', of Article —,' ofthis:onstitution, it it shall be adopted; but'if-a-majority of such ballots shall contain the: -words, .Restriction —Yes," then the'above-":pprovision No.2 shall become and stand.assectibn -, ot' Article -' of this Constitutior,;:if'the same be adopted. The' pending question..is upon the motion of the gentleman' from' Genesee (Mr.. HowARD,) to amend prbovision No. 2, of the second amendment reported from the co'mitee, by strikig :out, the following: The sale of such drinks -to minors, personsu-nider guardianship," paupers and:'common:drunkards, shall be wholly prohibit.ed: and all necessary laws shall be passed to-enforce such prohibition." ,''"Mr.' HOWARD. I withdraw that amendment'for the' present, with the understanding that I may renew'it hereafter. The question recurred upon agreei ing'to the amendments reported by the committee. Mr. BILLS. I-move to.'strike out ,all of the second'amendment reported by the committee, and insert [in lieu thereof the following: i ~At'the election, at the' same: time when the~ :votes of'-the:'electors'shall be.'taken:.for.t~he -ado'ption o0r r~ejection ot this Cons~titti~on,. an' additional' section numbered:-'- in i::the words tollowing: "The Legislature sh'all nbt. :pass any act authorizing the grant of license 'for the:sale ot'ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors, but shall. by law prohibit the sale 0f t'he:same as a beverage;"'shall:.be Separately submitted to the electors:of'this State. for their adoption or reje'ction, in tbrm' followinig, to-wit:''' "''*':: A separate ballot may be'given.by every -.person having the right to vote forthe revis ed Con~stitution, to be deposited in a Separate box. Upon the ballots given for'and against' ~Said', separ~ate. section, sih'all "be'w~ritten:or :printed, or partlyritten aind.partly i)"nt/d,i %thewords-';!, "P'rohbtiton:~:es;":and d?pO''i~the :balotgi'5~ n ai_~ei:gaifn'st the! adop~tion o0f thie s'aid :se~ctio.np i~'nlike'manner, t'.he:;oids: ",:Prqhiibition-No.", If' ataifiit d eiefitna: -m.a!ty: 'of:theJ:'votes for anid agignstisaId se'ction: shall contain the words, ":roliibi'tion:-e,", then there shallbe ins:ert-ed;in the said ayticlethe said add'itional'sectin, to be tim'bnred/as 'section —:in-sai- article. ,Mr. CONGER, Do:i understand :this"'substitute to: propose to'leave in section thirty-two of the le.isiaive-artide, the clause "thatthe com0mittee in ;their second "amendment'reported on yesterday, propsed -to:'-have stri'cklen out:? As'-the.'substitute was "read, I did not hear- any provision proposing to strike out those words. Mr. LUCE. I think the report of the — committeeI: made: yesterday' w' explain — that. I tintk i is. that the' two provisions, section..eight,:an~d' a portion of section thiry-wo, be taken' from the article on.the legislative do partment, and:'Submitted -.to — the peo:-ple,. I -know that'wasg the intention. :: "Mr..;CONGOER. That is not the: point. I am "not talking about: what ~:.'the' report of the ommittee proposed to do, but what this Substitute' pro poses to do. The report of the com. imittee -made yesterday, under the head of,, Second amenmemnt," commences as follows: ":''": "Strike out of section thirty-two, of:said .article the Words,' nor passany'act authoriz ilg.the grant of license, for the sale -of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors,' and insertin the'place ther'eofthe-'bllowing:"'. Now, I unIerstand that the proposi tion of the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. Byres,) is' to'leave,' those words in the thirty-second Section,: and to sub-. -tmithe separate proposition contained "rain his substitute. Now, I would like -to know-what we are doing, before we are caled. on.toact. I- ask that the amei'd ment be,again read. The amendment was -read as follo.ws": Strike.out the second amendment..reported by the.committee; and insert in lieu thereof the following-: ",At.the- election,:at-the:'same ~time when. the votes of the 6electors s''h.-all:be' taken tor the adoption or:rejection.:of this Constitution; ;an additional section, nu'mbbrOd "' in the words f6llowing:- -'The Legisgla,ture'-shall not pass any/act authorizingthe grant of license' fo'r- the sJale: of:ardent::spitits- or'intoxicating :liquors, but shall by law prohibit the sale ot the same:as a':baverago;' shall- be separiately submitted-' to the electors of this State — for their adop'tion or -rejection in -form tollowing, to wit:' "','A-separate:.hallbt may be:given by every person-having the rfight:.:to:.vote:for: the revised Conatitution:, to be deposited in a sepaIr,ate box.' "Upon: theo ballots given for and' ',against said separate section, -shall be written orprinted,'or partly written and partly :printed,. the words,',Prohibition-Yes;' and upon the ballots given'against the adoption of the said secton,'in like manner,:the words 'Prohibition.-No.' If'at-said election a majority of the votes for and against said section shall contain"'the words,'Pohibit ion-Yes'. then there shall be'userted in the said: articl :the sd addinal etion, to' be numbered .as.secti.on —, in said, article." Mr. C;ONGER. That proposes to strike out all of the -second amend;ment reported by the committee, ineluding that portion of' the"second amendment which I have:,just -read, w~hich.pr:oposed to str~ike o.uto_0f seet:fion thirty-two:.thprohbitory clause. That-is, the subsitue:-of, the gentle.:man' from Lenawee (Mr. BrLs) leaves ~ -that clause m the thirty-second section, as I supeosed it did; andpro..:vides for:separate submission o.0f an.'ot~her.-provision entirely. Now,' ask gentlemen< -who favor t-that substitute to ehange it -in that' respect. Is -it tho i~ntention to -have in "the thirty:second section the disputed provision, andi have: the same dispute over agai on new territory? That is a curious compromise which is proposed "here;' to. have'm section thirty-two, the very clause we have been -disputing about, and'have an additional provision sub:mitted to the people. If: that is the — plan, let-us understand. it. .Mr. LUE. I feel authorized to say that is not the-plan. Mr. CONG"ER. I am very glad to hear- it. Mr.-LUCE. The plantwas to take out the clause'as the committee proposed.: It..was an oversight in the propositi~on of the.gentleman fron. Lenawee, Mr".::r:O:)NGOE:R..' -Or ann: under-sight. M:': L.U:(~E,.. N~o,)(sir;i an o'ver'sight. I t: hink' the,e)"a.mendment -f.the gentle'.man'-from';LeniaweO: cain be cehanged so as to strike out one clause later in the report of the committee. Mr.:CONGERI If it: was change so as: to strike: out, two or.three clauses later'in:.the: report, it-: would suit: me better. :::?Mr: —B. BILL.:It was not;:the.'design :in offering this: amendment to leave in t ~he: legislative article anything that the report.of the committee. proposed to tfake::out: of-it.: And..I submit now iwhether amending ft'his'report' by: stri king out all'0of:the::sdetcndamendme'nt, does not':do~precisely what:the gentle'man from St. Clair (Mr..CO-sEa) deisires to have done?.However, iffthere is.the::slightest::doubt: abo0Ut:i,:itI will :modi'fy..my.'amendment s:~o:as: t"o-have sfrice': o'tke ~oU~6f. SectiOn. tirt~y'two: that 'part..:::-Which: -relates:'to prohibition -.of 'lictense;,-a'n~d:h ave. submitted:dseparately to./the people,' wha~t/:i have proposed in my amendment,'.'':-'' M..'r.::FA:M:E'R. "Will:the gentleman ,allo.w::'to/~: mi:~ke a s~ugg'est~i:(a'on? Mr.: FAiRMIE:R.:I would suggest to t h e-:gentleman fr:f om::Lenawee: (MHr. :B'Ls sosto S om.0: end "his:pro~position! as to::o00:'r: the0.'po::0'~t!h'i::by the.ge"-kfle - a -.. -. I- . -' I, - - -.1... - - -. - I --.- I - I.... - --. -, "., -.- -- -- I -... I I... I I. I -,. I I 910 Go~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$TITU~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ioNAL c()~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~YE~~~~~~~~~~~TIO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~atiirday,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ man from St. Claire (Mr. CONeER,) and the subject-matter that the- gentleman from Lenawee said he intended to cover.: - - -. - - M Mr. BILLS. I:have so modified my amendment.'- -:,^ Mr. BIRNEY. The second amendment reported -by the committee cdmmences by proposing to strike certain words from the thirty-second section of the article on the legislative department. I:understand the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. BILms,) to be to strike out the latter -part of the second amendment of the committee, and to substitute in lieu of it what he-has sent up to the Chair. The PRESIDENT. That is the understanding of the Chair. The question now is on the amendment as modified. - -. -: Mr. CONGER. I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS,) to read: "Upon the ballots given for and against said separate section shall be * * * -* the words: Prohibition-Yes."' I want to understand whether those who vote for and those-who vote against must vote: Prohibition-Yes." I'ask the Secretary to read that clause of the amendment again; there is a dispute-about it.. - The Secretary read as follows, from thetamendment of Mr. BILLS: "Upon the ballots given for and against said separate section, shall be written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, the words,'Prohibition-Yes;" and upon the ballots given agaihst the adoption of the said section, in like manner the words,' Prohibition-No."' ".,:- -. — -. Mr. McCLELLAND. I would suggest to the. gentleman from St. Clair, (Mr. CONGER,) to have the whole matter referred to the committee on phraseology. - _ Mr. CONGER. There is:a principle involved here, which the committee on phraseology may not understand exactly.:;- Mr. LEACH. I ask that the amendment as modijed may be read again, that we may understand it.; The amendment -as modified was reas as follows::.-:. C ", Amend the second- amendment reported by the committee bY striking out all alter the followingsclause: "Strike out of section thirty-two, of said article, the words,'nor pass any act authoriztng the grant of license ior the sale,of'ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors,' and insert in the place thereof the followin-g:' -And by inserting in lieu of the portion stricken out the following:..: "At the election, at the same time when the votes of the electors shall be taken for the adoption or rejection of this Constitution, an additional section numbered-, in:the words tollowing:'The. Legislature shall- not pass :any act authorizing the grant 0of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors, but shaliby law prohibit the sale of the same as a beverage;" shall be separately submitted to-'the'electori of'-thl State for their adoption or rejection, In torm following, to wit:'"A separate ballot may be given by every person having the right to vote for the revised Constitution, to' be deposited in a separate box. Upon the-, ballots given for and ;against said separate section, shall be written or printed, or- partly written and partly printed, the- words,''Prohibition-Yes;' and'rupon the ballots given against the adoption of the -said section, in like manner, the words,':Prohibition-No." Itf at said election a mnajority of the votes for and against said section shall contain the words,' Prohibition-Yes," then there shall be inserted in the said article the said additional section,' to'be numbered as section -',in said article." "" Mr. McCLELANID. Before the vote is taken'on" that amendment, I move to amend the- portion proposed to be stricken out of the report of' the committee, by changing the amount of the annual taxr upon the traffic from "$200" to "$100." That was my intention: in offering the:: resolution of recommittal yesterday.. - The amendment of Mr. McCLELLAND was not agreed to. Mr, P. D. WARNER. I:move to amend the first: alternate proposition reported by the standing committee, by adding thereto the words, "" but shall l by law prohibit the sale of the same as a; beverage;" so that proposition No. 1 will read: SECTION —. The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sare ot ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors; but shall by law prohibit the sale of the same as a beverage.';. My only object in offering that amendment is to bring the report of the committee to- 0correspond in that respect to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BmLs;) so that the only question submitted to the Convention will be whether it is desirable to submit to the people a single proposition or alternate propositions. For myself,: if this question is to be - submitted separately to the electors of this State, I am in favor of: permitting them to express by their ballots their preferencein'relation to what shall be embraced in the organic law-of the State, regulating and governing the traffic in intoxicating liquors.:' There is -another reason why I am iin favor -of alternate propositions.- I have not been led -to believe,- as: has been expressed by some other individuals upon this floor, that every elector in thee State will be disposed to favor and vote for prohibition in the Constitution.: I be]ieve,: that - the public- sentiment'-of the people of the State of Michigan is divided 'upon.that question, and I believe that by the submission of a single proposition there will be a risk, on the part of those who favor prohibition in the Constitution, of losing the proposition that is submitted. And in orae mtathat co0ntgeny may be avoided, I am in favor of the submission of another proposition to go with the first, so that the electors may decide which one they will have; and in case the first is rejected, the second may be adopted. I consider that the second alternative proposition will be much better than nothing. Therefore, I have offered this amendment so as to bring the report of the committee to correspond with what is proposed by the- substitute, in relation to the first proposition. Mr. CONGER. I call for the yeas and nays on the amendment. The'yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. P. D. WARNER, and it was agreed to; yeas 63, nays 17, as follows::' YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Bills,' Birney, Blackman, Bradley, Burtch, Case, Chapin, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Ferris, Germain, Giddings, Harris, Hazen, Hixson, Holmes,- Holt, Howard, Hull, Huston, Lamb, Leach, Longy'ear, Lovell, McConnell, MeKernan, Miles,'Miler, Mussey, Musgrave, Pratt, Pringle, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M.- C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins, White, Willard, Winsor, Withey, Williams,' Woodhouse, Yeomans, and the President-63.' -': NAYs-Messrs. Barber, Brown, Chapman, 'Corbin, Desnoyers, Henderson, Luce, McClelland, Morton, Murray,,Ninde, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, shearer, Thompson, and Winans-17. During the call of the roll, remarks were~ made by members as follows: -M;r.'" BURTCH. In explanation of -my vote on this amendment, I would respectfully say that it involves in spirit and in truth the very principle that I proposed. Believing that this course iis the only course: that-can be adopted and have the Constitution adopted, I vote " yes." - - Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Either my colleague (Mr. HARRI) or-myself -misunderstand the proposition. I would like to have it again stated before I vote. The PRESIDENT. The amendment is to add to proposition No. 1, reported by the committee, the words, "but shall by law prohibit the sale of the same as a beverage;" so that the proposition will read: "The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license tor the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors, but shall by law prohibit the sale ot the same as a beverage."...',' -Mr.'VAN VALKENBURGH. I vote "aye." -' Mr. HUSTON. I wish to change my vote; I vote ", aye."': Mr. MUSSEY. I wish to change my vote; I vote "aye."' M hr. BILLS. I will change my vote, and.vte "aye." -~~~ ja. Auu 17 187 DBAT12b AN?RCIDNS 911 -t — Mr. STOCKWELL. I change my vote to "aye." Mr. ROOT. I change my vote to "aye." Mr. CONGER. I hope all the members may be allowed to change their votes to "aye." Mr. ELLIOTT not responding when his name was called, Mr. WHITE moved that Mr. ELLIOTT be excused from voting. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. ELLIOTT. I would like to vote understandingly, but I do not understand the question. The amendment was again stated. Mr. ELLIOTT. I vote "aye." Mr. HENDERSON. I have thought this matter over, and although I am in favor of the proposition, the reasons given by the mover for introducing it have induced me to change my vote, and I vote "no." The result of the vote was stated as above recorded. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. BILLS. Mr. BILLS. I wish to correct my amendment. In the clause that now reads: "Upon the ballots given for and against said separate section shall be written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, the words "'Prohibition- yes," the words "and against" were inserted by mistake. I modify the amendment by striking out those words. The question was upon the amends ment of Mr. BILLS, as modified and correcoed. Mr. LAMB. I rise for the purpose of ascertaining whether I can understand the report of the committee, [laughter] which perhaps can be got at in an hour or two. The report of the committee proposes two amendments, and by each amendment two propositions are to be submitted to the people. The report then says-" A separate ballot upon each proposition may be given by any elector," etc. Now I cannot understand whether that means to convey the idea that each elector is to vote "yes" and vote "no," or vote " yes" twice upon the same proposition. If the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGEIR) can explain how that is in law, I wish he would do so, for it looks to me to be a little suspicious. "Ad separate ballot upon each proposition may be given by any elector." I want to understand if that is as it should be, or was intended to be. The question was upon the amend ment of Mr. BILLS. Mr. LUCE. I call for the yeas and nays on that amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. CONGER. I undsrstand that proposition No. 1, of the committee's second amendment, has now been~ amended so as to correspond with the single proposition embraced in the amendment of the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS.) That is, there have been added to proposition No. 1, reported by the committee, the words"but shall by law prohibit the sale of the same as a beverage;" so that it embraces the whole of the proposition which the substitute proposes to submit separately to the people. Then a vote for the substitute will be a vote against submitting to the people props osition No. 2, of the report of the comniittee; that will be its whole effect. I am very much in favor of submitting to the people proposition No. 1 as amended, and proposition No. 2 as it stands; very much in favor of that. Myreasons are reasons of policy, of expediency, and of right. My reason of policy is, that in case the first'proposition should fail, the second proposition will be adopted by the people, and of necessity become and remain * part of the Constitution, if the Constitution shall be adopted. My reason of expediency is, that we shall gather to the support of this Constitution a very large vote, which we would otherwise entirely lose. I venture to say that with this alternative proposition submitted together with the first proposition the whole of the people will vote for the one or the other, and elmost all the voters of this State will vote for the Constitution in order that one or the other of these propositions may be adopted. Whichever way they may choose to vote, they must vote for one or the other of these alternative propositions; and in order to make the proposition they do vote for successful and have a place in the Constitution, they will vote for the Constitution. I do not claim that all the voters of the State would vote for the Constitution for this reason. There are a large number of the voters of this State who for other reasons would vote against the entire Constitution. But I do claim that there is a large class of voters in the State-I have no hesitation in mentioning them, the German voters-who would vote in mass for proposition No. 2, and who would undoubtedly vote for the Constitution, in order that it may have a place in which to be incorporated. I desire to call the attention of the Convention to the statement I make: that the whole class of German voters of this State will vote for proposition No. 2, if submitted to them for a vote. I think I speak advisedly, and with some knowledge of the subject, when I assume that to be a correct statement. Some twenty or twenty-five thousand voters of that class will vote for proposition No. 2, and will vote for the Constitution in order -that it may be in the Constitution. They will have the same reason for supporting proposition No. 2, in order, if it should carry, that they may have what they desire, that the prohibitionists will have for supporting proposition No. 1...- - Besides that, I venture to say that there are a large number of all classes of people, without respect to party, who may not be in favor of entire prohihibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors, but who will be perfectly satisfied with proposition No. 2, and they will vote for it if it is the alternative proposition. If they vote at all, they must vote for the one or the other; and they will vote for it, and vote for the Constitution with it. In my judgment, the mere submission of this alternative proposition will add a strength to the probable adoption of the Constitution, Which no other proposition can give. Therefore, inasmuch as the first proposition has been made exactly in accordance with the views of its friends, I am still in favor of submitting the alternative proposition for the temperance men to vote for and to work for; in favor of submitting it so that we shall have in our Constitution, if proposition No. 1 be not adopted, language which goes at least to a great extent in the same direction with the first proposition. The second proposition provides for the regulation and restriction of the sale, and may prohibit it just as the first does. It gives the power, but does not positively direct its exercise. It also says: "No license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors shall be authorized." It goes a great way in the direction of the first proposition. And I sub mit, in all candor, to any friend of prohibition, or of temperance, in this Convention, whether, in case the first proposition should not be adopted by the people, they would not rejoice to see the second proposition in our Con stiution; and whether, from a mere desire to have a particular form of proposition, it is better to sacrifice the substance, to sacrifice the reality for a mere form. - I- ask the candid consideration of the gentlemen of this Convention who are in favor of both prohibition and restriction, but first in favor of -pro hibition-I ask them if they would not rather have in the Constitution this alternative proposition than not to have any?- That is the effect of the report of the committee for which the substitute is offered. I do not pro pose to argue it; I say that that is my choice, that I do desire that there shall D]3;BATES -AND PRO OEEI(S 911 August 17, 1867. CONS iU-'AIONAT,- CONYENTION-. be in the Constitutin.at least -one or the other of these propositions. Mr. BIRPNEY. I wish to call the attention of the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER,):to one sentenee of the report of the committee. -The first sentence after the second& proposition reads-" A separate ballot upon each provision may be given by any. elector," etc. Oought that not to read -" upon either provision"? Mr. CONGER. I will simply say in regard to that, that we took- the form of provision for the mode of submission from the proposition submitted by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHROP.) Mr. BIRNE-Y. Would not the language here- employed authorize each voter to cast a ballot upon each proposition. -Mr. CONGE1R. Perhaps it might. I will move to strike out the word " each" and insert the Word "either," before "provision.": M.B. LAMBW.- That meets- the question I raised some moments.- since. -I did not know what the intention was, and I inquired at the time of the chairman (Mr. CONGM,) to explain it. Mr. CONGER. The reason that language was used was, that we took] it from the form of the proposition of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. LoTHROP.) The amendment of Mr. CONGER was then agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mhr. BMLS. - Mr. FERRIS. I desire to say a few words on this. question. I ha-ve been from the beginning very much in favor of a proposition just like that which has been presented by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. B-mLs,) of submitting-to the people the imple proposition of prohibition or no prohibition. I have stood upon that platform in this Convention, in favor of- submitting that proposition until I amgen-i tirely satisfied that we never canl obtain such a submnission from this Con, vention. Mr.-LUCE. I think we can. r., FERRIS. And for the p urpose of uniting, I yield in favor of-proposition No. 2, as reported by: the committee, in order to harmonize our ac-, tion, and get this legislative article in such a shape that we can pass it by a handsome majority. Therefore,: I will say to my friend from Lenawee,: (Mr. BmLS,) and to others who have stood firm and faithful as prohibitionists upon this floor, that I shall on this:o'casion vote against this proposition, in order, if possible, to bring about h"omonious action. In addition to that I will say -that in taking this course, I do not endorse at al the principle in proposition No. 2. I simply- vote to refer that question. tothe: people; they may endorse it or not, as they shall see fit. I reserve.to myself the right, which I shall- most certainly exercise at -the ballot box, of making my choice between the two propositions. I say this much to explain the vote I shall give. I am satisfied that- it is utterly impossible for us to carry the first propositon alone, and then pass the article with it, and without proposition No. 2. Mr. WILLIAMS. I am in fvor of meeting this question fairly and squarely, whenever we do meet it. I do not want to go sideways to the people or anywhere else. It seems to me that iff we propose to submit a question to the people, there is only one way of submitting it. The proposition reported by the committee does not submit it. As now amended it says in the one case that; the: Legislature shall prohibit, and in the other case that the Legialature may prohibit.' Now how can a man vote who wants to vote against prohibition? What is the negative of these two propositions:? There must be a negative somewhere. It is against the Constitution; that is the negative. If the people vote against the'Constitution they vote against both' of these propositions. There is no other in which they can vote in the negative. The gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER) tells us that by submitting the two propositions we get a larger vote for the: Constitution than we would get otherwise. That is whatwe desire; we all desire the largest vote for the Constitution that we can obtain. But it-seems to me to be a strange - way. of getting votes for the Constitution to submit two propositions in such a way, that in order to give a negative vote against both of them the vote must be against'the Constitution. Now, it-does not- look to-me to be either reasonable or logical that a man who is opposed -to prohibition, who believes that it-is wrong in principle, will vote that the Legislature may prohibit. Now, what right have we to say to the people: ",You may vote upon this question, but-you shall vote either-this way or that way; you: shall- not. have the privilege of voting."yes" or s"no" upon either of'the proposiions'" —what right have we to say-that:? It appears to me perfectly right and. fair that we shall submit this question fairly. and: squarely to the people. If the people fre in favor of prohibiting the sale-of 'intoxicating liquors as a'beverage,- leti them have an opportunity to say: so. -I think they:- will- speak out. on: both sides of- this question,. if they have a .chance. And- teissue is brought upon the general p]Lciple, in the: way suggested.by the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. BILLS;) but it is not presented to the people by the other proposition. I am to-day in favor of the separate submission of this question to the people. I'want to meet it fairly and squarely; I do not want to' go- home, and let any portion of my constituency say tome-" You have pretended to submit this matter to the people, but it is all a humbug; there is no submission here; in the first place you say The Legislature shall prohibit;': in the next you say —,' The Legislature may prohibit.' There is no alternative proposition at all for us to vote upon." MHr. CONGER. Is-there reallyno difference? What is the objection to the second propositions? Mr. WILLIAMS. Because you propose to submit a proposition to the people which in itself contains no distinctive features, except that one is, ''The Legislature shal prohibit," and the other is-," The Legislature -mtay prohibit." They both depend upon the action of the Legislature to carry them out. MEr, MHcCLELLAND. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him a moment? Mr. WILLIAMS. Certainly. Mr. MHcCLELLAND. I am glad to find the gentleman's views have changed. On yesterday the gentleman from Kalamazoo (MHr. BRADLEY) offered the following-proposition: The Legislature shall not- pass any act authorizing the grant ot license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors." I find the gentleman voting against that proposition. Mr. WILLIAMS. I voted against the propositionof the gentleman from K-alamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY)? Mr. MoCLELLAND. So it is: recorded in the journal. Mr. WILLIAMS. I voted for it. Hr McCLELLAND. Then this record is not correct. 'Mr. WILLIAHMS. I voted for it. M.r. McCLELLAND. And on my proposition the gentleman voted "s aye." Mir. WILLIAMS. I did vote "aye" on that proposition. For the last two or three days I have voted; "aye" on all propositions to submit this question to the people. If I am not recorded as voting " aye " on every proposition, except the one offered by the gentleman -from Genesee, (Mr. HOWARD, ) as -an amendment to the proposition of the gentleman ffrom Kalamazoo, (Mr. BRADLEY,) on which I voted ";no," then the record is not correct. I think my.record on this subject will be found to be consistent; if it is not I will take the responsibility, and it need not i 9 " . I Sat'u-r-4-,Ay-,, August 17, 1867. DEBATES AD PROGEEDIN(+. 913, trouble the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MCCLELLAND.) I hope he will borrow no more trouble about my record than I do. If he does, it is a matter I have no feeling about; he can take the responsibility if he wishes on his. own shoulders. I came here in favor of putting pro hibition of license directly in the Con stitution. But from the course taken in the discussion of this question, from the fact that the discussion upon this question has been a discussion of the merits of the prohibitory liquor law, I am now in favor, as I have been for the last three days, of submitting this question fairly and squarely to the people. I voted "aye" yesterday on this alternative proposition, because I wanted to get the question somewhere where we could handle it. And I be lieve we have it there now. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I have all along been in favor of incorporting in the Constitution a provision similar to proposition No. 1, and not submitting it separately to the people. It is now apparent, however, that it is impracti cable to incorporate that provision in the body of the Constitution. The gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. BMLS) has offered a separate proposition to be submitted separately. If it should be submitted separately, and a majori ty of the votes should be against it, then there will be no provision in this Constitution on the subject. If the report of the committee for which the substitute of the gentleman from Lenawee (Mr. BaLS) is offered, should be adopted by this Convention, then either proposition No. 1, or propsition No. 2, must be carried before the people. Then precisely this choice is given us: if proposition No. I should be voted down by the people, will we prefer to have no provision on the subject, or to have proposition No. 2? When that choice is given me, I decidedly prefer to have proposition No. 2, than to have no provision at all on the subject in the Constitution. Why? I think I can give a reason satisfactory to myself, and I think a reason which ought to be satisfactory to all who are, in favor of inserting in the Constitution prohibition of license, or prohibition of the traffic. Let me call attention to the provisions of proposition No. 2. The first clause gives the Legislature, only liberty to prohibit the sale; that right they would have without any such proposition. But it requires imperatively that they shall regulate and restrict the sale. That power also they now have, but they have been. at liberty to exercise their discretion whether they would legislate upon that subject or not. This proposition, if carried, would make Voi. 2-No. 115. it the constitutional duty of the Legis lature to restrict and regulate the traffic. Therefore, that is an advan tage. The Legislature is actually placed under an obligation to do some thing towards diminishing the general sale of ardent spirits. The next clause is that-" The sale of such drinks to minors, persons under guardianship, paupers and common drunkards, shall be wholly prohibited, and all necessary laws shall be passed to enforce such prohibition." I take it no one will be opposed to the sub stance of that clause. It is imperative upon the Legislature, to totally pro hibit the sale so far as regards those classes of persons. It also requires the Legislature to impose a tax upon the traffic, and provides thaw-I The annual tax in any case upon the traffic shall not be less than two hundred dollars," and then the proposition concludes ".No license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors shall be authorized." Now, if it should be said that the Legislature should be authorized to grant license to any extent, then we shall meet with opposition from all those who are op posed to putting in the public treasury any money which is obtained by coun tenancing a wrong business. I have considered these provisions carefully, and it is my deliberate judg ment that they do not by implication or by express words afford any license whatever to the traffic. And I will submit that the only reasonable and proper construction, and I think the only construction which any court would put upon the proposition would be, that the Legislature could not, by a provision taxing the traffic or otherwise, make it lawful or give the sanction of law to support the traffic in any place, or by any person, or at any time. The provision authorizes the Legislature to totally prohibit the traffic; it imperatively requires the Legislature to prohibit it to certain persons; and the Legislature is prohibited from licensing the traffic in any manner. But it seems to take it for granted that possibly some persons may sell, notwithstanding the want of a legal sanction, or in defiance of prohibition, and such persons are to be required to pay a annual tax. Suppose this proposition No. 2 should be adopted, and the Legislature, acting under the first clause of it, should proceed to prohibit the sale. Notwithstanding that prohibition, some persons engaged in the trade continue to sell. The sale is unlawful, and the Legislature, in accordance with another provision of the proposition, require that persons so violating the laws which prohibits the sale shall pay an annual tax of at least two hundred dollars. Is there any license in that? That two hundred dollars is levied upon persons who are violating the law; it is levied upon them because they violate the law; it is in the nature of a penalty. It affords no sanction to the traffic; it would not lessen any punishment other wise imposed upon individuals guilty of violating that law, but it would be in addition to all other penalties. It would partake of the nature of a fine that the court might impose for viola ting the law. If we have no scruples against putting in the public treasury the fines the court would impose, we ought to have no scruples against levying this tax, which partakes of the same character. The proposition expressly takes away from the Legislature all authority to grant any license. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a legal question? Mr. SUTHERLAND. Certainly. Mr. M. C. WATKINS. If a-person selling intoxicating liquors under this provision should pay his tax of two hundred dollars, would not that be a protection to him for a year? Mr. SUTHERLAND. It would not, most decidedly. The Legislature could not so frame a provision of law as to.give it that effect, because it would be in direct contravention of the last clause of the provision, which pro hibits the authorizing of any license. Mr. LAMB. I desire to ask a question of the gentleman for information. Mr. SUTHERLAND. Certainly. Mr. LAMB. Not being a lawyer myself, I would ask if the Legislature have the power to tax an illicit traffic? Mr. SUTHERLAND. They have the'right to load it with burdens of every kind. They have the right to prohibit, and they have the right to prescribe the consequences that shall be visited upon every person who shall persist in such violation; and among those consequences may be the levying of a heavy tax, amounting itself to a prohibition. They have the right to throw every manner of obstacle in the way of violating the law. If they can prevent the violation of the law by taxing. the practice denounced by the law, it is one method of discouraging the violation and preventing it. And the fact that it is called a tax, when in the same provision of the Constitution it is said that no license shall be granted, prevents any inference from being drawn that the Legislature intend to license or intend to countenance the traffic. Everything that is done, every provision of law a f r 8 .e I e DEBATES AND PROC'F.'FDINGS. 913 Augur.,t 17,1867. 914 l;.~1~UTIO~A COXVE\TI~'' must provide prohibition; no other in"ference:can be draws. I say," then, that proposition No. 2 is better than no proposition; but it can on'y.be carried when we fail'to carry proposition -No. 1. It stands in the plae of a vc'ancy in: the ConstitutionI.mpost decidedly prefer it to having no proposition:at"all upon the subject in the Constitution. Now, in regard to the other idea used here; that this is not a fair method of presenting this question to the people. Those of us who are in favor of incorporating prohibition in the Constitution, if we were ableto succeed in that, woUld give the people:no option but to vote against the Constitution, or to vote in favor of prohibition. Is that a fair way of submitting the question to them? We oblige them to take the Constitution with all its provisions, in order to get the proposition in favor of prohibition; we oblige them to vote against- the Constitution with all its other merits in order to vote against: prohibition. In that way we give the people no choice-. But we do one thing better tan that, when we submit two propositions separately, and give the people their choice. It is -a fairer way to every voter, to -submit these two:propositions separately, than it is to submit prohi bition o'nly in the Constitution. We say to the peeple "If you are not in favor of absolute prohibition, we give you a choice; you can vote for the general-body of the Constitution sepa rately, and yet:be able to-ote for modi fied prohbition." In that- way we give the people a second choice; that is better, more favorable to the voter. It gives the voter a widerrange of choice, thin would putting prohibition in the body of the Constitution. For these reasons I am unable to see how any person, who is in favor of in corporating prohibition in the body of the- Cnstitution, can vote against the report of the committee, on account of :any unfairness0to the voter. :. sAWYER. I rise for the pur. pose of eflciting some information with regard to proposition No. 2. One clause of'that ~ proposition is: "The ranual tax in any case upon the traffic shall not be less than two hundred dollars."' In' another portion of proposition No. 2, it. iS- provided that " The Legislature shall provide for the regulation and re striction" of the traffic: in intoxicating drinks. The idea I have in my mind isthis: a -regulation or restriction of the: sale of intoxicating drinks is nt6Ua:license of- sale. It appears to my:mind that a license is the grant of a right to a particular individual, under certain stipulations, to sell:liquor. A restriction or regulation is one imposed uipon'theigeneral-trade in that commodi-y, and on at the tax applies.:-I would like to hate the gentleman from Saginw, -(Mr. SUTHERLAND,) if he pleses, iilustr ate -this idea to me. The difficlty in my mmnd is here: the first clause says, "The Legislature shall provide for the regulation and restrict rtion;"'the, second clause says,' ":The ainual atax in any case upon the traffic shall not be less than two hundred dollars." The idea to my mind is that this -restriction is not a license. A license lis a grant:to one single individ'ual; a-trestriction is'a general regulationa of the traffic; and on that general regulation of the traffic there may be an annual tax of not less than two hundred dollars. Am I right? Does it apply to anything else? Mr. SUTHERLAND. I think that under this proposition as a whole, no law. can be passed to authorize any peson to sell ardent spirits to be used :as:,- beverage. Mr. SAWYER. I understand that. M-:er. SUTHERLAND. The regulations or restrictions, whatever they may be, must be made in harmony with that idea, that no license is to be grant ed. -Mr. SAWYER. Still, if persons were allowed to -sell for medicinal-or mechanical purposes, this two hundred dollar tax applies to them under this provision. :Iicame here, in the first place, with thedesire tihat this question should be siibmitted to the people. It is no new ~vela.ion to my mind, it is no new theo' as - the section is transferred to the article on salaries. The PRESIDENT. That would require unanimous consent. Mr. McCLELLAND. I object. Mr. LOVELL. The effect would be to restrain the Legislature from changing the salaries of officers whose compensation is provided by law, other than those named in this section. It seems to me the gentleman from Sagi naw (Mr. SUTHERLAND) cannot desire that. If it reads "this Constitution," then of course it must apply to officers named in the Constitution. Mr. MUSSEY. Of all salaried offi cers. Mr. LOVELL. Yes, sir, of all officers whose compensation is fixed by salaries. Mr. SUTHERLAND. Why does the gentleman refer to me? Mr. LOVELL. - I had the impression the gentleman did not understand it. Mr. SUTH RLAND. I have said not.g about it, and made no objection to e change proposed. Mr. MIUtEY. What salaried officers are namd in the Constitution, except in that ari le? Mr. LOVELL. here are several officers who receive pa established by law. ~ Mr. MUSSEY. Yes, sir,butnot in accordance with any proviion of the Constitution, Mr. LUCE. I think the gentleman from Macomb (Mr. MUSSEY) is miss taken now, for once in his life, if never before. Mr. MUSSEY. Very well, if I am, set me right. Mr. LUCR The compensation of members of the Legislature is fixed by the Constitution. I think the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Van Buren (Mr. BLACKMA) is a very important one; it struck me that way. Mr. MUSSEY. I want to be set right. But I would ask the gentleman from Branch (Mr. LUCE) if this Constitution provides that members of the Legislature shall receive salaries? That proposition was made, I know, but it was voted down. They receive a per diem compensation, but I do not know that that can be called a salary. Mr. LUCE. I fear the Legislature, if so inclined, would construe it to mean salaries; it is compensation, pay for services. And without playing too much upon the word " salaries," I apprehend a shrewd Legislature could interpret it to mean salaries. I hope the objection will be withdrawn. Mr. McCLELLAND. - I withdraw the objection in order to save discussion. Mr. GIDDINGS. I renew the objection. --' Mr. CONGER. I hope the objection will not be persisted in, else we will have in a section of the article on salaries a reference to the " article en titled' Salaries' in this Constitution." Mr. MUSSEY. I think the gentle man from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER,) is mistaken. The committee on arrange ment and phraseology, as I understand, have left out the words " in the article entitled'salaries,"' so that it reads, "salaries of alr officers provided for in this Constitution." Mr. LUCE. I again ask unanimous consent to make the change suggested by the gentleman from Van Buren, (Mr. BLACKMAN.) It seems to me it is wrong to leave the section as it now reads. If I understood it correctly as it was read, it not says, "salaries of all officers provided for in this Con stitution." We have provided a great many ways to determine salaries for officers, and if this section is left to stand as it now reads, the Legislature could change them all by a two-thirds vote. I again ask unanimous consent that this change may be made. Mr. GIDDINGS. I will withdraw the objection. Mr. NINDE. I think the gentleman from Van Buren (Mr. BLACKMAN,) is entirely right, and I hope the change he has suggested will be made. I was in favor of dividing this section, and putting the first clause in the article on salaries, and leaving the last clause in the schedule. But the Convention instructed us to transfer the entire sec tion to the article on salaries. Mr. SUTHERLAND. It was an nounced by the gentleman from Gen esee, (Mr. LoveL,) that probably I did not understand this question. I am happy to announce now that I have given the subject my attention, and I think I do understand it. So far from objecting to the proposed change, I am in favor of it. Mr. LOVELL. The gentleman from Saginaw (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) misapprehends me. I did not mean that he did not understand the section, but that probably he did not understand the request that was made. There being no objection, the suggestion of Mr. BLACKMAN, to change the word " Constitution," where it first occurs in the section, to " article," was agreed to. The action of the committee on arrangement and phraseology, transferring the section to the article on salaries, was then concurred in. ELECTION OF JUDGES UNDER NEW CONSTI TUTION. The PRESIDENT. The committee on arrangement and phraseology also recommend a change m section nneteen of the "Schedule." That section is as follows: "' There shall be elected on the first Tuesday in March, in the year one thousand-eight hundred and: sixty-nine, and every eight years thereafter, one circuit judge for each judicial circuit, whose term of office shall commence on the first day of January thereafter. There shall be elected at the same time two judges of the Supreme Court, one of whom shall be elected lor the term of eight years, and one for the term of ten years, and every second year thereafter one judge of said court shall be elected. The terms of office of said judges shall commence on the first day of January following their election." The committee recommend that the section be amended by striking out the following sentence: "There shall be elected at the same time two judges of the Supreme Court, one of whom shall be elected for the term of eight years, and one for the term of ten years, and every second year thereafter one judge of said court shall be elected." The question is upon concurring in the recommendation of the committee. Mr. WILLIAMS. -It seems to me those words should not be stricken out. There is, it is true, a session of the Legislature prior to the election of these judges; but if, by any chance, the Legislature should neglect to provide for this, it should be in the schedule. It can do no harm in the schedule, and I can see no reason for striking it out. This clause is intended to give effect to the provision in relation to the supreme judges. And notwithstanding there is a provision in the article on the judiciary that the Legislature shall provide for the election of judges of the Supreme Court, this states the time when the election shall take place, as well as provides for their election. I August 21, 1867. DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 997 Mr. GIDDINGS. I hope we will have some explanation of the necessity of this change before we agree to make it. Mr. TURNER. I suppose the reason the committee on arrangement and phraseology recommend this change, is that section two of the article on the judicial department provides that the Legislature shall mar e provision for the election of the additional judge of the Supreme Court. But it is suggested that, as the Legislature meets only two months before the time for the election, it would be better to have this remain in the schedule as it is now, in case the Legislature should fail to act. It certainly can do no harm here. Mr. GIDDINGS. Let us retain it, then. Mr. CODGER. My objection to striking this out is that, if we should do so, it would give the Legislature power to provide for the election of all the judges of the Supreme Court; there wouldbe no restraint upon them, except that one judge must be elected every two years. I think this provision is a good one, showing that there are two judges to be elected in one year to begin with; one for eight years, and the other for ten years. By striking this out, the Legislature might provide a new system, by which all the judges should be elected at different times from what are provided here. Mr. COOLIDGE. I wish to make an inquiry, because the committee on arrangement and phraseology had a little further difficulty about this matter. "There shall be elected at the same time two judges of the Supreme Court," etc. What time? There are two times mentioned in the section. The one is " the first Tuesday in March, in the year 1869;" the other is "every eight years thereafter." "The same time," cannot refer to both of these times. Mr. GIDDINGS. It is the first Tuesday in March, 1869, I suppose. Mr. COOLIDGE. "Suppose!" Mr. WITHEY. I trust this clause will not be stricken out, for it seems to me it is necessary to preserve harmony between the schedule and the article of the judicial department. In sec tion two of the article on the judicial department, is a provision that the Legislature shall provide for the elec tion of one additional judge of the Supreme Court. Should the Legisla ture neglect to make provision for that purpose, the court might con tinue with the present number of judges. This provision in the sched ule puts it beyond any possibility of mistake. I can see no objection to re taining this clause here. The objection made by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE,) although this language may not be as precise as it might be made, I apprehend is not very formidable. I apprehend the "the same time" must refer to "the first Tuesday in March;" because ".every eight years thereafter," is not a definite time. Mr. LONGYEAR. I would call the attention of the gentleman to the last clause of the sentence; " and every second year thereafter one judge of said court shall be elected." It seems td -me that makes it clear. The question was then taken upon concurring in the recommendation of the committee; and upon a division, ayes 12, noes 41, it was not concurred in. The PRESIDENT. The practice has been to have each article reported from the committee on arrangement and phraseology laid upon'the table for one day, and printed in the journal. At this stage of the session that would hardly be proper. Mr. MUSSEY. I move to suspend that rule, so that the schedule can be read now and put upon its passage. The question was taken; and upon a division, ayes 64, noes not counted, (two-thirds voting in the affirmative,) the rule was suspended. JUDICIAL DISTRICTS. Mr. PRINGLE. Before the schedule is read'the third time, I ask unanimous consent that there be a Change made in section twenty, or rather section nineteen as it now stands-section seventeen in relation to salaries having been transferred to the article on salaries-in the arrangement of the second judicial district. The section now reads: "the counties of Kalamazoo, Washtenaw, Jackson, Cass, Berrien, Alilegan, Van Buren, Calhoun and Eaton, shall constitute the second district." It will be seen that by this enumeration the counties are very much scattered; commencing nearly in the centre of the district, then going east for two counties, then to the west for four counties, then back nearly to the east, etc. The amendment I would propose would be to name the counties in their natural order, as they would come on the map. I, therefore, ask that the enumeration be changed so as to read as follows: "the counties of Washtenaw, Jackson, Calhoun, Eaton, Kalamazoo, Allegan, Van Buren, Cass and Berrien, shall constitute the second district." That is only a different arrangement of the counties; it does not change the district at all. No objection being made, the modi fication proposed by Mr. PRINGLE was agreed too FINES, PENALTIES, FORFEITURES AND ES CHEATS. Mr. HOLT. The third section of this schedule reads: "All fines, penalties, forfeitures and es. cheats accruing to the State under the present Constitution and laws, shall accrue to the use of the State under this Constitution." What is the difference between the terms " present Constitution" and this Constitution?" We all understand well enough what it means, but it does not read very well. Mr. TURNER.,. The same language is used in the schedule of the Constitution of 1850. Mr. LOVELL. Perhaps the gentleman from Muskegon (Mr. HOLT) had better send up a substitute. Mr. GIDDINGS. "The present Constitution" means the Constitution now in force; "this Constitution" means the one we are making. SCHEDULE. The "Schedule" was then read the third time. - The question was upon the passage of the " schedule." The question was taken, and resulted, yeas 63, nays 12, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case. Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Corbin, Daniells, Desnoyers, Duncan, Duncombe, Estee, Farmer, Germain, Giddings, Hazen, Harris, Henderson, Holt, Huston, Kenney, Lamb, Lawrence, Leach, Longyear, Luce, McConnell, McKernan, Miller, Murray, Mus. sey, Musgrave, Pratt, Pringle, Rafter, Root, Sheldon, Sawyer, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Winans, Winsor, Withey, Woodhouse, and Yeomans-63. NAYS-Messrs. Barber, Elliott, Hixson, Lovell, McClelland, Miles, Ninde, Purcell, Richmond, Shearer, W. E. Warner, and the President-12. Mr. ELLIOTT not answering when his name was called, Mr. HUSTON moved that Mir. ELLIOT be excused from voting. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. ELLIOTT. ": No," then. Mr. MORTON not answering when his name was called, Mr. UTLEY moved that Mr. MORTON be excused from voting. Mr. MORTON. There is no neessity for that motion; I am excusable under parliamentary law. I am inter:ested, as the publisher of a newspaper, in the passage of this article, to the extent of twenty dollars; and therefore cannot vote. Mr. P. D. WARNER. We do not expect that the Democratic papers shall publish this Constitution. Mr. LEACH. The gentleman can be excused from receiving the twenty dollars. Mr. MORTON. Cushing's Manual and other parliamentary authorities 9.9 COSIUTOA GOvNTO Wen~a say that I cannot vote under such cir cumstances. M{r. CONGER. Cushing's Ianual says that a member cannot vote upon a matter in which he has a private in terest; this is a public interest. But I hope my Democratic friend from Mon roe (Mr. MORTON) will be excused by the unanimous consent of the Conven tion. If it is a matter of conscience with him, I hope we will not crowd his conscience too far. The question was then taken upon excusing Mr. MORTON from voting; and upon a division, ayes 40, noes 20, he was excused. M.vr. RAFTER not answering when his name was called, MIr. CHAPIi moved that Mr. RAF TER be excused from -voting. The motion-was not agreed to. Mir. RAFTER then voted, aye." The PRESIDENT. A majority of all the members elected to this Con tion having voted therefor, the I Sched ule" is passed. -Mr. STOUGHTON. Is any further action by the Convention necessary for the purpose of placing in their proper places in the schedule, the two propo sitions to be submitted to the people for separate votes? The PRESIDENT. That matter was referred to the committee on arrange ment and phraseology. The/schedule as passed was aS fol lows: That no Inconvenience may arise from the changes in the Constitution of this State, and in-order to carry the same into complete operation, it is hereby declared SECTION 1. The common law, and the stat ute laws now in force, not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitations, or are altered or repealed by the Legislature. SECTION 2. All writs, actions, causes of ac tion, prosecutions and rights of individuals and of bodies corporate, and of the State, and all charters of incorporation, shall continue; and all indictments and informations which shall have been found or filed, or which may hereatter be found or Siled, for any crime or offense committed before the adoption of this Constitution, may be proceeded upon as if no change had taken place. The several courts, except as herein otherwise provided, shall continue with the like powers and jurisdiction, both at law and in equity, as if this Constitution had not been adopted, and until the organization of the judicial department under this Constitution. SECTION'. All fines, penalties, forfeitures and escheats, accruing to the State under the present Constitution and laws, shall accrue to the use of the State under this Constitution. SECTION 4. All recognizances, bonds, obligations, and all other instruments entered into or executed before the adoption of this Constitution, to- the people of this State, or to any State, county or township, or any public officer or public body, or -which may be entered into or executed under existing laws, "to the people of this State," to any such ofricer or public body, before the complete organization of the departments of government under this Constitution, shall remain binding and valid, and rights and liabilities upon thesame s;h!l Continue, and: may be prosecuted as provided by law. And all crimes and misdemeanors, and penal actions, shall be prosecuted, tried and punished, as though no change had taken place, until otherwise provided by law. SECTION 5. All officers, civil and military, now holding any office or appointment, shall continue to hold their respective offices, un less removed by competent authority, until superseded under the laws now in force, or under this Constitution. SECTION 6. The mernbers of the Senate and House of Representatives of the Legislature of the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven, shall continue in office under the provisions of law, until superseded by their successors electedl and qualified under this Constitution: SECTION 7. All county officers, unless re moved by competent authority, shall con tinue to hold their respective offices until the first day of January, in the year one thou sand eight bundred and sixty-nine. The laws now in force as to the election, qualifications and duties of township officers. except as changed by this Constitution, shall continue in force untIl altered or repealed by the Leg islature. SECTION 8. The present Governor and other State officers, and the present judges of the Supreme and circuit courts, shall continue to hold their respective offices until the expira tion of the term for which they were elected. The present members of the State board of education, shall severally continue to hold their respective offices until their successors are elected and qualified according to law. SEcTION 9. The probate courts, the courts of justices of the peace, and all police courts, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction and powers now conferred upon them respectively, until otherwise provided by law. SJ.:CTION 10. It shall be the duty ofthe Leg islature, at its first session after the adop tion of this Constitution, to adapt tibe present laws to the provisions of this Constitution. SECTION 11. The Attorney General and judges of the Supreme Court are required to prepare and report to the Legislature, at the commencement of the next session, such changes and modifications in existing laws as may be deemed necessary to adapt the same to this Constitution, and as may be best cal culated to carry into efiect its provisions. SECTION 12. Any territory attached, or that may be attached to any county for judicial purposes, if not otherwise represented, shall be considered as forming part of such county, so far as regards elections for the purpose of representation. SECTION 13. This constitution shall be sub mitted to the people for their adoption or rejection on the first Monday in April, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixtyeight; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and all other officers required to give or publish any notice in regard to genera] electiolns, to give notice as provided by law in case of an election for Governor, that this Constitution has been duly submitted to the electors for their adoption or rejection on that day. The elections in cities wherein there are no elections held annually in the month of April, shall be held and conducted, as near as may be, in the same manner as in the case of elections flr judges of the Supreme Court or regents of the University. Every newspaper within this State publishing, in the month of January next, this Constitution as submitted, shall receive as a compensation thereior, the sum of twenty dollars, to be paid as the Legislature shall direct. SECTION 14., Any person entitled to vote for members of the Legislature by the Constitution and laws now in force, shall, at the said election, be entitled to vote for the adoption or rejection of this Constituiion at the places and in the manner provided by law. ibr the election of members oa the Legislature. SECTION 15. At the said election, 3 ballot box shall be kept by the several boards of inspectors of election for the receiving of votes cast ;or or against the adoption of this Constitu tion; and on the ballots shall be written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, the words "Adoption of the Constitution Yes;" or "Adoption of the Constitution No." SECTION 16. The canvass of the votes cast for the adoption or rejection of this Constitu tion. and the returns thereof, shallbe made by the proper returning officers, in the same manner as is now provided by law for the ca,.vass and return of votes cast at an elec tion for regents of the State University, as near as may be, and the return thereof shall be directed tp the Secretary of State. On the first day of June next, or - within five days thereafter, the Auditor General, State Treas urer, and Secretary of State or a majority of them, shall yneet at the Capital, and proceed, in the presence of the Governor, to examine and canvass the returns of said votes, and proclamation shall forthwith be made by the Governor, of the result thereof. If it shall appear that a majority of the votes cast upon -the question have thereon, " Adoption of the Constitution-Yes," this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the State from and af ter the first day of July next; and any per son declared an elector, and entitled to vote by Article III, of this Constitution, shall, from and after the said first day of July next, be entitled to vote at any election, in the same manner and subject to thesame rules and regulations, as are now- Provided by law for electors in this State. -But if a majority of the votes cast upon the question, have thereon "Adoption of the Constitution-No," the same shall be null and void. SECTION 17. The Legislature at their first session, shall make such further provisions as may be necessary for the payment of all ex penditures of the Convention, including the publication of this Constitution, as provided in this.article. SECTION 18. There shall be elected on the first Tuesday in March, in the year one thou sand eight hundred and sixty. nine, and every eighJ years thereafter, one circuit judge fobr each judicial circuit, whose term ot oflice shall commence on the first day of January there after. There shall be elected at the same :time two judges of the Supreme Court, one of whom shall be elected for the term of eight years, and one for the term of ten years, and every second year thereafter onejudge of said court shall be elected. The terms oi office of said judges shall commence on the first day of January following their election. SECTION 19. The state shall be divided into five judicial districts; and until otherwise provided by law, the counties of Wayne, Monroe, Lenawee, Hillsdale, Branch and St. Jo seph, shall constitute the first district; the counties of Washtenaw, Jackson, Calhoun, Eaton, Kalamazoo, Allegan, Van Buren, Cass and Berrien, shall constitute the second district; the counties of Ottawa, Muskegon, Oceans, Mason, Leelanaw, Barry, Grand Traverse, Antrim, Kent, Ionia, Clinton, Montcalm, Manistee, Newaygo and Mecosta, with the territory attached thereto, shall constitute the third district; the counties of Shiawassee, Ingham, Livingston, Genesee, Lapeer, Oakland, Macomb, St. Clair, Sanilac, Huron, Tuscola, Saginaw, Midland, Grafjot, Isabella, Bay, Iosco and Alpena, with the territory attached thereto, shall constitute the fourth district; and the counties of Mackinaw, Cheboygan. Chippewa, Emmet, Manitou, Ontonagon, Marquette, t/oughton, Keweenaw, Delta and Menominee, with the territory attached thereto, shall constitute the filty district. SECTION 20. The judicial districts shall be subdivided into circuits, successively numbered; and until otherwise provided by law, t'he counties of Wayne and Monroe, shall constitute the first circuit; the counties of Lenawee, Hillsdale, Branch and St. Joseph, shall constitute the second circuit; the counties of Allegan, Van Buren, Cass, Kalamazoo and Berrien, shall constitute the third circuit; I I . Wednead.ay, CONSI.VF.VUTION A Ti CON V 1R'.V.CION. 998 August 21, 1867. DEBATES AND PROC-Em)INGS. 999 the counties of Washtenaw, Jackson, Calhoun and Eaton, shall constitute the fourth circuit; the counties ot Muskegon, Oceans, Mason, Manistee, Leelanaw, Grand Traverse, An trim, Newaygo and Mecosta, with the terri tory attached thereto, shall constitute the fifth circuit; the counties of Barry, Clinton, Ionia, Kent, Montcalm and Ottawa, shall constitutethesixth circuit; the countiesof Ir,gham, Shiawassee, Livingston, Genesee, Lapeer and Tuscola, shall constitute the seventh circuit; the counties of Oakland, Ma comb, St. Clair, Sanilac and Huron, shall constitute the eighth circuit; the counties of Saginaw, Bay, Midland, Gratiot, Isabella, losco and Alpena, with the territory attached thereto, shall constitute the ninth circuit; the counties of Mackinaw, Chippewa, Che boygan, Emmet and Matitou, with the territory attached thereto, shall constitute the tenth circuit; and the counties of Ontonagon, Houghton, Keweenaw, Marquette, Delta and Menomit,ee, with the territory attached thereto, shall constitute the eleventh circuit. The Legislature shall not increase the number of circuits or the number of judges ol the circuit courts, as fixed by this Constitution, until after the expiration ot ten years Irom the time of its adoption. SECTION 21. Until the next enumeration of inhabitants ol this State, in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy, the counties of Newaygo and Oceana shall each be entitled to one representative; the county of Mecosta, with the territory thereunto attached, one representative; the county ot Isabella, with the territory thereto attached, one represent, ative; the county of Midland, with the territory thereto attached, one representative; the counttles of Alpena and losco, and the territory-thereto attached, one representative; the counties of Menominee and Delta, one representative; the counties of Mason and Manistee, and the territory thereto attached, one representative; the counties of Grand Traverse, Benzie and Antrim, and the territory thereto attached, one'representative; and the counties of' Leelanaw and Maniton, one representative. The " Schedule" was then referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology, for arrangement in the Constitution, in its numerical order. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO STATE LI BRARIAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARIES AND MESSENGERS OF THE CONVENTION. — Ir. TURNER. I offer the following resolution: Resolvedl, That the Assistant Secretaries be allowed one dollar a (lay, in addition to the compensation already provided. There has been some additional compensation, provided for the principal Secretary. I am informed that the Assistant Secretaries have had quite as much labor to perform, during the session of this Convention, as the prineipal Secretary; they have been oblige-d to labor not only during the day, but also a portion of the night. MIr. PRATT. I move to amend the resolution by'' inserting before the words "in addition," the words "and the messenger boys fifty cents per day." MIr. TURNER. I accept the amendment. 1VMir. DANIELLS. I move to amend the resolution by inserting the words, "State Librarian- and," before the words, "assistant'Secretarie-," o that a dollar a da-yd may, be added to his compensation, on account of his extra ervices. I have taken some pains to ascertain the faets, and those'best ac quainted with them have told me that the Librarian has been at his desk four hours a day extra on account of the session of this Convention. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Imove to amend the amendment by adding to it the words, "be allowed two do] lars a day," so that the Librarian may receive an additional compensation of two dollars a day during the session of this Convention. Mr. GIDDINGS. I ask a separate vote on each clause of the resolution. The PRESIDENT. The first ques tion will be upon the amendment of the - gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VANVALKENBURGH,) to give the State Librarian,two dollars per day addi tional compensation. Mr. WITHEY. I hope this Conven tion will give the Librarian one or two dollars a day additional compensation for his services. There are many mem bers of this Convention who think that he ought to have it. I am perfectly willing to compensate any per son who has served this Convention faithfully during its sessions. I have no objection to allowing each of the persons named in this resolution the additional compensation proposed. I would prefer to pay the Librarian two dollars, instead of one dollar a day ad ditional, if we give him anything. Mr. NINDE. I am opposed to in creasing the compensation of these persons. Mr. GIDDINGS. I think the Con vention would be willing to pay the Librarian a dollara day extra. He is an officer of the State, and required by law to attend to some of these duties, and they have probably kept him here a great portion of his time. I think he should be paid a dollar a day, but I think the proposition to pay him two-dollars a day will not be approved by members. And I think the assistant Secretaries are entitled to the additional compensation proposed. In regard to the messenger boys, many boys were sent away from here, at the commencement of the session, who would have been glad to get the places at two dollars a day. There is an impression among members that the boys are now fairly and amply paid. If the messenger boys are left out of this resolution, I think the Convention would be satisfied with the rest of it. Mr. ALEXANDER. I am opposed to the amendment offered to this resolution, for the reason that, in-my judgment, the compensation it proposes to pay the Librarian is unlawful. In the law providing for the orgamzation-ol this Convention, in the enumeration of officers, etc., I do not find any such of ficer for this Convention as "Librarian." I am opposed to paying any officer not specially authorized by law. I read from section four of the law providing for the organization of this Convention: "The delegates so chosen shall assemble at the Capital, in the citv of Lansing, etc. They shall bethejudges of their own privi leges and elections, and shall; by ballot, elect one of their number to serve as president, and may appoint such secretaries, reporters ser geants-at-arms, firemen and messengers as their convenience may require. The delegates shall-receive four dollars for each day's actual attendance, and for each day's absence on account of sickness, and ten cents for each mile actually traveled in going to and return ing from the place of meeting, by the usually traveled route; and the secretaries, reporters sergeants-at-arms, firemen and messengers, shall receive such compensation as the Con vention may direct." I do- not find "a librarian" among the officers whom by law we may ap point. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment. Mr. CONGER. Does the gentleman find in that law anything authorizing the Convention to iemploy a chaplain, or a postmaster? Mr. ALEXANDER. No, sir; and I voted against allowing compensation to the chaplains. 'Mr. CONGER. Does not the gen tleman oppose any compensation to any officers? Mr. LONGYEAR. Does the gen tleman find anything in that law pro viding for the publication of the Con -stitution, and allowing compensation for it? M r. DANIELLS. And I would like to ask the gentleman this question: the law provides that each delegate shall receive four dollars a day for ac tual attendance. Have not eome mem bers received pay lhere for time they have not been in actual attendance upon the Convention? Mr. ALEXANDER. I do not know but the gentleman from Clinton (Mir. DANIELLS) has received such pay; but I am not responsible for it if he has. I[propose to clear my skirts from any such dabbling in the public money as this. Gentlemen may vote for such propositions if they please; I am not responsible for their votes. But my conscientious conviction is that, under this law, we have no authority to- bestow any favors upon the Librarian of the State of Michigan. He is a State officer, and it was his duty as such officer to perform such duties as the law required, during the session of this Convention. This Convention have the right to use the State library, and it is the duty of the State Librarian to be there and perform his - duties. He could not perform them, unless he was there during the business:hour: of-the Convention If gen .999 I 1000 OONITUTIOAL COETIO. Wedned, tiemen are disposed to take a dollar out of their pockets and give it to the Librarian, I have no objection to joining them in doing so. But I have an objection to using the funds of the State for an unlawful purpose. Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. I can see no force in the argument of the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXADER.) This Convention certainly have power to employ the necessary help to enable them to carry on their business here. As I understand it, the Librarian was not obliged to be in his office to wait upon this Convention. But he has been faithful and diligent in the discharge of his duties there; he has at all times, and under all circumstances, been ready to wait upon members of this Convention. Mr. ALEXANDER. Will the gentleman yield to me a moment? Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. When I get through, I will listen to the gentleman. I think the librarian is entitled to the amount contemplated in my amendment. I hope we will not be so penurious as to refuse to pay what is due to any person who has served this Convention. Our State does not re quire that at our hands. Our constitu ents would look with disdain upon any little penurious action of this Convention. Mr. ALEXANDER. I wish to read to the gentleman from Oakland (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) what the law says, in regard to the duty of the librarian and other State officers. "And it shall be the duty of all State offi cers to furnish the Convention with such pa pers, books and documents in their posses sion, as the Convention shall order ifor the use of its members during the session." Mr. LONGYEAR. A single word, in regard to some matters of fact per taining to the State Librarian. Before stating them, however, I wish to answer very briefly the legal question raised by the gentleman from Berrien, (Mr. ALEXANDER.) In the first place, there can be no question, upon a legal construction of the statute authorizing the holding of this Convention, that so far as this Convention is not restricted by the act, they have full powers in all matters pertaining to their sessions, and to their business and duties. It is upon this general principle, that wherever any body is authorized to do an act, that authority includes all powers nec essary to the performance of that act. Hence, if the Legislature had placed no restriction whatever upon this Con vention, it then would have had full power. I say that these powers are not restricted any further than the Leg islature have expressly restricted them. Hence, so far as the Legislature have not expressed what the powers of this Convention ~haU be, their powers are as adequate as if the Legislature had said nothing whatever upon the subject. So much for that point. In regard to the duties of the Librarian, and this proposed extra compensation to him; I do not look upon it in the light of a hiring of the Librarian to do extra service for this Convention; nothing of that kind. But it is paying him for the performance of duties which are over and above the duties which are ordinarily required of him as State Librarian. In the first place, his ordinary duties do not require his entire time and attention to the State library. He is expected to be responsible for the safe keeping of the books and documents in the library; and during the sessions of the Legislature, and of the Supreme Court, of course he is expected be in attendance in the library; that is all. His salary is so inadequate that it becomes abvsolutely necessary for him and of course it is anticipated in the appointment of the State Librarian, that he will do so, to engage in some other business. It cannot be assumed that it is to be expected that he will spend his whole time there, for five hundred or six hundred dollars a year, for that will not support a man and his family. In pursuance of that idea, our Libra rian does engage in certain other em ployments. He holds certain official positions in this city, one quite im portant, that of recorder of the city, which take up a considerable portion of.his time, and except during the ses sions of the Convention, he devotes sufficient of his time, in ordinary busi ness hours, to perform those other du ties. But during the session of this Convention, to my certain knowledge, he has been obliged to perform those duties out of business hours. He has not entrusted his duties here to clerks and others, but he has given his entire personal attention and attendance to the wants, necessities and convenience of this Convention, and has performed his other duties outside of the business hours of this Convention. ~ It seems to me thatitis but just that he should be allowed some compensa tion for his services; not at all as a matter of legal right, for I do not un derstand it to be based upon that ground, but simply as a matter of equity and justice. Mr. BURTCH. The gentleman from Ingham (Mr. LONGYEAR,) says he does not claim this upon the ground of legal right. Now I take it, the law making it obligatory upon the officers of the State to make reports to, and do certain other services for this Conven tion, under the common law doctrine of a quid pro quo, a fair equivalent *ahould be paid for their servicea I apprehend no gentleman on this floor will deny that the State Librarian has performed services equal to those of any member on this floor. His salary is six hundred dollars a year, as I understand. If we have occupied a hundred days here, that will give to us four hundred dollars each; and calling it a third of a year, allowing some spare time, that would be at the rate of twelve hundred dollars a year. Now one-third of the Librarian's salary will be two hundred dollars. Allowing him two dollars a day for one hundred days, will, in addition to his salary, make his services worth what ours have been, and no more. And as a matter of justice and legal right, I say it is due to the State Librarian that he should receive this extra compensation of two dollars a day. The question was upon the amendment of Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH, to allow the State Librarian extra compensation at the rate of two dollars per day. - Mr. W. E. WARNER. — I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken, and the amendment was not agreed toyeas 29, nays 40, as follows: YEAS —Messrs. Burtch, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells- Harris, Holmes, Holt, Hull, Huston, Longyear, McClelland, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Mussey, Mus"grave,Purcel!, T. G. Smith, Stoughton. Sutherland, Turner, Utley, Van Valkenburgb, Willard, Winsor, Withey and Woodhouse-29. NAYs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Brown, Case. Corbin, Des noyers, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Farmer, Germain, Giddings, Hazen, Hixson, Kenney, Lamb, Lawrence, Lovell,Luce. Mil ler, Murray, Ninde, Pratt,- Pringle, Rafter, Root, Shearer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Thomp son, W. E. Warner, M. C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins, Winans, Yeomans and the Presi dent-40. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. DANIELLS, to insert the words, " State Librarian and," be fore the words, "assistant Secretaries," so that the resolution would read: Resolved, That the State Librarian and Assistant Secretaries be allowed one dollar a day, and the messenger boys fifty cents per day, in addition to the compensation already provided. Mr. ALIEXANDER. I am willing to pay Professor Tenney for such- ser vices as he has rendered this Conven tion, by the request of the Convention, or without the request of the Conven tion, where those services have been approved by the Convention. He has been called upon by resolution to take charge of certain exchanges on behalf of the Convention, for which I have no doubt he is entitled to receive compen sation. I am willing to pay him any sum that is reasonable and proper for those services, but not as Librarian. Mr. MUSSEY. Does the gentleman find any-law for that? 'Wednesday, CON&ri'r U'.VION.. C014 VENTION. 1000 -DEBATES AND PROCEEDIGS. Mr. ALEXANDER. I do. Mr. MUSSEY. All right then. Mr. LIJCE. I do not suppose this is a very serious or weighty question. I expressed some views upon it yesterday; but there is another view of it which I desire to present. We have called upon the Librarian, by a resolution, to prepare a Manual for publication, and in that resolution it was provided that he should receive compensation. I presume there is no doubt that he will receive -it; that his account will be audited and allowed by the board of State auditors, when: we call upon him for services, to be rendered directly to this Convention. It was known last winter that this Convention was to meet here this summer. Members of the Legislature conferred with the Librarian in regard to the matter, supposing that it would add somewhat to his duties. In a conversation with me he said that he would be satisfied if we would add a hundred dollars to his salary; and we did so. My own view of this matter is that we have no right, as a Convention, to step outside and make compensation to State officers, private citizens, or any other individuals, except those who are employed directly by the Convention to discharge certain duties. I have the kindest feelings towards the Librarian; he is a gentleman I respect, and am glad to see retained in the library. But I have opposed and shall continue to oppose voting anything in this way to him. And inasmuch as I do not care to trouble the Convention again on this subject, I desire to say a few words in regard to the rest of the'resolution. So - far as our messenger boys are concerned, I believe it is conceded on all hands that they are as good a corps of messengers as we could possibly have, and they have faithfully and honestly discharged their duties. But I think two dollars a day is a fair compensation to them. I think their position here is a good one, and that they appreciate it. If we should increase their compensation now, we must recollect that precedent goes a great way in these matters, and the boys em ployed by the Legislature will-expect to receive the same. Thus there will be an increased pressure brought to bear to secure such places kin the Leg islature. It is now almost as much as an ordinary man's life is worth to take the position of Lieutenant Gov ernor or Speaker of the House of Representatives, on account of the pressure brought to bear upon him in relation to the appointment of mes senger boys. For a kind-hearted man it is a severe task to say "no" to any oL 2-No. 126: boy who applies for such aplace. And if the compensation is made twenty shillings instead of two dollars a day, there will be a more urgent demand and pressure for these appointments. I think two dollars a day is enough for the messenger boys. I once obtained the appointment of a messenger boy in the Senate. There was an effort made at that time to increase the compensation, and I opposed it. My boy managed, in the course of the eighty days' session here, to lay up and take home with him nearly a hundred dollars, while the session ran me in debt. I believe two dollars a day is a sufficient compensation for the messenger boys. I say it in all kindness to the boys and to their parents. I give them full credit for being as good a set of boys as we have ever had, or ever can have. Still I am opposed to that part of the resolution. Mr. PRINGLE. I have no legal difficulty in my mind, in voting for the proposed amendment to insert "the Librarian." Whether he was regularly appointed an officer of the Convention or not, in my judgment, makes no difference. We have required services of him; he has been our agent in communicating with the Convention of another State, and in taking charge of communications received from them. I refer to the communications with the New York Convention, in relation to their debates and proceedings. He has also, at the request of members of this Convention, as I understand it, made and enforced one rule, adding to the duties of his office, by requiring the books to be kept in the library, instead of having them distributed about, that is, where there are no duplicates in the library-keeping them there, instead of permitting them to go out, as usual, to the rooms of members. This I suppose, imposed considerable additional work upon him. I think the reasons are abundant to justify us in making the extra allowance of a dollar a day for his services during the session of this Convention. I shall, therefore, vote for the amendment. Mr. CONGER. I hope there will be no objection to this amendment. There is a strong desire on the part of some gentlemen here, that the Librarian should make the index for our debates. And on the part of other gentlemen there is an equally strong desire, if not a stronger desire,. that our reporters, who have had charge of preparing our debates for publication, should make the index. Now, I think it may be very well to employ the reporters to make that index. But I do think we should give the Libra'ian an extra compensation of at least a dollar a day for our sessions. He has had charge of preparing our Marual, and he has not been paid by the State auditors. Mr. LUCE. Does not the resolution say that he shall be paid for that? Mr. CONGER. He has been ordered by this Convention to perform certain duties independent of his office, which have required a great deal of his time. Now, it cannot be possible that we will require his services in a different capacity from thatof Librarian, and then refuse to give him the little amount that is proposed here. I hope this amendment will prevail, and I think that will reconcile all difficulties in regard to indexing our debates, and we shall feel satisfied with our action. Mr. ROOT. I suppose we have none of us any great objection to the amount of money which it will take to pay the Librarian this dollar a day. But there is a principle involved here, which I think stands in our way. -This idea of taking money out of the treasury so easily, as I see it is the wish of some members of this Convention to do, is all wrong, in my opinion. If the Librarian has any charges against this Convention, why does he not offer his bill? Let him bring in his particulars, and we will settle it. But I do not see any such bill here; I have heard of nothing of the kind. The question was upon the amendment. Mr. GERMAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken upon the amendment, and it was agreed to; yeas 36, nays 28, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Bills, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Farmer, Giddings, Henderson, Holt, Hull, Kenney, Longyear, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Musgrave, Pratt, Pringle, Purcell, Shearer, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Sutherland, Turner, Tyler, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, P. D. Warner, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Winsor, Withey, and Woodhouse-36. - NAYs-Messrs. Barber, Blackman, Brown, Desnoyers, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Germain, Hixson, Lamb, Lawrence, Leach, Lovell, Luce, Murray, Mussey, Rafter, Richmond, Root, Stockwell, Thompson, Walker, W. E. Warner, M. C. Watkinis, Winans, Yeomans, and the President-28. The question was upon the resolution as amended, which was as follows: Resoltved, That the State Librarian and Assistant Secretaries be allowed one dollar a day, and the messenger boys fifty cents per day, in addition to the compensation already provided. Mr. GIDDINGS. I ask for a division of the resolution, so that separate votes may be taken upon the different parts of it. One part is to give the Librarian and assistant Secretaries one dollar a day extra compensation; the 3 1001 August 21, 1867. 1002 CO-NSTIUTIONA' CT CONVENTION. -Wedn-esd-ay, other part is to give the messenger boys fifty cents a day extra. The PRESIDENT. The resolution cannot be divided. Mr. GIDDINGS. Then I move to strike out so much of it as relates to the messenger boys. Mr. UTLEY. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. GiDDnGS, and it was not agreed to; yeas 11, nays 49, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Desnoyers, Giddings, Hixson, Hull, Kenney, Pringle, Purcell, Richmond, Sheldon, Stockwell, and W. E. Warner, NAYs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown,: Case, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger,- Danielis, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Germain, Henderson, Holt, Lawrence, Leach, Longyear Lovell, Luce, McKernan, Miles, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Musgrave, Pratt, Root, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Utley, Van Valkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Winans, Winsor, Woodhouse, Yeomans, and the President-49. The question recurred upon the resolution as amended. Mr. W. E. WARNER. Upon that resolution I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken upon the resolution, and it was not adopted; yeas 27, nays 37, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Bradley, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Giddings, Harris, Holt, Hull, Huston, Kenney, Longyear, McKernan, Miles, Musgrave, Pratt, T. G. Smith, Stoughton, Sutherland, Turner, Utley, VanValkenburgh, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Win-. sor and Withey-27. NAYs-Messrs. Alexander, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Brown, Case, Desnoyers, Duncan, Duncombe, Elliott, Estee, Germain, Henderson, Hixson, Lamb, Lawrence, Leach, Lovell, Luce, McConnell, Miller, Murray, Mussey, Pringle, Purcell, Richmond, Root, Shearer, Sheldon, Stockwell, Thompson, Walker, P. D. Warner, W...E. Warner, M. C. Watkins, Winans and Yeomans-37. Mr. P. D. WARNER (when his name was called,) said I would be inclined to support some portion of this resolution, if separated from the other portion of it. But regarding it as a precedent, which will control to a certain extent every Legislature that will succeed this Convention, if this Constitution shall be adopted, I feel it my duty to vote "n:to."''''"'' Mr. AL,EXANDER (when his name was called,) said: I have no objection to the messenger boys receiving two dollars and a half a day; I believe that to be no more than~ a just compensation for their services. But I cannot vote for this omnibus resolution. I vote "no." DEBATES OF THE NEW YORK CONVENTION. Mr. MUSSEY offered the following resolution: - Resolved, That the manual and documents received by thin Contention frotm the New York Constitutional Convention, be deposited on the Secretary's desk for distribution to the members. ,Mr. LUCE. I move to lay the resolution onthe table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. INDEXING THE DEBATES. Mr. HULL, by unanimous consent, made the following report from the committee on printing: The committee on printing, to whom were referred resolutions relative to the preparation of an index to the debates of this Con.vention, respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to. report for the action of this Convention the result of their inquiries: that the reporters of the Convention offer to do the work, as desired, for the sum of two huncdred and fifty dollars; the State Librarian ofiers to do the work equally well for two hundred and- twenty-five dollars; and without recommendation, ask-to'be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. L. T. HULL, Chairman. Th e report was received and laid upon the table, and the committee discharged. Mr. WIT' HEY offered the following resolution:. Resolved, That the official reporters of this Convention be employed to prepare a complete and copious index of the debates of this Convention, also to arrange the Constitutions of this State of 1835, 1850'and 1867, in parallel columns or publication with the-debates; and that they be allowed the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars for this service. Mr. GIDDINGS. I move to amend the resolution by providing that the entire index shall. be bound with each volume. - The amendment was agreed to. The resolution, as amended, was then adopted. ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE. Mr. ALEXANDER. On the -5th instant, I- offered the following resolution, which was laid upon the table: Resolved, That this Convention will adjourn sine die on Thursday, the 15th inst. I move that that resolution be taken from the table, in order that we may amend it, so as to adjourn tomorrow morning. o Mr. LUCE. I really see no necessity for taking that resolution from the table. When we get ready to adjourn, we can adjourn on a motion. If it is intended to:fix the hour for the adjournment, I think we had better not do that. I shall vote against taking the resolution from the table,; unless I can hear some good reason to the contrary. Mr. ALEXANDER. It seems to me it would be good policy on the part of the Convention to fix the hbur Of adjournment a little in advance. It is apparent to all of us, I suppose, that the business- of this Convention is almost at a,' close. It seems to me it would be well to fix the; hour for adjournment to-morrow. Mr. BURTCH. I think it would be unwise to fix any particular hour for this: Convention to adjourn. No man can tell what we may have to do yet. The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. ALEXANDER, and it was not agreed to. Mr. P. D. WARNER. I move that the Convention now take a recess until hlalf-past seven o'clock this evening. Mr. HENDERSON. I move to amend that motion, so that we may take a recess until three o'clock this afternoon. A member of the committeee on printing has informed me that he thinks the Constitution will be printed in pamphlet form,.ready for our use, this afternoon. Mr. P. D-. WARNER. I supposed it would be impossible for us to proceed with any further business till seven o'clock. If we can get the printed Constitution this afternoon, I will nmodif my motion ast requested'by the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr.:HENDERSON.) The motion as modified, was then agreed td. The 6Convention accordingly, (at twenty minutes before twelve o'clock, a. m.,) took a recess:until three o'clock p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at three o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a: quorum answered to their names. STATE AND NATIONAL FINANCES. Mr. BURTCH. I offer the following preamble and resolutions: Whereas, The object of finances is so intimately interwoven with the material, moral, -intellectual, industrial, and political growth of States and nations; And whereas, All experience has shown that the commercial,: agricultural and mechlianical interests have. not and cannot prosper without the benefits arising from credit; And whIereas, There is a sufficient amount of indebtedness on the part of the United States that might by wise and prudent legislation become a sure basis of credit; now, therefore Resolved, That no system of finance will be as safe and convenient as that of the national currency. Resolved, That by an assumption of the national debt by the States, of the pro rata share of each, by the bonded security of State bonds, the State bonds being exchanged for the bonds of the United States, which bonds could be deposited with the government in security for national currency. Resolved, That the foregoing proposition would elevate the interest of the masses, and not that of the classes. R esolved, That all suitable efforts should be made in order to bring about so salutary and desirable an end. Mr. GIDDINGS. I rise to a question of order. I submit that this resolution has no sort of connection with 1003 Au\~ 21, 1867..........A.. P -',r any-business before this Convention,.or that can possibly come before it under the law by which we were assembled. M'r. WITHtEY.'' I submit that the gentleman from' Eaton (Mr. BURTcH) should be allowed at least the right to explain this resolution. It may' have more to do with our proceedings than the gentleman from Kalamazoo is aware of. [Laughter.] The PRESIDENT. The Chair will not rule the resolution out of order. If the Convention sees fit, it can. easily dispose of the resolution at the proper - time. Mr. BURTCH. Mr. President, I have introduced these preambles and resolutions in order that I might answer some remarks of my friend from Wayne, (Mr. LOTHEROP,,) which I find on page 136, Vol. II, of the Debates. Permit me here to say, Mr. President, before I'proceed to the'" discussion of this question, that while I am acting as a member of this Convention, I belong to no party, but to the people; and, sir, when the Democratic party protects the people, then am I a Democrat; when the Republican party protects the people, then am I a Republican. But, to the speech of my friend from Wayne. Mr. President, you recollect how completely paralyzed was each member of this Convention, when the gentleman thundered forth the language of John Randolph, "I have found the philosopher's stone-pay as you go." "And," continued the gentleman, " we shall have found the philosopher's stone, if we pay as we go, as townships." Again, he said in substance, "I regard this matter of national, State, township and city indebtedness, as one of the most serious questions that is likely to be pressed upon us now or hereafter. It is one of those great questions that are going to tax the master minds of the community. It will tax them to prevent that indebtedness, whether national, State, or municipal, from bearing down the interests of the community." "And he who shall solve that great problem which lies before us, who shall be able to bear the interests safely through the crushing weight of debt, will be the great'statesman, to whom the people should erect a column higher than any other that shall be erected to any other name." I will now invite the attention of the gentleman from Wayne, to those preambles and'resolutions which I have had the privilege of introducing; and, if I mistake not, they will afford a pan acea for all those fearful ills Which the gentleman has so eloquently portrayed to us. By wisdom, we may change this supposed curse into a great national blessing. We read the well established axiom, that-"by: faith the world was made." We have yet to learn that"any country on- this earth, of ours, ever [ourished as well without as with. a. well directed system of credit. We have had a great national sickness,'and although convalescent, we have not yet entirely recovered. The doctor's bills have become immensely large. They, sir, have secured. the first mortgage upon the wealth and industry of our country; and if they should foreclose that mortgage, before there should bea chance for recuperation, then the masses'will be reduced't6-a' condition more cruel, if possible,' than slavery itself.; The slave has only to perform physical labor, while the-classes perform the' mental; but, sir, the' masses' are under the necessity of' performing the physical and mental.; - It may be denied that there is a distinction of class in this country. But, sir, denial is no proof, is no argument; it does not change the fact. It must be evident to every observing mind, that special favor is a distinct line of demarcation drawn between the masses and -the classes. Look, sir, to those whose capital is invested in' the United States bonds, not subject to'State or nationaltaxation. Are they not a'privileged class? Are they not relieved from burdens to which the masses are subjected? Again, sir, we see corporations-bodies without souls-belonging to large capitalists,-who are cont'inually asking for special privileges, that they may control more completely the masses, and tread more firmly their iron heels upon the masses, or'bodies containing'souls. I think it must be clear to the understanding of every man, that, as the'circulating medium is reduced, the-'e value of money would increase, and reduce the value of labor and produce. The .Secretary of the United States Treasury said, " that living is too' high." Liv'ing, sir, is the product of labor. Now, what our Secretary really meant was this: "that a contraction'of the: currency of -the country would have the effect to increase'the' salary of'every officer in proportion as: the price of produce was reduced; that the salaried officer: might' purchase a bushel of wheat for tone dollar, which before would cost him' two dollars.' And for what reason? Simply this: that the favored class may pocket the one dollar; that all the benefit may inure to that favored class-the moneyed aristocracy. Let me say.to my friend from Wayne (Mr. LOTHROP) that full faith may be placed in the national currency through out the entire country. Exchanges would be the same everywhere.' The basis would be sure beyond question. Underlying this bondedasecurity would be' every acre of land in the U-ited States, with all its mineral resources, ani&';its toiling millions to develop it, and its agricultural wealth. I would say to my friend from Wayne that money works out its own cash value once in ten years, according to banking principles. The same is true in agricultural' pursuits. In development of that interest, we develop a larger and more extended increase of commerce. The gold humbug has always'been, and always will be, used for the benefit of the classes. There never was, and never will be, gold enough in the United States to carry on successfully the agricultural,mechanical and commercial interests of the people of this country. We'have had all kinds of bank robbers, who have robbed honest industry of its reward, until all systems of banking are viewed by the people as a species of robbery. Still, sir, the people might regain confidence and have full faith in the currency of the United States, by adopting the proposition as laid down in the preamble and resolutiions which I have had the pleasure to introduce. The fuill value of our national debt would then be worked out by developing the material, mechanical and commercial growth of the country every ten years; so that in thirty years there would be only one-third as much for each one to pay as there would be if it were paid now, at a time when the great amount will fall upon the old and infirm with crushing weight; for our young men that have not been killed, have become crippled and diseased during the war. To pay it now, would reduce the poor to the condition of slaves, constantly toiling out'their existance for the aggrandizement of the classes that by their poverty and wretchedness the classes might become rich. The objector may say, "That will not pay the debt." Very true; but it will increase our ability to pay'without distress; or financial embarrassment. With such amonetary system, we should flow along as peacefully as a river. Each and every one would become a stockholder in the concern in proportion to what he would have to pay; consequently the interest would inure to the benefit of the people the whole people '-notea few bankers and sharpers. In this way the whole debt could be paid, falling gently like snow-flakes, crushing none, but enlivening all; giving good cheer to the old. man, giving aninating joy and hope to the young men and maidens. Does not this look well in theory? and is it not clearly practicable?. Let us examine it a little. For instance, the State of Michigan assumes a pro f DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. - August 21,.1867. I0 - x v'...;" ~, rata share by executing her bonds to' the United States Government; then depositing those bonds for national currency. That moment the State would be furnished with a currency that would be alike good in all parts of the nation. The State could then es tablish her loan offices, and let her money upon ample security, supplying the demand for money with reasonable rates of interest. This system would, in the meantime, enliven a great amount of real capital, by putting money into circulation upon reasonable rates, or driving the possessors into in vestments, which would very much augment the material interests of the country, and would tend to a more equal distribution of capital,,thereby hindering its centralization, and caus ing it always to flow to the extremities for investment. Let me refer you to a case in point. At a time when there was a surplus of money in the United States, they made a dividend to the States, and establish ed their loan offices, letting their money at interest. And, sir, if that money should be compounded at banking rates, one dollar would become two, thereby promoting the agricultural and commercial welfare of our common country. My friend from Wayne seems to think-at least he says-that the township ought to confine its operations to highways and to schools. - Now, sir, I submit that if the people of the township have the ability to give a wise direction to highways and schools, the same wisdom would enable the people successfully to give direction to any and every species of internal improvement for the well-being of a township. The idea of the honorable gentleman from Wayne strikes at the very root of a republican form of government. It assumes that the people, as such, are not capable of self-government, but that capability for government must necessarily be the concentrated wisdom of the State. Now, sir, I argue that man cannot rise above himself. So the combined wisdom of men never can be greater than their individual capacity. -Therefore, sir, conferring these powers upon the people of the townships, will tend to exercise and enlarge the powers of the mind, and create alarger business capacity, which would be honorable to the townships and to the State. They, sir, are as good judges of their own wants and necessities as a township; yea, even better, than the Legislature as a body politic, acting for the State at large. WhatI demand, sir, is this: that the people of a township shall have the power as townships to manage their own municipal affairs as best subserves their own tastes and interests. A township as a corporation should have as unlimited power to work out its own destiny, as a State or a nation, so long as it acts within its own sphere, and does not interfere with the higher or superior corporations as counties or State municipalities. The PRESIDENT. The ten minutes of the gentleman from Eaton have expired. Mr. LOVELL. These resolutions of the gentleman from Eaton are of a very grave character, and require a great deal of thought and deliberation. I think that we shall perhaps need to see them in print before we can properly pass upon them. I move that further consideration of the subject be postponed for the present, and made the special order for Wednesday next. The motion was agreed to. PAYMENT OF OFFICIATING CLERGYM2.E Mr. VAN VATFENBURGHI offered the following resolution: Resolved, That the Secretary be authorized to draw a certificate for the amount due the clergy of Lansing, and present it to Rev. J. E. Weed, to be distributed among them respectively, according to their services. The resolution was agreed to. REPORT ON A DISORDERLY MEMBER. Mr. ROOT. I ask unanimous consent to submit a report on behalf of a special committee, appointed in the early part of the session. There was no objection. Mr. ROOT submitted the following report: The special committee to whom was referred the following preamble and resolution: Whereas, This Convention has been, from day to day, greatly annoyed and interrupted in its deliberations by the disorderly and incoherent remarks of one of its members; therefore resolved, That it be referred to a commit — tee of five, to ascertain and report what measures are necessary to protect the Con. ventian from such annoyances and interruptions, Respectfully report that, In the judgment of the committee, the case has not arisen since the passage of the resolution, which required a resort on the part of the Convention to the means which it possessed to prevent interruptions of its business; that on this account the committee have. up to the present time, delayed their report, and now ask, in view of the improbability of any action being required, to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. SIMEON P. ROOT,,hairman. The report was accepted, and the committee discharged. EXCHANG 0P DEAE9 N ORAS EXCHANGE OF DEBATES AND JOURNALS. Mr. MORTON offeredthe following resolution, which was adopted: Resolved, That fifty copies of the debates and journals be deposited in the State Library, for inter-State exchanges, under the direction of the Librarian. . SIGNING THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. GIDDINGS offered the followimg resolution: Resolved, That when the Constitution shall be enrolled, it shall be signed by the President and Secretary of the Convention, offlcially, and then by the members by counties, as the same may be called by the Secretary; and that members now absent be requested, and are hereby authorized, to affix their signa tures thereto whenever it may be convenient for them to do so. Mr. COOLIDGE. I wish to inquire of the mover of this resolution what necessity there is for the signing of this Constitution by the members. I do not know that there is any necessity for this being signed otherwise than by the President and Secretary. Mr. GIDDINGS. I do not suppose that under the law there is any abso lute necessity that the members shall sign this Constitution. The practice, however, has been that instruments of this kind should be signed, not only by the President and Secretary, but by the members of the Convention. Mr. COOLIDGE. The gentleman will recollect that the act passed by the Legislature last winter, providing for this Constitutional -Convention, con templates that the instrument shall be signed only by the President and Sec retary. It seems to me that anything further is unnecessary. Mr. MIcCLELLAND. There seems to me some difficulty about this resolu tion, because it proposes to make itim perative upon members to sign this Constitution. If any members should prefer not to sign it, I think they ought not to be compelled to do so. Mr. GIDDINGS. I suppose that members can readily absent themselves if they do not want to sign it. Mr. McCLELLAND. I do not be lieve that any member has a right to absent himself, without the leave of the Convention. Mr. GIDDINGS. Nor do I.L Mir. McCLELLAND. I suggest to the gentleman the propriety of modi fying his- resolution so as to request and authorize all the members to sign the instrument-not rendering it im perative. Mr. BLACKMAN. I much prefer that this resolution should. be in such a shape as not to require members to sign the Constitution, if they do not feel disposed to do so, but simply to request and authorize them to' sign it. Mr. GIDDINGS. I do not care particularly. about the form of the res olution. I have followed the form adopted in the Convention of 1850; and I believe that that resolution was framed by the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. MC(LELLAND,) himself. Mr. McoCLELLAND. I do not recollect anything of the kind. I presume the gentleman from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GroDiNGS,) knOWS a great deal more about the doings of the Conven, tion of 1850 than I do. CONS'.CIWU'I!ION.A T,. CONVEN'.VION - - 1004, NVedne.sclay, Auu 21 87.DBTS p)POEDNS'10 Mr. GIDDINGS. The gentleman will allow me to read from the report of the proceedings of the Convention of 1850: "Mr. McCLELLAND moved that when this Constitution shall be enrolled, it shall be signed by the members by counties, as the same shall be called; which was adopted." [Laughter.] The resolution of Mr. GIDDINGS was adopted. - HOUR OF MEETING TO-MORROW. Mr. WALKER. I offer the following resolution: BResolved, That when this Convention adjourn to-day, it be to meet at eight o'clock to-morrow morning. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, it will be recollected that, when we took a recess, it was the expectation that we should have before us this afternoon the Constitution in pamphlet form, that we might read and finally act upon it. Since coming here this afternoon, I have been informed that the document will be read at seven o'clock this evening. If this be true, Ithink we certainly desire-I know such is my wish, and I believe I express the wish of others -that we shall spend at least some portion of this evening in-reading and finally acting upon the Constitution. I hope therefore, that this resolution will not prevail. Mr. LUCE. Mr. President, if we understand just about where we are, we shall perhaps be better prepared to vote on this resolution. I do not myself understand-whatever may be the impression of the gentleman from Calhoun, (Mr. HENDERSON, ) —that it makes any difference whether we have the printed copy before us or not, when we finally act upon the Constitution. In my judgment, it was altogether useless to have the document printed for this purpose. The Constitution is, I understand, to be enrolled on parchment. When the document shall be read for final action, we desire of course to have itread from the official copy. I have understood, since we met this afternoon, that the parchment copy of the instrument is not completed. It is this that I wish to have read from the desk; on such a reading of the Constitution I wish to vote upon the final adoption of the instrument. As to the copy which may be brought to us from the printer's, there is no certainty that it will be correct. If the parchment copy were now ready, I should be very glad if we could commence reading it at once, because it will take two or three hours to read it through. If we do not commence reading the document until to-morrow morning, eight o'clock is not early enough to begin; for a great many of us expect to go away at half-past ten o'clock Mr. MUSSEY. I think that the gentleman from Calhoun (Mr. HENDERSON) is mistaken in his understanding of this resolution. It contains nothing which would prevent us from taking a recess this afternoon till seven o'clock this evening. Mfr. HENDERSON. I simply made my remark with this understandingthat by a sort of common acquiescence it appeared to be understood that we cannot have the parchment copy in time to enable us to get away to-morrow, and that we should be obliged to use the other instead. Mr. MUSSEY. Still-there is nothing in this resolution to prevent us from taking a recess until seven o'clock this evening. Mr. MORTON. I understand that a part of the Constitution is ready in parchment form. I do not see why it might not be read, so far as it is prepared. As'to the printed copy, I believe that two forms (the whole instrument making three forms) are ready and can be obtained from the printing office. But if part of the parchment copy is ready, I do not see why we might not begin the reading from the parchment copy this afternoon. Mr. WALKER. I supposed that everybody would understand this resolution as I intended it should be understood. There is nothing in the resolution to prevent the Convention from having three or four recesses between this time and to-morrow morning. It simply provides that, when we finally adjourn to-day, we shall adjourn to meet at eight o'clock tomorrow morning. I have offered the resolution because eight o'clock is not the usual hour of meeting, and if we decide to meet at an earlier hour than usual, it is necessary to fix it by a resolution.. Mr. McCLELLAND. I suppose that the correct mode of proceeding would be to take up all the articles in the order of their arrangement, and have them read over, if it be deemed necessary, and then vote upon the instrument as a whole, not waiting until the different articles shall have been engrossed. I think this the course in all legislative bodies. Bills, etc., in bodies of this kind, are not enrolled until finally pased, when they are signed by the presiding officers. I know that this was the method of proceeding in the Convention of 1835; and I believe the same course was pursued in the Convention of 1850. But for greater certainty on this point, I would refer to my friend from Kalamazoo, (Mr. GIDDINGS. ) Hr. BARBER. As at a later hour of the day we shall probably be better able to determine the proper course to be pursued on this subject, I move that the resolution be laid on the table. The motion was agreed to.. RECESS. Mr. GIDDINGS. I understand that we can have the parchment copy before us complete as early probably as seven o'clock this evening. I think it is the general desire of the members of the Convention to have this document, as engrossed, read carefullyin the Convention before we sign it. I move, therefore, that the Convention take a recess until seven -o'clock this evening. The motion was agreed to; and the Convention (at twenty-five minutes before four o'clock, p. m.,) took a recess until seven o'clock, p. m. EVENING SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at seven o'clock, p. m., and was- called to order by the PRESIDENT.:-: The roll was called, and a quorum of members answeredto their names. FINAL READING OF THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. CONGER. I move that the Convertion now proceed to the reading of the articles of the Constitution in their order. The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. As the printed copies of the Constitution, which members desire to have before them during the reading of the instrument from the engrossed copy, are not yet ready, the reading will, if there is no objection, be informally postponed until the printed copies shall have been received and distributed. There was no objection. PAY OF MEMBERS DURING ABSENCE. Mr. BLACKMAN, by unanimous consent, offered the following resolution: Resolved, That the President and Secretary of this Convention be directed not to issue certificates to members for their per diem compensation, for any time subsequent to the time when they were severally last in attendance, unless in cases where their absence has been occasioned by sickness. Mr. McCLELLAND. How is it to be ascertained whether any member has been sick or not? -Mr. MUSSEY. I suppose the presumption would be. that the member was well, unless he proved himself sick. Mr. McCLELLAND. I think the presumption would be directly the contrary. It seems to me that, when a member is not present, the presumption is that he is not well enough to attend; for his duty as a member of the Convention requires him to be present. Mr. CONGER. I would inquire whether this resolution is in order, I DEBATIMS AND PROCEJWI)INGS.' August 21, 1867. .1005 7- -. I.. 1:,0 after the Convention has resolved to proceed to the reading of the Constitution? The PRESIDENT. The resolution has been introduced by unanimous copsent. The Chair asked whether there was objection, and no member objected. It is now to late to make objection., Mr. CONGER. I move that the resolution be laid on the-table. The motion was agreed to; there being-ayes 35,:noes 25. PAY OF ASSISTANT SECRETARIES. Mr. CHAPIN. Would a resolution be in order at this time? The PRESIDENT. It will be entertained, if there be no objection. Mr. LONGYEAR. Let the resolution be read for information, reserving the right of any member to object. The resolution of Mr. CHAPIN was read as follows: Resolved, That each of the Assistant Secretaries.of this Convention be allowed and paid the sum of one dollar extra for each day's attendance, and the usual traveling fees at this session or the Convention. SEVERAL MEMBERS objected. The PRESIDENT. Objection being made, the resolution cannot be entertained at the present time. THANKS TO THE " INSANE" COMMITTEE. Mr. BURTCH. I feel it due to myself and this Convention at this time to make a few remarks explanatory The PRESIDENT. There is no question before the Convention. Mr. BURTCH. I thought we might as well be doing something. The PRESIDENT.' The gentleman can proceed only by unanimous consent. SEVERAL MEMBERS objected. Mr. BURTCH. I propose to move a vote of thanks for the arduous duties performed by the " insane;committee. [Laughter.] - The PRESIDENT. Objection being made, the motion would not be in or der.. r. BUIRTCH. I have a resolution to offer. Mr. MILES.' I object. The PRESIDENT.- A'resolution is notvin order, there being objecin.. FINAL READING OF THE CONSTITUTION. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will now proceed to read the Constitution, article by article. During the reading, the Chair must insist that perfect order be maintained in the hall; and he respectfully requests each member to follow the Secretary in.the read-' i'ng, so that if, by chance, any mistakes have occurred in the engrossed copy of the.Constitution, the mistakes may .now be corrected. The Secretary proceeded to read the Constitution as enrolled.. BILLS IN THE LEGISLATURE. Section seventeen of Article V. -having been read, Mr. CONGER. I aslt unanimous consent that this section be amended by striking out "I fifty," and inserting -",forty," so that the section will read: " Bills may originate in either House of the Legislature; but no new bill,. except by a vote of two-thirds of the members elect, shall beintroduced after the first forty days of the session shall have expired." - Mr. BARBER and others objectedi Mr. CONGER. Whether our legislative sessions shall be annual or biennial, we have provided in this section that bills may at any time be'introduced by a vote of two-thirds. It - seems to me that, in view of this fact, forty days rather than fifty, would be the proper limit. Mr. BARBER. My reason for objecting is that I believe the people will determine to- continue having biennial sessions; and with biennial sessions, fifty days is a short enough time. - ThePRESIDENT. Objection being made, the amendment cannot be entertained. VERBAL AMENDMENTS. Section twenty-seven of Article V. having been read,- Mr. PRINGLE. I ask unanimous consent that this section be amended by substituting the words per centum" for " per cent." It appears to me improper in an instrument of this kind, to use abbreviations; and in the next section the words "per Jcentum" are used. Hence, by making this proposed change in section twenty-seven, we make the language of the two sections uniform. Mr. NINDE. In Ypsilanti there is no difference between "ten per cent.' and " ten per centum." The PRESIDENT. The amendment will be made, if there is no objection. Mr. NINDE.- I object, because.I think it improper to deface the enrolled copy by needless alterations. Section five of Article VI. having been read, — Mr. LONGYEAR. I desire to call attention to this section, which i' in the following language: " He (the Governor) may require inltormation in writing from officers of th.e Executive Department upon any subject relating to the duties of. their respective offices." I believe that under our system of State Government, there is no department known and recognized by the distinctive title of the " Executive Department." I would suggest that the section be changed by inserting "State officers," instead of " officers of the Executive Department." A similar alteration was made, on my motion, in section, twenty-thee of the legialative article. I ask unanimous consent to make the amendment I have just indicated. Mr. CONGER. In Article IV., relating to the division of the powers of the government, it is declared that "the powers of gove rnment are divided into three departments, executive, legislative and judicial." I take it that:the State officers are in one of these departments. I think the language of the section is perfectly proper; and I think the same phraseology was correctly used in section twenty-three of the legislative article. I know of no other department in which the State officers can be included than the executive department. Mr. BLACKMAN. In section twenty-three of the legislative article, the words "executive- department" were not stricken out, but the words "and St,te offices" were added. The gentleman will see by referring to the section that this is the' form in which the language now-stands. The PRESIDENT.- -Is -there any objection to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from ILgham, (MKr. 'LONGYEAR)? Mr. PRINGLE. I object, for a reason which I will briefly state. I had the honor to move (though: the Convention had not the honor to adopt the motion) to insert the word chief" before the word " executive," in the first section of this article. I desire that as early in the article as possible, it shall appear that the executive.power is. not all lodged in the Governor.. Mr. LONGYEAR. Will the gentleman withdraw his objection long enough to allow me to make a single statement? Mr. PRINGLE.: Yes, sir. Mr. LONGYEAR. The gentleman from St., Clair. (Mr. CONGER,) is un doubtedly correct in saying: that the State officers come under the head of the executive department; but so do all the adminiistrative officers of the State. Thus, with our system of elective State officers, and: the chief executive not having in fact a department proper, ex cept as to his own immediate office, the terms here used "officers of the Executive Department," would include more than the State officers, and more than is intended by the section. They would include all administrative officers of the Statr sheriffs, constables, and in fact all executive officers, no matter of what character, whether county or township officers. My object in moving the amendment, was to omake the' lan guage of the section more closely cor respond with its intention-that the Governor might require information from the State officers..... CONSTII.LYUII!lo NAT4 CON'V'EN'IION. 'Wednesd'ay) I August 21, 1867 eX ,-DEBAT-ES AND1 P RFODINGSO 1607 Mr.'MoCLELLAND.'I'-shaliobject hereafter to all discusion, because a great many of us are in -the -habit -of going to bed at ten o'clockL [Laughter.] Mr. GIDDINGS. I desire to inquire whether there is any provision in this article under which the Governor may require information from-the various State officers.'If that isi provided for elsewhere, then the amendment suggested may be unnecessary. Mr. McCLELLAND. Under the words of this article, as they now stand, the Governor will have the same power that he has had under the Constitution of 1850. HMr. CONGER. I do not know that there is any provision of this kind in -any other part of the Constitution; nor does it seem to me necessary that -we should insert' the same pro'vision in two different parts of the Constitution. Mr. GIDDINGS. It seems to me such a power should be vested in the Governor somewhere. Mr. McCLELLAND. I object to further discussion. The PRESIDENT..Objection being made, the Secretary will continiue the reading of the Constitution. APPEALS FROM BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS. Section eleven of Article XIV'. having been read Mr. DANIELLS. I ask unanimous consent to amend this section, relating to the decisions of boards of supervisors, by striking out the words, "and-such determination and adjustment shall be subject to no appeal." [LaUighter.]. SEVERAL MEMBERS objected. TOwNSHIP OFFIOCES. Section one of Article XV. having been read,'Mr. CONGER. I ask unanimous consent to amend this section, by-' striking out the words, "not:-exceeding four constables, one overseer of'highways for each highway district;" so that the section will read as follows: * There shall be elected.annually, on —the first Tuesday in March, in each organized township, one supervisor, one township clerk, one township treasurer, one school inspector, one commissioner of highways, and such other township officers as the Legislature rnay by law provide, who shall hold their offices until their successors are elected and qualified, and whose terms of office, powers and duties shall be prescribed by law." Mr. HOLMES. I object. SEVERAL MEMBERS. Oh, let us do that. Mr. CONGER. I hope there will!be no objection to getting the designation of these paltry officers out of this article. Mr. HOLMES. Well, I withdraw myobjection.. - Mr. STOOKWELL. I renew the objection.s Mr. ~CODGE. I- a'k:;unanimo'us" consent to astike out the words'6one overseer of highways for each highway district." Mr.: SHiELDON. I object. Mr. HARRIS. It seems to me that this provision in regard to commissioners of highways is not, in its present form, what we intenided. The effect of the provision, as it stands, would be, it seems to me, to authorize in each township but one commissioner of highways. The language is "one commissioner of highways." I move to insert -after the worids." one commissioner of highways," the words "who shall hold his office for three years." SEVERAL MEMBERS objected. Mr.: TURNER. Would it be in order to move to suspend the rules to strike out the words indicated by the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. CONGER)? The.PRESIDENT. It would be in order to move to suspend the rules. Mr. GIDDINGS...I move to suspend the rules, for the' purpo: e of; striking out in this section'the words "not exceeding four constables, o e overseer of highways for each highway district." Mr. McCLELLAND. If we allow amendments of this kind, we shall have togo back and reconsider everything, and we shall be kept here in all probability a week longer. -A MEMBER. Two or three weeks. Mr. GIDDINGS. I think that this a'mendment should prevail. I believe it -expresses: the sense of the Convention. The motion of Mr. GIDDINGS to Suspend the rules was not agreed to. - Mr.- LUCE. I- ask unanimous consent -to amend the section by Striking out the Words, "one overseer of high:ways for each highway district." I believe the gentleman from- Lenawee (Mr. SHELDON) withdraws his objection. Mr. SHELDON. I withdraw my Objection. Mr. PRINGLE. 1 object. VERBAL AMENDMENTS. The reading of the Constitution having been concluded, Mr. LEACH. -Mr. President, I desire to call attention toan error in section seventeen of "the Schedule. It now reads, " The Legislature at their first session -shall. make-such further -provisions,":etc. I move that, by unanimous con..sent, the word' its" be substituted for " their." There being no objection, the amendtmet was adopted. -''Mr. -BILLS. I observe that the -section - in- regard to: prohibition of license is numbered "33." It should be numbered "i." I move that, by -unanimous consent, the numbering be corrected. There being no objection, the amendment was.agreed to. -Mr. PRINGLE.. I observe -that in the paragraph preceding section-thirtyfour, the- lan1guage is "an additional section numbered thirty-four."- I move to amend so as ta make this read,;' an additional section of'article V., numbered thirty-four." There beinglno,objection,' the amendment was agreed to. -Mr. CONGER. I desire to call atte'ntion to-the fact that in the last of'the alternative sections numbered " 8," providing for sessions of the Legislature, the language is, "The Legislature shall meet on the first Wednesday of January, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine." It occ,urs to me that the words,,,in the year," ishould be inserted after the word "January." Those words have been omitted by a e.rical 'error. - I know that they were included in: the original propitioni I ask unanimous consent that th'e section'be amended by inserting after the word "January," the words, "in the year.," There beingno objection, the amendment was agreed to. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I observe that in section -sixteen of the Schedule, it is declared that, "if it shall appear that a majority of the votes -cast upon the question have thereon,' Adoption - of the Constitution-yes,' this Constitution shall be: the supreme law of the State," etc. Further on in the samne section, it is provided, "If a majority of the votes cast upon the question have thereon,'Adoption of the Constitution-no,' the same shall be null and void." It would seem from this language- that the Constitution is pretty certain to be adopted in any event, for on receiving a majority of' the votes, it is to become the supreme law of the State; and if a' majority of the votes should be cast against it, then those votes are to be null and void. [Laughter..] -Mr. TURNER. The Constitution of 1850 expresses the same thing in- similar language. "Mr. MoCLELLAND. While -these gentlemen are makingstheir suggestions, I may as well remark that there is one section here that has puzzled me ~ very ~-much. I have understood it:was drafted by the gentle-man from'Berrien, (Mr. COOLIDGE.) The section to which I refer, is the fourth section of Article XVIII.' entitled "Exemptions;" and it reads thus: ",If the owner of a homestead die, or desert his family, leaving a widow, wife, or children, such home:st-ea8d:shall: be'exempt:from the payment of hisi debts so'ong as the widow I.... I.- 1. -, I - - - CONSTITUTIONAL CONVEINTION. shall be without other homesteads of her own," etc. Now, Iwant to know whether a man running away from his wife, leaves a widows [Laughter.] Mr. COOLIDGE. AllI have to say is that, in reference to the language of this section, I was overruled, in spite of my protests, by the majority of the committee onarrangement and phraseology. Mr. W\ILLARD. I move that the Convention now adjourn till to-morrow morning at eight o'clock. Mr. PRINGLE. I ask the gentleman from Calhoun (Mr. WILLARD) to withdraw that motion, till I can offer a resolution, which it is very important should be acted on to-night. Mr. WILLkARD. I withdraw my motion. CORRECTIONS OF THE ENGROSSED CONSTITU TION. Mr. PRINGLE. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That it be referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology to examine thebopy of the Constitution which has been engrossed upon parchment, and to report, before the close of the Convention, a description of the erasures and interlineations. Mr. President, this engrossed copy of the Constitution is in half a dozen different hand-writings, and has been corrected by half a dozen different persons. As it now stands, it is what we would call in the courts, a suspicious looking instrument upon its face, [Laughter.] There ought to be some record made of the erasures and in terlineations. This resolution pro vides a method for making that record. Mr. McCLELLAND. I understand that this document has been fully com pared by the committee on arrange Ieent and phraseology, and that they are perfectly satisfied with the com parison. I am therefore opposed to going any further. The resolution of Mr. PRINGLE was not adopted; there being ayes 23, noes 28. VERBAL AMENDMENT. Mr. BLACKMAN. I observe that in section eight of Article II,-the bill of rights-a word which I am sure was inserted by the committee on arrange ment and phraseology has been omit ted in the engrossed copy; and I think it ought to be inserted. The last clause of this section readr, "and have the assistance of counsel for his de fense." The word "to," should be in serted before the word "have," so that the clause will read, "and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." The omission of this word makes a change-in the meaning. The section now reads: ,'In every criminal prosecution the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed ot the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Now, the question is, whether we mean to say that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense, or that he shall have the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. If we mean, as I think we do, to declare the latter, then the word "to" ought to be inserted. I move that, by unanimous consent, this amendment be made. Mr. McCLELLAND. I object. Mr. BLACKvIAN. I am quite sure that the amendment was inserted by the committee on arrangement and phraseology. Mr. McCONNELL. I wish to inquire whether this Constitution is to receive the signatures of the delegates. If so, we had better commence voting upon it to-night. Mr. WILLARD. I renew the motion that the Convention adjourn until eight o'clock to-morrow morning. The motion was not agreed to. ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. The PRESIDENT. The question will now be taken upon the adoption of the Constitution as a whole. The question was taken; and there were yeas 62, nays 16, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Aldrich, Alexander, Andrus, Barber, Bills, Blackman, Bradley, Brown, Case, Chapin, Chapman, Coolidge, Conger, Daniells, Duncan, Duncombe, Estee, Farmer, Germain, Harris, Hazen, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hull, Huston, Kenney, Leach, Longyear, Lovell, Luce, McConnell, McKernan, Miles, Miller, Murray, Mussey Muisgrave, linde, Pratt, Pringle, Root, Sawyer, Sheldon, T. G. Smith, Stockwell, Stoughton, Sutherland, Thompson, Turner, Tyler, Utley, VanValkenburgh, Walker, P. D. Warner, M. C. Watkins, F. C. Watkins, Willard, Withey, Woodhouse, Yeomans, and the President-62. NAYs-Messrs. Corbin, Desnoyers, Elliott, Giddings, Hixson, Lamb, Lawrence, McClelland, Morton, Purcell, Rafter, Richmond, Shearer, W. A. Smith, W. E. Warner, and Winans-16. - - The PRESIDENT. A majority of all the members elect having voted therefor, the Constitution as a whole is adopted by the Convention. THE NEW CONSTITUTION. The Constitution, as finally adopted, is as follows: PREAMBLE. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of nations, for civil and religious liberty, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance thereof, do ordain and establish the following Constitution: ARTICLE I. BOUNDARIES AND SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. SECTION 1. The State of Michigan is bounded as follows, to-wit: Commencing at a point on the eastern boundary line of the State of Indiana, where a direct line drawn from the southern extremity of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of the Maumee Bay, shall intersect the same, said point being the north-west corner of the State of Ohio, as established-by an act of Congress entitled, "An act to establish the northern boundary line of the State of Ohio, and to provide for the admission of the State of Michigan into the Union upon the conditions therein expressed," approved June fifteenth, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six; thence with the said boundary line of the State of Ohio till it intersects the boundary line between the Uuited States and Canada, in Lake Erie; thence with the said boundary line between tle United States and Canada through the Detroit river, Lake St. Clair, the St. Clair river, Lake Huron, the St. Mary's river and Lake Superior, to a point where the said line last-touches Lake Superior; thence in a direct line through Lake Superior to the 0mouth-of the Montreal river; thence through the middle of the main channel of the said Montreal river to the head waters thereof, as marked upon the survey made by Cap-' tain Cramm, by authority of the United States; thence in a direct line to the center of the channel between Middle and South Islands, in the Lake of the Desert; thence in a direct line to the southern shore of Lake Brule; thence along said southern shore and down the Brule river to the main channel of the Menominee river; thence down the center of the main channel of the same to the center of the most usual ship channel of the Green Bay, of Lake Michigan; thence through the center of the most u.sual channel-of the said bay to the middle of Lake Michigan; thence through the middle of Lake - Michigan to the northern boundary of the State of Indiana, as that line was established by the act of Congress, of the nineteenth of April, eighteen hundred and sixteen; thence due east with the north boundary line of the said State of Indiana to the northeast corner thereof; and thence south with the eastern boundary - line of Indiana to the place of beginning.. Sec. 2. The seat of government shall remain at Lansing. ARTICLE II. BILL OF RIGHTS. S.CTIoN 1. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. Sec. 2. Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the t — 1008 -W ednesclay,. August 21, 1867. DEBATESk AD PROCEEDGS. 100OO dictates of his own conscience.- No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of religious worship, or pay tithes, taxes or other rates, for the support of any minister of the gospel, or teacher of religion. Sec. 3. The civil and religious rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged, on account of his opinions or belief concerning matters of religion. Sec. 4. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to thejury, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury'shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Sec. 5. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. Sec. 6. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus remains, and shall not be suspended unless in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. Sec. 7. The right of trial by jury shall remain, but shall be deemed to be waived in all civil cases, unless demanded by one of the parties in such manner as shall be prescribed by law. The Legislature may authorize, in all civil and criminal cases, a trial by jury of a less number than twelve men, in all courts- not of record. Sec. 8. In every criminal prosecution, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Sec. 9. Any suitor in any court in this State shall have the right to prosecute or defend his suit,s either in his own proper person, or by an attorney of his choice. Sec. 10. The persons, houses, papers and possessions of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizure. No warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. Sec. 11. No person, after acquittal upon the merits, shall be tried for the same offense. All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient suresties, except for murder and treason, Vole 2- No. 127. -when the proof is evident or the presumption great. - .Sec. 12. Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall :be: convicted of treason, unless upon the test'mony of two witnesses to thesame overt- act, or on: confession in open court. Sec. 13. Excessive bail -shall not be required excessive fines shall not be imposed, cruel or unusual-punishments shall not be inflicted, nor shall witnesses be unreasonably detained. Sec. 14. No person shall be-compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, or be deprived of -life, liberty or property, without due process of law.- -: Sec. 15. No person shall be imprisoned for debt arising out of or founded on contract, express or impied, except in case of fraud or breach of trust, or of promise to marry, or of moneys collected by public officers, or in any professional employment. No person shall, be imprisoned for a military fine in time of peace. Sec. 16. Every person has a right to bear arms for the common defense. Sec. 17. The military shall be -in strict subordination to the civil power., Sec. 18. No soldier shall in time of peace, be quartered in any, house without theconsent of the owner or occupant, nor in time of war, except in a manner prescribed by law. Sec. 19. The people have the right peaceably to-assemble together, to consult for the common good, to instruct their Representatives, and to petition the Legislature for redress of grievances. Sec. 20. -Neither slavery nr involun-' tary servitude, unless for the punishment of crime, shall ever be tolerated inthis State. Sec. 21. Aliens who are, or may hereafter become bonaftde residents of this State, shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment and inheritance of property as native born citizens. Sec. 22. Private property shall not be aken for public use without cotpensation. i Second. Every male inhabitant of this State, who shall have resided in the United States two years and' six months, and declared hisintention to: become a citizen of the United States, pursuant to the laws thereof, six .months preceding an election. BThird. Every male inhabitant residing in this:State on the twenty-fourth day of June, one thousand eight hen~dred and thirty-five. Sec. 2. In timeof war, insurrection for rebellion, the right to vote at such place and in such manner as shall be prescribed by law, shall be enjoyed by all persons otherwise entitled thereto, who may be in the actual military or -naval service of the United States,-or of this State: Provided, Their votes shall be made to apply to -the township.or -ward in which they are.residents, - Sec. 3. MAll elections shall be by ba:. lot, except of' such township officers a !may be authorized by law to be other wise..chosen.: Sec. 4. Every elector, in all 1cases -except treason, felony, misdemeanor or breach of the peace, shall be privi leged from arrest during his attendanice at election, and in going to'and returning from the same. SeC. 5 No elector shall be obliged io attend court as a suitor or witness on the day of election, or to do military :duty. thereon except in time of war or public danger. Sec. 6. No elector shall be deemed to have gained or lost his residence by reason of,absence therefrom in the service of the United States or of this State, nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this State or of the United States, or of the high seas, nor while a student at any seminary of learning, nor while kept at any alms-house or other asylum at public expense, nor while confined' -in any public prison. Sec. 7. Laws may be passed to preserve the purity of elections, and guard: against the abuses of the elective franchise.. — Sec. 8. No soldier, seaman or marine in-the army or navy of the United States shall be deemed a resident of this State, in consequence of being stationed in any military or naval place Within the same. Sec. 9. No idiot or insane person shall be entitled to the privileges of an elector. Sea. 10.- Any inhabitant of this State,who may be hereafter engaged in a duel, shall be disqualified fromjholding any office and from voting at any election. Sec. 11. The Legislature may authorize townships to hold their elections within the corporate limits of adjoining cities ARTICLE III. ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. SECTION 1. In all elections every person of the age of twenty-one yearsj who shall have resided' in this State three months, and in the -township or ward in which he offers to vote ten days next preceding an election, belonging to either of the following classes, shall be an elector and entitled to.vote:. First. Every male citizen of the United States. i f i 1010 CONSTITUTIONAL CO —— ETION. Wednday, ARTICLE IV. DIVISION OF THE rOWERs Or GOTENMENT. SEcTIoN 1. The powers of governmenit are divided into three departments: Legislative, Executive and Judicial...'. - Sec. 2. Neither department shall ever exercise the powers belonging to another, except in cases expressly provided for in this Constitution. ARTICLE V. LLGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. SEcTION 1. The legislative power is' vested in a Senate and House of Representatives. Sec. 2. The Senate shall consist of thirty-two members. But after the year 1870, the Legislature may increase the number to thirty-three, by authorizing the election of two Senators in that portion of the State now included within the limits of the Thirty-Second Senatorial District. Senators shall be elected for four years, and by single districts. At the first election after the adoption of this Constitution, Senators in the odd numbered districts shall be elected for two years, and in the even numbered districts for four years. Such districts shall be numbered from one to thirty-three inclusive, each of which shall choose one Senator. No county shall be divided in the formation of Senate districts, unless such county shall be equitably entitled to two or more Senators. Sec. 3. The House of Representatives shall consist of not more than one hundred and ten members. Representatives shall be chosen for two years, and by single districts. Each representative district shall contain, as nearly as may be, an equal number of inhabitants, and shall consist of convenient and contiguous territory; but every organized county containing a population of not less than four thousand, and every two or more contiguous organized counties, containing a like population, shall constitute a representative district, and be entitled to one Representative. In every county entitled to more than one Representative, the board of supervisors shall assemble at such time and place as may be provided by law, and divide the same into representative districts, equal to the number of Representatives to which such county is entitled by law, and shall cause to be filed in the offices of the Secretary of State and clerk of such county, a description of such representative districts, specifying the number of each district, and the population thereof, according to the last enumeration. Sec. 4. The Legislature shall provide by law for an enumeration of the inhabitants in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-five, and every ten years thereafter; and at the first session after each enumeration so made, and also at'the first session after each enumeration by the authority of the United. States, the Legislature shall re-arrange the Senate districts, and apportion anew the Representatives among the counties and districts, according to the number of inhabitants. But no re-arrangement of Senate districts shall vacate the seat of any Senator. Each apportionment, and the: division into representative districts by any board of supervisors, shall remain unaltered until the return of another enumeration. Sec. 5."Every Senator and Representative shall be a citizen of the United States, and a qualified elector of the district he represents. A removal from his district shall be deemed a vacation of his office. No% Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he may have been elected, be eligible to any office, which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased by the Legislature during such term; nor shall he be interested, directly or indirectly, inany contract with the State, or any county thereof, author ized by any law passed during said term.- Sec. 6. No person holding any elec t.ive State office, except that of regent of the University, or member of the board of Education, and no person holding the office of probate judge, county clerk, register of deeds, county treasurer, sheriff, county superintend ent of schools, prosecuting attorney, or any office to which he was appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall be allowed to take or hold a seat in either House of the Legislature. Sec. 7. Senators and Representatives shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the Legislature, or for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termina tion of each session; they shall not be questioned in any other place for any speech in either House. Sec. 8. Sec. 9. Each House shall choose its own officers, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution; determine the rules of its proceedings, and judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its members, and may, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members elected, expel a member. The reasons for such expulsion shall be entered upon the journal, with the names of the members voting on the question. No member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause; nor for any cause known to his constituents antecedent to his election. Sec. 10. A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner: and under such penalties as each House may Iprescribe. Sec. 11. The compensation of the members of the Legislature during the session thereof, shall be four dollars per day, for actual attendance. When convened in extra session they shall legislate on no other subjects than those expressly stated in the Governor's proclamation, or submitted to them by special message. They shall be entitled to ten cents, and no more, for every mile actually traveled, going to0 and returning from the place of meeting, on the usually traveled route, and for stationery, postage and-newspapers not exceeding fifteenudollars for each member during any session. Each member shall be entitled to one copy of the laws, journals and documents.of the Legislature of which he was a megnber; but shall not receive at, the expense of the State, books, newspa pers, or other perquisites of office, not expressly authorized by this Constitution. Sec. 12. The President of the Sen ate-and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall each be entitled to six dollars per diem compensation, and the same mileage as members of the Legislature, and no more. Sec. 13. In case;of a contested election, each House shall determine the amount of per diem compensation and mileage to be received by each contest ant, but the per diem compensation allowed to both parties, shall not exceed the sum of four dollars per day. Sec. 14. Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and publish: the same, except such parts as may re quire secrecy. The yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall be taken at the request of one-fifth of the members elected. Any member of either House may dissent from and protest against any act, pro ceeding or resolution which he may deem injurious to any person or the public, and have the reason of his dis sent entered on the journal. Sec. 15.'1n all elections by either House, or in joint convention, the votes shall be given viva voce. All votes on nominations to the Senate shall be taken by yeas and nays, and published with the journal of its proceedings. Sec. 16. The doors of each House shall be open, unless the public welfare require secrecy. Neither House shall, 1010 .CONSTI TIONAL CONVENTION.. Wednesda,y, Auus 21 87.DBTSA- ~cEIG.1 without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any - other place than where the Legislature may then be in session. Sec. 17. Bills may originate in either House of the' Legislature; but no new bill, except by a vote of two-thirds of the members elect, shall be introduced after the first fifty days of a session shall have expired. Sec. 18. Every bill and joint resolution passed by the Legislature, shall be presented to the Governor before it becomes a law. If he approves, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it with his objections, to the House in which it originated, which shall enter the objections at large upon its journal and reconsider it. On such reconsideration, if two-thids of the members elected agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent with the objections to the other House, by which it shall be reconsidered. If approved by twothirds of the members elected to that House, it shall become a law. In such case the vote of both Houses shall, be determined by yeas and nays, andcl the names of the members voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journals of each House respectively. If any bill be not returned by the Governor within ten days, (Sundays excepted,) after it has been presented to him, the same shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature, by their adjournment, prevent its return; in which case it shall not become a law. The Governor may approve, sign, and file in the office of the Secretary of State, within five days after the adjournment of the Legislature, any act passed during the last five days of the session, and the same shall become a law. Sec. 19. Every bill and joint resolution shall be read three times in each House before the final passage thereof. No bill or joint resolution shall become a law without the concurrence of a majority of all the members elected to each House. On the final passage of each bill and joint resolution, the vote shall be taken separately, by yeas and nays, and entered on the journal. Sec. 20. No law shall embrace more than one general object, which shall be expressed in its title. No public act shall take effect or be in force until the expiration of ninety days from the end of the session at which the same is passed, unless the Legislature shall otherwise direct, by a -two-thirds vote of the members elected to each House. Sec. 21. The assent of two-thirds of the members elected-to each House of the Legislature,_shall be requisite to every bill appropriating the public money or property, for local or private purposes. Sec. 22. No law shall be revised, altered or amended by reference to its title only, but the section or sections of the act altered or amended, shall be reenacted and published at length. Sec. 23. The Legislature shall provide by law that the furnishing of fuel and stationery for the use of the State, the printing and binding the laws and journals, all blanks, papers, and printing for the executive department and State offices, and all other printing ordered by the Legislature, shall be let by contract to the lowest competent and responsible bidder or bidders, who shall give adequate and satisfactory security for the performance thereof The Legislature shall prescribe by law the manner in which the State printing shall be executed, and the accounts rendered therefor, and shall prohibit all charges for constructive labor. It shall not rescind or alter such contract, nortrelease the person or persons taking the same, or his or their; sureties, from the performance of any of the conditions of the contract. No member of the Board of State,Auditors shall be interested, directly or in directly, in any contract with the State. Sec. 24. The Legislature shall not establish a State paper, but shall provide for the speedy publication of all statute laws of a public nature, and of such judicial proceedings as it may deem expedient. Aul laws and judicial decisions shall be free for publication by any person. Sec. 25. The Legislature may declare the cases in which any office shall be deemed vacant, and also the manner of fillling the vacancy, where no provision is made for that purpose in this Constitution. Sec. 26. The Legislature may confer upon organized townships, incorporated cities and villages, ancld upon the board of supervisors of the several counties, such powers of a local, legislative and administrative character as they may deem proper. Sec. 27. The Legislature shall not authorize any city or township to pledge its credit, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad to such an extent that the outstanding indebtedness, exclusive of interest, on account of aid to any and all railroads, shall exceed ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of such city or township. No county shall be authorized to pledge its credit, or raise-money by taxation for any such purposes; but counties in the Upper Peninsula may be authorized to do so, subject to the restrictions in this section as to cities and townships. The question of such aid shall be submitted to'a vote ofj the electors of the county, city or tow'nship to be affected thereby. Sec. 28. The Legislature. may empower any city or township to raiseoby tax, in aid of any railroad company or companies, an amount of money not exceeding ten per centum' of the assessed valuation of such city or township, but every such tax shall be first approved by a vote of the electors of such city or township: Provided, That the amount levied by any such tax, shall not, when added to the principal of the credits of such city or township, already pledged for like aid and then outstanding, exceed ten per centum of the assessed valuation aforesaid. Sec. 29. The Legislature shall not authorize, by private or special law, the sale or conveyance of any real:estate belonging to any person, nor vacate nor alter any road laid Qut by commissioners of highways, or any street or public ground-in any city or village, or in any recorded.town plat. Sec. 30. The Legislature shall not grant or authorize extr-a —compensation to any public officer, agent or contractor, after the service has been rendered or the contract entered into. Sec. 31, No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious senminary, or schools under denominational control, nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes. Each House of the Legislature shall provide for religious exercises at the opening of its daily sessions. Sec. 32. The Legislature shall not authorize any lottery or permit the sale of lottery tickets; nor grant divorces; nor audit or allow any private claim or account; nor pass special acts extending the time for the collection of taxes. - Sec. 33. The style of the laws shall be, "The People of the State of Michigan enact." ARTICL. .E:XICUTIVE DEPARTMENT. SFcTIoN 1. The executive power is vested in a Governor, who shall hold his office for two years. A Lieutenant Governor shall be chosen for the same term. Sec. 2. No person? shall be eligible to the office of Governor or Lieutenant Governor who has not been five years a citizen of the United States, and a resident of thliis State two years next preceding his election; nor shall any person be eligible to either office who has not attained the age of twenty-five years. Sec. 3. The Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be elected ait the times and places of choosming the members of the Legislature. The person IDEBA S AWD PROCEV.'nINGS. August 21 — 1867. 1011 4 I~x: - -. CO Ti 1T O A -- -. - having the highest number of votes for Governor or Lieutenant Governor,' shall be elected.' Sec. 4. The Governorshall be Cornmmander-in-Chief of the military and naval forces; and may call out such forces to execute the laws, to suppress insurrection and to repel invasion.. Sec. 5..He may require information in writing from officers of the Executive Department, upon any subject relating -to the duties of their respective offices. Sec. 6. He shall take care that the laws-be faithfully executed. Sec. 7. He may convene the Legislature on extraordinary occasions. Sec. 8. He shall give to the Legislature, and at the close of'his official term, to the next Legislature, information.by message, of the condition of the State, and recommend such measures as he shall deem expedient. Sec. 9. He may convene the Legislature at some other place, when the seat of government becomes danger ous from disease' or a common enemy. Sec. 10.-. He shall'issue writs'of elec tion to fill such vacancies as occur in the Senate or House-of Representatives. Sec. 11. He may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, after con viction, for all o.ffenses except treason, and-cases of impeachment, upon such ~condiftions and with such restrictions and.limitations as he may,think proper, subject to regulations provided, Jby law, relative to0 the- manner of applying for pardons. Upon conviction for treason, he may suspend. the execution of the sentence until the -case shall be reported to the Legislature at its next session, when the Legislature shall either par don or commute the sentence, direct t-i-e execution of the sentence, or grant a further reprieve. He shall communi cate to the Legislature at each session :iaformation of each case of reprieve, commutation or pardon granted by him) and the reasons therefor' Sec. 12. In case of the-impeachment of the Governor his removal from office, death, in ability, resignation or absence from the State, the powers and duties-of the office shall devolve upon the Lieutenant Governor for the resi due of the term, or until the disability ~cease. But when the Governor shall be absent from the State, at the head of a military force thereof,' he shall continue to be Commander-in-Chief. Sec. 13. During a vacancy in the office of Governor, if the Lieutenant Governor die,: resign, be impeached, displaced, be incapable of performing the duties of his office, or absent from the State, the President pro tempore of the Senate shall act as Governor until the vacancy be filled or the disability cease. See. 14. The Lieutenant Governor shall, by virtue of his office, be President of the Senate, and. when' there is an equal division he shall give the casting vote. In committee.of the whole, he may debate — all questions. Sec. 15. No member of'Congress, nor any person holding office under the United States, or other office of this State?,shall. execute the office of Governor. Sec. 16. No person elected Governor or Lieutenant Governor shall receive any office or appointment from the Legislature, or either House thereof, during the time for which he was elected. All votes for either of them, for any such' office or appointment, shall be. void..-.''' Sec. 17. -The Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senate pro tem — pore, when performing the duties of Governor, shall.receive the same compensation as the Governor. See. 18. All official acts of the Governor, his approval of the laws.excepted, shall be- authenticated by the great seal of the State, which shall be kept by the Secretary of State. See, 19.'All commissions issued to persons holding office under the provisions of this Constitution, shall be in the name and by the authority of.the peopie of the State of Michigan, sealed with the great seal of the State, signed by.the Governor -and countersigned by the.Se'cretary'of'.State.' ARTICLE VII. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. SEcTIos 1. The judicial power shall be.vested in a Supreme Court, in circuit courts, probate courts, justices of' the peace, and inm such other courts and tribunals as shall be authorized by law..' Sec. 2. The Supreme Court is continued, subject to theprovitions of this article. TheLegislatureshall provide for the election' ofone additional judge, so that the court 6shall consist o'f-five members, and for a classification of judges, so that one shall go oute of office every twoyears.' The judge having the shortest time to serve shall be Chief Justice during the remainmder of his term of office.- The term of -.office of' ajudge of the Supreme Court shall be ten years. Sec. 3.:The Supreme Court' shall have a general super'intendiniig control over all other courts and tribunals, and also such appellate jurisdiction as shall be provided by law; and to that end may issue writs of error,'certiorari, mandamus, procedendo, prohibition, and':all other appropriate writs and process. It shall also have original jurisdiction in cases of man-: danus, habeas corpus, proceedings im the.nature of quo'.warranto, and proceedings by scire-facias to vacate letters patent. It shall have such jurisdiction'of questions reserved, as shall be provided by law. its jurisdiction in all cases not embraced in this article, shall be appellate only. Sec. 4. Theie shall be held at least four terms of'the Supreme Court annually, one in each of the four judicial districts of the Lower Peninsula of the State, at such times and places as shall be provided by law. Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall, by general rules, establish, modify and amend its practice, and may.also make all rules that may be necessary for the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It may appoint its own clerks, and a reporter of' its decisions. A concurrence of three judges of said court shall be necessary'to a final decision. .Sec. 6. The State shall be divided into five judicial districts, four of which shall consist of contiguous territory in the Lower' Peninsula;- the fifth- shall embrace the Upper Peninsula and such portion of the lower contiguous thereto as shall be designated. Each judicial district shall' be subdivided into circuits of at least two in number. In each circuit there shall be elected by :the electors thereof, one Circuit Judge, who shall be a resident of the judicial district in which such circuit is formed, who shall hold his office for the'term of eight years. It shall be the:duty of all the circuit judges to meet at least once in two years, to establish uniform ruleso'.f practice in the circuit courts, and to modify the same. e. Se 7. 7 The'Legislature may provide for the holding of law terms in the several judicial districts by the judges thereof, with whom may be associated a judgeof the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction and powers at such law terms shall be such as may be granted by law. Th'e Legislature may provide for holding a term or terms of the cir cuit'court by a judge of the Supreme pour. Sec. 8. A circuit court shall be held at least twice in each year, in every county organized for judicial purposes, -and at least three times in each year, in counties containing ten thousand in habitants. The judges of circuit courts in each judicial distrtict shall hold the terms thereof, either within the circuit for which they are elected, or alternately within the judicial dis trict, as they may elect, or as may be provided by law for either or all of such jjudicial districts. Sec. 9. The circuit courts shall have Original jurisdiction in all matters civil and criminal, not excepted in this Constitution, and not prohibited by I f p I. 8 I. e cl 0 t p 8 ..t i i I CON&.rr.rU".ViON A T,- CON-V IWNTION - 0 -101-2 -Wednesday, 4 , DEBATES A'D PROCE':JHING S. law;:and such appellate jurisadiction from all inferior courts and tribunals as shall be provided by law,-and supervisory control of the same. They shall also have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, injunction, quo warranto, certiorari, and other writs necessary to carry into effect their orders, judgments and decrees, and give them general control over inferior courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions. Sec. 10. The Supreme, circuit and probate courts - shall - be courts of record, and shaill each have a common seal. ~ Sec. 11. The respective circUit courts held in each county, shall appoint' one or more persons residing therein, who shall be vested with such -judicial and ministerial powers as shall be prescribed by law. Sec. 12. Whenever a judge shall remove beyond the limits of the'district in which he was elected, his office shall become vacant; and whenever ajustice of the peace shall remove from the township in which he was elected, orbe placed without the limits thereof by a change of boundaries, he -shall be deemed to have vacated his office. Sec. 13. Whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of judge of the Supreme, circuit or probate coourts, it shall be filled by appointment of the Governor, which appointment shall continue until a successor to fill such vacancy is elected and qualified. When elected, such successor shall hold his office for the residue of the unexpired term. Sec. 14. The clerk of each county organized for judicial purposes, shall be clerk of the circuit court of such county. The judges of the circuit courts within their respective jurisdictions, may fill vacancies in the offices of county clerk and prosecuting attorney.; Sec. 15. Each of -the circuit Land Supreme Court judges shall receivers salary payable quarterly. They shall be ineligible to any other than a judi cial office, during their continuance therein. All votes given for such judges, for any office other than judicial, either by the Legislature or the_.people, shall be void.. 'Sec. 16. In each organized county there shall be a court of probate. It shall have such probate jurisdiction, powers and duties as shall be preScribed by law. Other jurisdictiOn, civil and criminal, may also be confer red on any one or more co0urts0of probate. Judges of probate shall hold their orates for a term of four years, and shall be electea by the electors of their respective counties or districts, as shall be provided by law.: See. 17. There shall be not exceed ing four justices of the peace ineeact Organized township,i who shail be elected by the electors of the township, and shall hold: their'office for four years, and until their successors are elected and qualified. A justice elected to fill a vacancy, shall hold his office for the residue of the unexpired term. The Legislature may increase the number of justices in cities. Sec. 18. Justices of the peace shall have such civil and criminal jurisdiction,.and perform such duties as shall be prescribed by law.' Sec. 19. The style of all process shall be: "TIn the. name of the,People -of the, State of Michigan." Sec. 20. Two-thirds of the members elect to -each House of the Legislature may require the opinion of the Supreme Court: upon important questions of constitutional law.. ARTICLE VII. STATE OFFICERS. SECTIOs 1. There shall be elected at. each general biennial election, a Secre-. tary of State, a State Treasurer, a Commissioner of the State Land Office, a Superintendent of Public Instruc — tion, an Auditor Geaeral and an At — torney General, for the term of:two years, each of whom shall keep his office at the seat of government, and shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by law.' Sec. 2. Their term of office shall commence on the first day of Januatj, one thousand eight hundred and Sixty nine, and of every second year thereafter. Sec. 3. Whenever a vacancy shall occur im any of the State offices, the. Governor shall fill the same by appointment, by and with the adviceand consent of the Senate, if in session. X -Sec. 4..The Secretary of State, State Treasurer, - and- Commissioner. -of.the State Land:Office, shall constitute a Board of State Auditors, to examine and adjust claims against the State, within such limits as shall be prescribed by law.. They -shall also constitute a'Board of State Canvassers, -to determine-.the result- of all elections for Governor, Lienutentant Governor, all State officers, and such other-officers as shall by law be referred to:them. ARTICLE IX. IMPEACHMENTS AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. SECTION 1. The -House of Representatives shall- have the - sole powerof impeaching civil officers for corrupt con.duct in office, and forcrimes and misdemeanors; but a majority of the members elected shall be necessary to direct an impeachment.. Sec. "2. Every impeachment shall be tried by the Senate. When the Governor or Lieuiitentant Governor !;ahl: be tried the Chief Justice of the' Supreme Court shill preside. When an impeachmentfis directed, the members of the Senate shall take an oath Or affirmation truly and impartially to try and determine the same according to the evidence. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members elected. Judgment in case of impeachment shall not extend:further than removal from office; but the party accused, whether acquitted or convicted, shall be liable to trial and punishment accoring' to law. Sec. 3. When an impeachment is directed, the House of Representatives shall appoint, from their own body, a committee, whose duty it shall be to prosecute such impeachment. An impeachment may be tried after the final adjournment of the Legislature. Sec. 4. No officer shall exercise his offlice after an impeachment is directed, until he be acquitted. Sec. 5. The Governor may make a provisional appointment to fill a vacancy occasioned by the suspension of an officer, until he shall be acquitted, or until the election and qualification of a successor.. Sec., 6. For a reasonable cause, which shall not be sufficient ground for the impeachment of a judge, the Governor shall remove him on a concurrent resolution of two-thirds of the members elected to each House of the Legislature, after the party accused shal-l have had'an opportunity to be .heard in his defense; but the cause for which- such removal is required shall be stated at length in such resolution Sec. e7. County, towniiship, city, village or schl0 district officers may be removed in such manner and for such cause as maybe provided by law. ' See. 8. The Governor shall have the power, and it sh allbe his duty, to ex~amiue.into the condition of anyState rffiace, and the act of any State officer, and to suspend such officer, except a judge or member' of the Legislature, toll gross neglect of duty, or for corrupt: conduct in office, or any misfeaswaee or malfeasance therein, and to make a provisional appointment to fill thee vacancy Qccasioned thereby, and report the cause of such suspension to -the egislature,; if in session, and if not, then at the'commencement of the next session thereof, and the Legislature shall proceed to investigate such cause, and if found insufficient, such officer shall.be reinstated for the unexpired portion of his term. Sec. 9. Whenever, during a recess of the Legislature, it:shall, in the opinion of the,G6vernor, beeome necessary to direct. an- impeachment of any civil Officer; lhe may, by proclamation, convene the House of Representatives for 1013 August-'21, 1867. 1014 e COr~TITUTIOSAL CONVENrO~. --. I. that purpose; and if the House, when so convened, shall direct an impeachment, he shall in like manner immediately convene the Senate to try such impeachment; and whenever, in the opinion of the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives, it shall, during a recess of the L egislature, become necessary to direct an impeachment of the Governor, they may, by their -joint proclamation, convene the House for that purpose; and if the House direct such impeachment, the said President and Speaker shall, in like manner, immediately convene the Senate to try such impeachment. ARTICLE LX. SALARIES. SycTION 1. The Governor shall receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars. The Secretary of State shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The State Treasurer shall receive an annual salary of twentyfive hundred dollars. The Commissioner of the State Land Office shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five hundred dollars. The: Auditor General shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five hundred dollars. The Attorney General shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Judges of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the\ Circuit Courts shall each receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars. The Legislature shall have the power to increase or diminish the salaries of all officers provided for in this article, by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elect to each House. All persons holding office under the present Constitution shall be entitled to the salaries provided for in this Constitution from and after the time the same shall go into effect. The above named officers shall not be entitled to any fees or perquisites for the performance of the duties of their respective offices; but all perquisites received shall be paid into the State treasury. Sec. 2. The Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Commissioner of: the State Land Office and Auditor General shall superintend in person the duties of their respective offices. ARTICLE XI. FINANCE AND TAXATION. SEcTIoN 1. All specific State taxes' shall be applied in paying the interest on primary school, university and other educational funds, and the interest and principal of the State debt; in the , order herein recited, until the extin guishment of the State debt, other than the amounts-due to educational funds, when such specific taxes shall be added to and constitute a part of the primary school interest fund. Sec. 2. The Legislature shall provide for an annual tax, sufficient, with other resources, to pay the estimated expenses of the State government, the interest of the State debt, and such deficiency as may occur in the resources. Sec. 3. The Legislature shall provide by law a sinking fund, to be applied solely to the payment and extinguishment of the principal of the State debt, other than the amounts due to educational funds, which sinking fund shall be continued until the extinguishment of such State debt; and every law hereafter enacted by.the Legislature, creating a debt or authorizing a loan, shall provide a sinking fund for the payment of the same. Sec. 4. The unfunded debt shall not be funded or redeemed at a value exceeding that established by law in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight. Sec. 5. The State may contract debts to'meet deficits in revenue. Such debts shall not in the aggregate at any time exceed fifty thousand dollars. The moneys so raised shall be applied to the purposes for which they were obtained, or to the payment of the debts so contracted. Sec. 6. The State may contract debts to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or defend the State in time of war. The money arising from the contracting of such debts shall be applied to the purposes for which it was raised, or to pay such debts. Sec. 7. No money shall be paid out of the State treasury, except in pursuance of appropriations made by law. Sec. 8. The credit of the State shall not be granted to, or in aid of, any person, association or corporation. Sec. 9. No scrip, certificate, or other evidence of State indebtedness shall be issued, except for the redemption of stock previously issued, or for such debts as are expressly authorized in this Constitution. Sec. 10. The State shall not subscribe to, or be interested in the stock of any company, association or corporation. Sec. 11. The State shall not be a party to, or be interested in any work of internal improvement, except the ship canal at the Sault Ste. Marie, nor engage in carrying on any such work, otherwise than in the expenditure of grants to the State, of land or other property. Sec. 12. The Legislature shall provide a uniform rule of taxation, except on property, business and corporations paying specific taxes. Taxes shall be levied on such property as shall be prescribed by law. 'Sec. 13. All assessments hereafter authorized shall be on property at its cash value. Sec. 14. The Legislature shall provide for an equalization of assessments on all taxable property, except that paying specific taxes, to be made in the year eighteen hundred and seventy — one, and every fifth year thereafter, by a State Board of Equalization, to consist of one member from each Senatorial district, to be elected as shall be prescribed by law. After the year eighteen hundred and seventy-three, the said Board of Equalization shall be constituted in such manner as the Legislature may direct. Sec. 15. Every law which imposes, continues or revives a tax, shall distinctly state the tax, and the object to which it is to be applied; and it shall not be sufficient to refer to any other law to fix such tax or object. Sec. 16. A full-account of the State indebtedness, and.an accurate statement of receipts and expenditures of the public money, shall be attached to, and published with the laws passed at every regular session of the Legislature. Sec. 17. The State shall not assume any indebtedness of a c6unty, township or city. ARTICLE XII. EDUCATION. SEcTIoN 1. Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. Sec. 2. Institutions for the benefit of those inhabitants who are deaf, dumb, blind or insane, shall always be fostered and supported. Sec. 3. The Legislature shall provide for a system of primary schools, by which a school shall be maintained in each school district in the State, free of charge for tuition, at least four months in. the year. The instruction shall in all cases be conducted in the English language. Sec. 4. The Legislature shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a library in each township, and of at least one in each city. And all moneys belonging to the public derived from fines, penalties, forfeitures or recognizances, imposed or taken in the several counties, cities or townships, for any breach of the penal laws of the State, after deducting the actual costs of collection, shall be apportioned in the same manner, as is the income of the primary school fund, and paid over to the several cities and townghips of the county in which such mon CONSTII-rU,.UIONATIA CONVENTION. Wednesd - . ay) 1014 Augur 21, 1867 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS. 1()15~~ ey accrued, for the support of suchlibraries: Provided, That the Legislature may authorize any township, by a vote of its electors, to apply. its portion of said money to the direct support of- its primary schools. Sec. 5. There shall be elected eight regents of the University, whose term of office shall be eight years, two of whom shall be elected in every second year, on the day of the annual township election, so as to succeed the regents now in office, as their several terms shall expire. When a vacancy shall occur in the office of regent, it shall be filled..by appointment by. the Governor. The chief justice of the Supreme Court shall be ex officio a member of the board of regents. Sec. 6. The regents of the University and their successors in office, shall continue to constitute the body corporate, known by the name and title of the Regents of the University of Michigan." Sec. 7. The regents of the University shall, as often as necessary, elect a president of the University, who shall be ex officio a member of their board, with the privilege of speaking but not of voting. He shall preside at the meetings of the regents, and be the principal executive officer of the University. The board of regents shall have the general supervision of the University, and the direction and control of all expenditures from the University interest fund. Sec. 8. There shall be elected three members of a State board of educa-t tion, whose term of office shall be six years, one of whom shall be elected in every second year, at the time of the election of regents of the University. They shall enter upon the duties of their office on the first day- of January next succeeding their election. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be ex officio a member and secretary of such board. -The board shall have the general supervision of the State normal school, and their duties shall be prescribed by law. Sec. 9. The Legislature shall provide for the support and maintenance of an agricultural college, for instruction in agriculture, and the natural sciences connected therewith. Sec. 10. The proceeds from the sale Of all lands that have been or hereafter may be granted by the United States to the State fox educational purposes, and the proceeds of all lands or other property given by individuals, or appropriated by the State for like purposes, shall be and remain a- perpetual fund, the interest and income of which, together with the rents of all such lands as may remain unsold, shall be inviolably appropriated aud annuals ly applied to the specific objects of the original gift, grant or appropriation. Sec. 11. All lands, the title of which shall fail from a' defect of heirs, shall escheat to the State; and the interest on the clear proceeds from the sale thereof, shall be appropriated exclusively to the support of primary schools. ARTICLE XIII. MILITARY DEPARTMENT. SEcTIoN 1. The militia shall be composed of all able. bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and fortyfive years, except such as are exempted by the laws of the United States, or of this State; but all citizens of any religious denomination, who, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to bearing arms, shall, in time of peace, be excused therefrom upon such terms and conditions as shall be prescribed by law. Sec. 2. The Legislatureshallprovide by law for organizing, equipping anddisciplining the militia in such manner as they shall deem expedient, -not incompatible with the laws of the United States. Sec. 3. Officers of the militia shall be elected or appointed, and be commissioned ini such manner as may be provided by law. ARTICLE XIV. COUNTIES. SEcTION 1. Each organized county shall be a body corporate, with such powers and immunities as shall be established by'law. All-suits and proceedings, by or against a county, shall be in the name thereof. Sec. 2. No new county shall be or-. ganized without submitting the question to a vote of the electors residing therein, nor unless a majority voting thereon shall vote for the same. Sec. 3. No new county, containing less than sixteen towns, as surveyed by the United States, shall be organized from one or more counties, nor shall any organized county be reduced by the organization of new counties to less than sixteen such towns, unless in pursuance of law, a majority of the votes cast by the electors residing in the county, or each of the counties to be thereby so reduced below sixteen townships, shall be in favor of such organization Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the Legislature from organizing any county composed wholly of islands within the territory of the State, or discontinuing any such county, and attaching the same to the nearest county or counties on the main land. Sec. 4. In each organized count there shall be:ho'r'' a county l"ferk, a county treasurer, a register of deeds, .a prosecuting attorney, and such other officers -as may be provided by law, chosen by the electors thereof once in two years, —and as often as vacancies shall happen, whose duties and powers shall be prescribed by the Legislature. The board of supervisors in any county may unite the offices of county clerk and register of deeds in one office, or disconnect the same. Sec. 5. The sheriff, county clerk, county treasurer, judge of probate, and register of deeds, shall hold their offices at the couty seat. Sec. 6. The sheriff shall hold no other county office, nor the office of supervisor. No person shall be eligible to the office- of sheriff for more than four in a period of six years. The county shall never be responsible for his acts. Sec. 7. A board of supervisors, consisting of one from each organized township, shall be established'in each county, with such powers as-shall- be-pre — scribed by law..: Sec. 8. Cities shall have such representation in the board of supervisors as the Legislature may direct; and one or more additional representatives on the board may be allowed by the Legislature to townships containing not less than three thousand inhabitants. Sec. 9. No county seat, once established, shall be removed until the place to which it is proposed to be removed shall be designated by a majority of the members elect of the board of sulpervisors of the county, and two-thirds of the electors voting thereon shall have voted in favor of the proposed location, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law. - Sec. 10. The board of supervisors of any county may borrow, or raise by tax, a sum not exceeding one and onehalf mill upon the dollar, of the assessed valuation thereof, for constructing or repairing public buildings, highways or bridges; but no greater sum shall be borrowed, or raised by tax, for such purpose, in any one year, unless authorized by a majority of the electors of such county voting thereon. Sec. 11. The board of county auditors, in the county of Wayne, and in such other counties as may be authorize~ by law to elect county auditors, and in every other county the board of supervisors, shall, except as otherwise provided by law, have power to prescribe the compensation due for all services rendered.for, and adjust all claims against their respective counties, and such determination and adjustment shall be subject to no appeal. Supervisors and county'auditors shall receive for their services such cornpensation ag shall be pre~Cribed by law. " ..DFLBATES AND PROCE-F-I)INGS. 101-5 Au tt 21) 1867 1 gu ' COSTIT UflI ON A Tl4 CONVENTION. ARTICLE XV. - TOWNSHIPS. SECTION 1. There shall' be elected annually, on-the first' Tuesday of March, in each organized township, one supervisor, one township c,lerk, one township treasurer, one school inspector, one commissioner of highways; not exceeding four constables, one overseer of highways for each highway' district, and such other township officers as the Legislature may by law provide, who shall hold their offices until their successors are elected and qualified, and whose terms of office, powers and duties shall be prescribed by law. Sec. 2. Each organized township shall be a body corporate, with such powers and immunities as shall be prescribed by law. All suits-and proceedings, by or against a township, shall be in the name thereof. ARTICLE XVI. CITIES- AND VILLAGES. SECTION 1. The Legislature shallprovide for the incorporation of cities and villages, and shall restrict their powers of taxation, borrowing money, contracting debts,-and loaning their credit. Sec. 2. The mayor and aldermen of cities,'and the president and trustees of villages, shall be elected, and all other officers shall be elected or'appointed at such time, and in -such manner as the Legislature may direct. ARTICLE XVII. CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN MUNICIPAL. SECTION 1. Organizations for the construction of railroads, for the purpose of banking, insurance, mining, telegraphing, transacting. business as common carriers, and religious-societies, shall be incorporated only under general laws. No special charter shall be granted, norshall the franchises given. thereby be enlarged without the assent of two-thirds of the members elect to each House. Every act passed pursuant to this section, may be amended, altered orrepealed by a majority vote of the members elect to each House. Sec. 2. The stockholders of every corporation or association for banking purposes, issuing bank notes or paper credits, to circulate as money,v shall be individually liable for all debts contracted during the term of their berig stockholders of such corporation or association, equally and ratably to the extent of their respective shares of stock in any such corporation- or association. Sec. 3. The Legislature - shall provide for the registry of all bills or notes' issued or put in circulation as money, by any bank organized under the laws of this State, and shall require security to the full amount of notes and bills so registered, in intere-stbearoing stoQks of this-State, or of the United States, which shall be deposited with the State Treasurer, for the redemption of such bills or notes in lawful money "of the United States. Sec.-4. In case of the insolvency of any bank or banking association, the bill-holders shall be entitled to preference in payment, over all other creditors of such bank or association. Sec. 5. The Legislature shall pass no law authorizing or sanctioning the suspension of payments by any corporation. Sec. 6. The Legislature shall pass no law altering or amending any act of incorporation granted prior to the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-p,one, without the assent of twothirds of the members elected to each House. - No such act shall be renewed or extended. Sec. 7. No corporation shall hold any real estate for a longer period than ten years fram the time of acquiring the same, unless such real estate shall be actually occupied by such corporation in the exercise of its franchises. No real estate shall hereafter be withheld from market for a longer period than ten years, for the use or benefit of any corporation.-.. 'Sec. 8. The stockholders in any corporation shall be individually liable for all labor done in behalf of such corporation during the time of their being such stockholders, equally and ratably to the extent of their respective shares in the stock of such corporation. ARTICLE XVIIL EXEMPTIONS.. SECTION 1. The personal property of every resident of this State, to consist of such property only as shall be designated by law, shall be exempted, to the amount of not less than. five hundred dollars, from sale on execution or other final process of any court, issued for the collection of any debt. Sec. 2. Every homestead, not exceeding forty acres of land-, and. the dwelling house thereon, and the appurtenances, to' be selected by the owner thereof, owned and occupied by any resident of this State, not exceeding in value twenty-five hundred dollars, shall be exempt from forced sale for the collection of -any debt on execution or other final process of any court Such exemption shall not extend to any mortgage thereon lawfully obtained, but such — mortgage or other alienation of such land, by the owner thereof, if a married man, shall not be valid without the signature of the wife to the same. Sec. 3. Any resident of this State, owning and occupying a house on land not his own, and claiming the same as a homestead, shall be entitled as to such house, to the benefits provided in this article, to the same extent as if he were the owner of such land; but such dxemption shall not in any way impair or affect the rights of the owner of said land, Sec. 4. If the owner of a homestead die,- or desert his family, leaving a widow, wife or children, such homestead shall be exempt from the payment of his debts so long as the widow shall be, without other homestead of her own, and during the minority of the phildren, or while the deserted wife shall occupy said homestead. Sec. 5. The real'and personal estate of every woman, acquired before -marriage, and the.property to which she may afterwards become entitled, by gift, grant, inheritance or devise, shall be and remain the estate and property of such woman, and shall not be liable for the debts obligations or engagements - of her'husband,-and...may-be devised, bequeathed and alienated by her, as if she were unmarried. ARTICLE XIX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. SECTION 1. Members of the Legislature, and all officers, executive.and judicial, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of -this State, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of, according to the best of my ability." Sec. 2. Judicial and legislative proceedings shall be conducted, and the laws and public records promulgated and preserved in the English language. Sec. 3. The Legislature shall prohibit public officers, receiving or having charge of public moneys, from using or employing the same ii any manner for their private use or benefit, and shall provide that whenever such moneys are deposited with any person or corporation, the interest thereon shall be paid to the fund to which such moneys belong.. Sec. 4. Private property shall not be taken for public use, or for private roads, without the consent of the owner, unless the necessity for such taking, and the just compensation to be paid therefor, shall have first been ascertained and determined, and - the compensation therefor paid or tendered in such manner as shall be prescribed :by law. Whenever private property shall be taken for any purpose'- wi.hout the limits of any incorporated city 1016 Wednesday, I August 21, 1867. DEBATES AD ROOEEDIG 1017 or village, except a public highway, the necessity for the taking thereof, and the amount of compensation to be paid therefor, shall be first ascertained and determined by a jury of twelve freeholders, or three commissioners appointed by a court of record; and whenever such property shall be taken within the limits of any incorporated city or village, the amount of compensation to be paid therefor shall be first ascertained and determined by a jury of twelve freeholders. Sec. 5. The Legislature may authorize the construction of dams across navigable streams, and the improvement of the navigation thereof; but such authority shall not interfere with the public right to the use of any such stream for any purpose of which it was susceptible before such dam was built or improvement made. ARTICLE Xx. AMENDMENT AND REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION. SEcTIox 1. Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in the Senate or House of Representatives. If the same be agreed to by two-thirds of the members elected to each House, such amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals respectively, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and the same shall be submitted to the electors at such time as the Legislature shall prescribe. And if a majority of the electors, qualified to vote for members of the Legislature, voting on the amendment or amendments proposed, shall ratify and approve such amendment or amendments, the same shall become a part of the Constitution. Sec. 2. At any time after the first day of January, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and eighty, the Legislature may provide for a Conventioin to revise or amend the Constitution. The question of the revision or amendment shall be submitted to the electors qualified to vote for members of the Legislature, in such manner-as may be provided by law. And in case a majority of the electors voting at such election, on such question, shall decide in favor of a Convention for such purpose, the Legislature, at the next session thereafter, shall provide by law for the election of Delegates to such Convention. All amendments shall take effect- at the commencement of the year after their adoption, except as otherwise provided by law, or by this Constitution. SCHEDULE. That no inconvenience may arise from the changes in the Constitution of this State, and in order to carry the same into complete operation, it is hereby declared — Vol. 2 —-No. 128. SC,IONo 1. The common law and the statute laws now in force, not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitation, or are altered or repealed by the Legislature. Sec. 2. All writs, actions, causes of action, prosecutions and. rights of individuals and of bodies corporate, and of the State, and all charters of incorporation, shall continue; and all indictments and informations which shall have been found or filed, or which may hereafter be found or filed, for any crime or offense committed before the adoption of this Constitution, may be proceeded upon as if no-change had taken place. The several courts, except as herein otherwise provided, shall continue with the like powers and jurisdiction, both at law and in equity, as if this Constitution had not been adopted, and until the organization of the judicial department under this Constitution. Sec. 3. All fines, penalties, forfeitures and escheats, accruing to the State under the present Constitution and laws, shall accrue to the use of the State under this Constitution. Sec. 4. All recognizances, bonds, obligations, and all other instruments entered into or executed before the adoption of this Constitution, to the people of this State, or to any State, county or township, or any public officer, or public body, or which may be entered into or executed under existing laws, " to the people of this State," to any such officer or public body, before the complete organiz.ation of the departments of government under this Constitution, shall remain binding and valid, and rights and liabilities upon the same shall continue, and may be prosecuted as provided by law. And all crimes and misdemeanors, and penal actions, shall be prosecuted, tried and punished, as though no change had taken place, until otherwise provided by law. Sec. 5. All officers, civil and military, now holding any office or appointment, shall continue to hold their respective offices, unless removed by competent authority, until superseded under the laws now in force, or under this Constitution. See. 6. The members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the Legislature of the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven, shall continue in office under the provisions of law, until superseded by their successors, elected and qualified under this Constitution. Sec. 7. All county officers, unless removed by competent authority, shall continue to hold their respective offies until the first day of January, in te year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine. The laws now in force as to the election, qualifications and due ties of township officers, except as changed by this Constitution, sha'l continue in force until altered or repealed by the Legislature. Sec. 8. The present Governor and other State officers, and the present Judges of the Supreme and Circuit Courts, shall continue to hold their respective offices until the expiration of the term for which they were elec. ted. The present members of the State Board of Education, shall severally -cntinue to hold their respec tive offices until their successors are elected and qualified according to law. Sec. 9. The probate courts, the courts of justices of the peace, and all police courts, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction and powers now conferred upon them respectively, until otherwise provided by law. Sec. 10. It shall be the duty of the Legislature, at its first session after the adoption of this Constitution, to adapt the present laws to the provisions of this Constitution. Sec. 11. The Attorney General and Judges of the Supreme Court are required to prepare and report to the Legislature, at the commencement of the next session, such changes and modifications in existing laws as may be deemed necessary to adapt the same to this Constitution, and as may be best calculated to carry into effect its provisions. Sec. 12. Any territory attached, or that may be attached to any county for judicial purposes, if not otherwiso represented, shall be considered as forming a part of such county, so far as regards elections for the purpose of representation. Sec. 13. This Constitution shall be submitted to the people for their adop tion or rejection, on the first Monday in April, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, and all other officers required to give or publish any notice in regard to general elections, to give notice as provided by law in case of an election for Governoe, that this Constitution has been duly submitted to the electors for their adoption or rejection on that day. The elections in cities wherein there are no elections held annuallyin the month of April, shall be held and conducted, as near as may be, in the same manner as in the case of elections for judges of the Supreme Court or regents of the University. Every newspaper within this State, publishing, in the month of January next, this Constitu tion as submitted, shall receive as a compensation, therefor the sum of -- -— uugt 21) 1867. DP4'RATES AN 1)PROCE'P.T)INGS 1017. CONSTITUTIONAL-' COl ENT-IO9N. twenty dollars, to be paid as the:Legislature shall direct. Sec. 14. Any person entitled to vote for members of the Legislature by the Constitution and-laws now in force, shall, at the said election, be entitled to vote for the adoption or rejection of this Constitution, at the places and in the manner provided by law for the election of members of the Legislature. Sec. 15. At the said election a ballotbox shall be-kept by the several boards of inspectors of election for the receiving of votes cast for or against the adoption of this Constituton; and on the ballots shall be written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, the words, "Adoption of the Constitution-Yes;" or, "Adoption of the Constitution-No." Sec. 16. The canvass of the votes cast for the adoption or rejection of this Constitution, and the returns thereof, shall be made by the proper returning officers, in the same manner as is: now provided by law for the canvass andreturn of votes cast at an election for Regents of the State University, as near as may be, and the return thereof shall be directed to the Secretary of State. On the first day of June next, or within five days thereafter, the Auditor General, State Treasurer and Secretary of State, or a majority of them, shall meet at the Capital, and proceed, in the presence of the Governor, to examine and canvass the return of said votes, and proclamation shall forthwith be made by the Governor, of the result thereof. If it shall appear that a majority of-the votes —cast upon the question have thereon, "Adoption of the Constitution-Yes," this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the State from and after the first day of July next; and any person declared an elector, and entitled to vote by Article III, of this Constitution, shall, from and after the said first day of July next, be entitled to vote at any election, in the same manner and subject to the same rules and regulations as are now provided by law for electors in this State. But if a majority of the votes cast upon the question, have thereon, "Adoption of the Constitution-No," the same shall be null and void. Sec. 17. The Legislature, at its first session, shall make such further pro-. visions as may be necessary for the payment of all expenditures of the Convention, including the publication of this Constitution, as provided in this article. Sec. 18. There shall be elected on the first Tuesday in March, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixtynine, and every eight years thereafter, one circuit judge for each judicial cirs cuit, whose term of office shall commence on the first day of January thereafter. There shall be elected at the same time two judges of the Supreme Court, one of whom.shall be elected for the term:of eight years, and.one for the term of ten years, and every second year thereafter one judge of said court shall be elected. The ,terms of office of said judges shall commence on the. first day of January following their election. Sec. 19. The State shall be divided into five judicial districts; and until otherwise provided by law, the counties of Wayne, Monroe, Lenawee, Hillsdale, Branch and St. Joseph, shall constitute the first district; the counties of Washtenaw, Jackson, Calhoun, Eaton, Kalamazoo, Allegan, Van Buren, Cass and Berrien, shall constitute the second district; the counties of Ottawa Muskegon, Oceana, Mason, Leelanaw, Barry, Grand Traverse, Antrim, Kent, Ionia, Clinton, Montcalm, Manistee, Newaygo and Mecosta, with the territory attached thereto, shall constitute the third district; the counties of Shiawassee, Ihgham, Livingston, Genesee, Lapeer, Oakland, Macomb, St. Clair, Sanilae, Huron, Tuscola, Saginaw, Midland, Gratiot, Isabella, Bay, Iosco, and Alpena, rith the territory attached thereto, shall constitute the fourth district; and the counties of Mackinaw, Cheboygan, Chippewa, Emmet, Manitou, Ontonagon, Marquette, Houghton, Keweenaw, Delta and Menomniiee, with the territory attached thereto, shall constitute the fifth district. Sec. 20. The judicial districts shall.be subdivided into circuits successively numbered; and until otherwise provided by law, the counties of Wayne and Monroe shall constitute the first circuit; the counties of Lenawee,.Hillsdale, Branch and St. Joseph, shall constitute the second circuit; the counties of All egan, Van Buren, Cass, Kalamazoo and Berrien, shall constitute the third circuit; the counties of Washtenaw,' Jackson, Calhoun and Eaton, shall constitute the fourth circuit; the counties of Muskegon, Oceans Mason, Manistee, Leelanaw, Grand Traverse, Antrim, Newaygo and Mecosta, with the territory attached thereto, shall constitute the fifth circuit; the counties of Barry, Clinton, Ionia, Kent, Montcalm and Ottawa, shall constitute the sixth circuit; the counties of Ingham, Shiawassee, Livingston, Genesee, Lapeer and Tuscola, shall constitute the seventh circuit; the counties of Oakland, Macomb, St. Clair, Sanilac and Huron, shall constitute the eighth circuit; the Counties of Saginaw,.Bay,,.'Midland, Gratiot,-Isabella, losco and'.Alpena, with -the territory attached, thereto, ,hall constitute the ninth circuit; the connties of Mackinaw, Chippewa, Che boygan, Emmet and Manitou, with the territory attached thereto, shall co nstitte the tenth circuit; and the counties of Ontonagon, Houghton, -Keweenaw, Marquette, Delta and Menoimnee, with the territory thereto attached, shall conStitute the eleventh circuit. The Legislature shall not.increase the number of circuits, or the number of judges of the circuit courts, as fixed by this Constitution, until after the expiration of eight years from the.time of its adoption. Sec. 21. Until-the next enunieration of inhabitants of this State, in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy, the counties of Newaygo and Oceana shall each be entitled to one . representative; the county of Mecosta, with the territory thereto attached, one representative; the county of Isabella, with the territory thereto attached, one representative; the county.-of Midland, with the territory thereto attached, one representative; the.-ounties.of:Alpena and Iosco, and- the territory thereto attached, one representative; the counties of Menominee and Delta, one representative; the counties of Mason and Manistee, and the territory thereto attached, one representative; the counties of Grand Traverse, Benzie and Antrim, and. the territory thereto attached, one representative; and the counties of Leelanaw and Manitou, one representative. At the election when -this Constitution shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection, there shall also be separately submitted to such electors the two following propositions: First.: -Sec. 8. The: Legislature shall meet on the first Wednesday of January, in the year one thousand - eight hundred and sixty-nine, and on the first Wednesday of January of each year thereafter, but at-no other time, except as provided inthis Constitution. The time of meeting shall be at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and,.the time of final adjournment shall be at twelve o'clock noon. -Second. Sec. 8. -The Legislature shall meet on the first Wednesday of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and -on the first Wednesday of January eofevery second year-thereafter, but at no other time, except as provided in this:Constitution. The time of meetig:shald be at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and the time of final adjournment shall be at twelve o'elock noon. A separate ballot upon either proposition may be:given by any elector, which shall be deposited. in a. ballot box provided for that~ purpose. On the ballots io f~vor of the adop-. 1018 .W. e- dnel4,dav. August 21, 1867. DEBATES. AND PROCEEIGS. 1019 tion of the above proposition -No. 1-'I' shall be the words,' Annual Sessions, -Yes;" and upon the ballots in favor of the ab~ove proposition No. 2, shall be the. words, "Biennial SessionsYes;" and upon the head or outside of all said ballots shall be the words, "d Annual or Biennial Sessions," placedin such a manner that the same sill be visible when the ballot is folded: If upon the canvass of such ballots cast at such election, a majority thereof shall -be found to contain the words, "Annual Sessions-Yes," then said proposition No. 1 shall become and stand- as section eight, of Article V, of this Constitution, if the same is adopted; but if a majority of such ballots shall contain the words, "Biennial Sessions-Yes," then the above proposition No. 2 shall become and stand as section eight, of Article V, of this Constitution, if the same is adopted. At the election, at the same time when the votes of the electors shall be taken for the adoption or -rejection of this Constitution, an additional section of Article V, numbered thirtyfour, in the words following: Sec. 34. "The Legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or intoxicating liquors, but shall by law prohibit the sale of the same as- a beverage;" Shall be separately submitted to the electors of this State for their adoption or rejection in form following, to wit: A separate ballot may be given by every person having the right to vote for the revised Constitution, to be deposited in a separate box. - -Upon the ballots given for said separate section shall be written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, the words "Prohibition-Yes,' and upon the ballots given against the adoption of the said section, in likemanner, the words "'Prohibition-No." If at said election a majority of the votes for and against said sectionl shall contain the words " Prohibition-Yes;"3 -then there shall be inserted in thearticle entitled " Legislative Depart-; ment," the said additional section, to be numbered as section thirty-four in said article. - CORRECTIONS OF THE ENGROSSED CONSTI - ~~TUTION. :Mr. PRINGLJE. -I now move a: reconsideration of the vote by which the resolution offered by me a few mo. ments ago, was rejected. The motion was agreed to. -T-he question then recurring on the resolution; it was- adopted,? as-follows: Resolveds, That- it-be referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology to examine thp copy of-the Constitution which: has been engrossed upon parchment, and to report, before the close of the Convention, a -description of- the erasures and interlineations. V LEAVE- OF ABSENCE. Mr. LONGYEAR. I desire to ask leave of absence for myself for the remainder of the session. I have important business which will occupy me to-morrow morning, and I shall not be able to be here. Leave was granted. ADJOURNMENT. Mr. ALEXANDER. — I more that the Convention now adjourn until eight o'clock to-morrow morning. Mr. FARMER. I move to amend the'motion by striking out " eight,' -and inserting "1 half-past seven." MI. ALEXANDER.. I accept that amendment, and modify my motion accordingly. The motion of Mr. ALEXANDER, as modified, was adopted; and the Convention, (at eldven o'clock, p. m.,) adjoumed. SEVENTY.F-OURTH' DAY. THURSDAY, August 22, 1867. The Convention met at half-past seven o'clock a. m., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT. The roll was called, and a quorum of members answered to their names. VOTES OF ABSENTEES ON CONSTITUTION. Mr. HENDERSON. I ask unanimous consent to- record my vote upon the passage of the instrument we have been framing. I was unable to remain here until the close of the proceedings last evening. Mr. CASE. I make the same request. Mr. LEACH. I hope unanimous consent will be given to all who were not present last evening to record their votes now. No objection was made. Messrs. BARBER, CASE, CHAPI, HENDERSON, HULL AND THOMPSON, accordingly recorded their votes in the affirmative;- and SMr. HKxsoN recorded his vote in the negative. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO ASSISTANT SECRETARIES. Mr. CHAPIN. I offer the -following resolution: Resolved, That each of the Assistant Secretaries of this Convention be allowed and paid the sum ot one dollar additional compensation for each day's attendance (and usual traveling feas) at the sessions of this Convention. I do not desire to make any remarks upon this; I only ask that the sense of the Convention be taken upon it. Mr. STOCKWELL. I move that the resolution be laid upon the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to, upon a division; ayes 29, noes 27. COMPENSATION FOR BEROLLINGa THE CON STITUTION. Mr. BLA.CK-TN offered the follow- - ing resolution, which was adopted: Re8olve, That the-President and Secretaryof this Convention be authorized and, directed to issue certificates for the payment of persons employed to assist in enrolling the Constitution. RIGHTS OF WOMEN. Mr. BURTCH offered the following resolution: Resolved, That the "Irrepressible conflict" must continue until the rights of women are respected and their slavery abolished. Mr. WITHEY. I move that the resolution be laid upon the- table. The motion was agreed to. Mr. H NDERSON. I understand Mr. BURTCH. I rise to a point of order. My point of order is: that I having.obtained the floor, and not having.yielded it, the motion, to lay my resolution on the table was not -inorder. The PRESIDENT. The Chair does not understand that the gentleman had, the floor. SIGNING THE NEW CONSTITUTION. Mr. HENDERSON. We came here this morning, I suppose, mainly for the purpose of signing the instrument we have been framing. And as we have not more time than is necessary for that purpose, I hope we shall not be detained by the offering of any more resolutions at this time. - I move -that we proceed at once to the business of signing the Constitution. Mr. SAW.YER. I hope the gentleman will withdraw that motion -for a moment. I desire to offer a resolution to -give one of the assistant secretaries, Mr. Collier, a dollar a day additional compensation. Mr. HEWNDERSON. I-cannot withdraw for any more resolutions. The motion of Mr. HENDERSON was then agreed to. Mlr. SUTHEi RLAND was called to the chair by the PRESIDENT. The Secretary proceeded to call the roll of delegates by counties, and the following members then came forward and spned the parchment copy of the Constitution: CHARLES M. CROSWELL, scent of the Convihon DEWITT C. LEACH. PERLEY BILLS, DEWITT C. CHAPIN, JACOB C. SAWYEPR.DANIEL L PRATT, MARTIN P. STOCKWELL, L. J. THOMPSON, HORACE J. SHELDON SIMEON P. ROOT, LEMUEL WOODHOUSh' P. DEAN WARNER, E. B. WINANSWM. SMYTHE FARMER, WM. W. ANDRUS LORENZO P. ALEXANDER, DEXTER MUSSE-HENRY H. COOLIDGE, BELA CHAPMAN CYRUS G. LUCE G. F. CASE, - ASAHEL BROWN, HENRY:. HOLT J. S. BARBER, E. G. MORTON, CHARLES D. HOLMES, WM. CORUBIN E. F. HENDERSON, WM. A- RAEER, GEORGE WILLARD, PERRY H. ESTER, LEVI ALDRICH WM. S. UTLEY ALVAH H. WALKER J. VAN VATLKE7NBURGO, NATHANIELI.DANIELS, EDWARD-P. H}AKNRI JOSAR TURNER, W. M. MOCONNELL/ * 1020 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Thursday, JOSEPH MUSGRAVE, H.L. MILLER HENRY R. LOVELL, J. G. SUTHERLAND. THADDEUS G. SMITH, MARCUS H. MILES SANFORD A. YEOMANS, O. D. CONGER GEORGE W. GERMAIN, EZRA HAZEN FREEMAN C. WATKINS, LEVI TYLER IIULL J. Q. McKERNAN, COMFORT TYLER EUGENE PRINGLE, WM. L. STOUGHTON MARSH GIDDINGS, B.W. HUSTON, JR. DELAMORE DUNCAN, CHARLES DUNCOMBE MILTON BRADLEY, S.H. BLACKMAN SOLOMON L. WITHEY, THOMAS NINDE MILTON C. WATKINS, PETER DESNOYERS LYMAN MURRAY, JOHN W. LONGYEAR. MYRON C. KENNEY, The signing of the Constitution having been concluded, COMPENSATION TO STATE LIBRARIAN. Mr. McKERNAN offered the following resolution: Resoled, That the State Librarian be paid the sum of $100 for his services during the session of the Convention. Mr. STOCKWELL moved that the resolution-be laid on the table. The motion was agreed to. TANKS TO PRESIDENT OF CONVENTION. Mr. McCLELLAND. I have a resolution to offer. My intention was to have made some preliminary remarks. But I will not trespass upon the time of the Convention, under the circumstances, but merely offer the resolution, as follows: Resolved unanimously, That the thanks of this Convention be and they are —hereby tendered to the Hon. CHIIARLES M. CROSWELL, President of the Convention, for the able, dignified and impartial manner in which he has presided over the deliberations of this body. The resolution was unanimously adopted. THANKS TO THE SECRETARIES. Mr. YEOMANS offered the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted: Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be hereby tendered to the Secretary, Thomas H. Glenn, and to his assistants, G. X. M. Collier and T. P. Miles, for the faithfulness and ability with which they have discharged their duties. THANKS TO THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. Mr. KENNEY offered the following resolution, which was adopted: Resolved, That a vote'of thanks Is due, and is hereby tendered to the Sergeant-atArms, and his assistants, for the prompt, efficient and gentlemanly manner in which they have discharged their duties. GENERAL SATISFACTION. Mr. SHEARER offered the following resolution, which was adopted: Resolved, That the very kind and friendly intercourse between all the officers and members of this Cnvention, will be cherished in lively recollection to the last period of life and memory. THANKS TO MESSENGER BOYS. Mr. AT,EXANDER offered the following resolution, which was adopted: Resolved, That the. thanks of the Convention be tendered to the messenger boys for the faithful discharge of their duties, and for their amiable and courteous deportment. THANKS TO OFFICIAL REPORTERS. Mr. MORTON offered the following resolution, which was adopted: Resolved, That the thanks of the Convention are hereby tendered to Messrs. Lord and Brown, for the prompt and accurate manner in which they have discharged their arduous duties as official reporters. THANKS TO CLERGYMEN OF LANSING. Mr. PRATT, offered the following resolution, which was adopted: Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be tendered to the clergymen of Lansing, who have opened our daily sessions with devotional exercises, for the able and faithful manner in which they have performed their duties. THANKS TO CITIZENS OF LANSING. Mr. HOLT offered the following resolution, which was adopted: Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention are due and hereby tendered to the citizens of Lansing, for the numerous marks of kindness and attention received at their hands during the stay of this body in their midst. COMMITTEE TO PREPARE AN ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE. Mr. ALEXANDER. I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the chairman of each of the standing committees, together with the President of this Convention (who shall be chairman,) are hereby constituted a committee to prepare an address to the people on the subject of the numerous and importanht changes in the Constitution we are about to submit to them. I have but a few remarks to make in relation to this resolution. I think, and I doubt not members of the Convention will agree with me, that it is of some importance that the people should be made acquainted with the various reasons for the changes we have made in the present Constitution, and I think my resolution offers the best method to accomplish that object. The question was taken upon the resolution of Mr. ALEXANDER, and it was not adopted. ERASURES AND INTERLINEATIONS IN THE ENROLLED CONSTITUTION. Mr. NINDE, from the committee on arrangement and phraseology, made the following report: The: committee on arrangement and phra, seology, to whom it was referred to examine the Cdnstitutlon engrossed on parchment and to report to the Convention a description of the erasures and interlineations therein, respectfully report that they have so examined the same, and find the following erasures and interlineations therein, namely: In article II, in section seven, line six, the word "not," alter the word "courts," written on an erasure. In section ten, same article, line three, the words "or to seize any person," written on an erasure. Article IV. In section two, line two, the word "such," and the words " as are," erased. Article V. In section two, line seven, the word "after," erased. In same article, section twenty-four, line two, the word "statute," betore the word "laws," interlined. In line four, same section, before the word "jurisdiction," the word "for," written on an erasure. In line flive, section twenty-seven, before the word "exceed," the word "shall," interlined. Article VI. In section fourteen, line three, before the word "committee," the word "the," erased. Article VII, line thirteen, section ten, the word "civil," erased, and the word "circuit," Interlined. In section seven, line three, after the word "residing," the word "therein," interlined. In section fifteen, line three, after the word "any," the word "other," interlinec. Article XIII, section one, line six, before the word "excused," the word "be," interlined. Article XIV, section four, line five, after the word " shall," the word "happen," interlined. In section nine, in lines two and three, the words "to which," erased. Article XVIII, section one, line three, the word shall," written on an erasure. Article XIX, section four, line four, the word "be," written on an erasure. In the Schedule, section three, line three, before the word " State," the words "use of the," erased. In section seventeen, line one, the word "their," erased, and the word "its," interlined. In section eighteen, lines six and seven, the words "the term of " written on an erasure. -- In section twenty-one,- line twenty-five, the words "in the year," interlined after the word "January." In line forty-five, same section, the word "five," written on an erasure. In same section, line fifty-two, the word "three," erased, and the word "four," interlined. In line fifty-two, same section, the words "of article V," interlined, after the word "section."?' In same line, the word "three," erased, and the word "four," interlined. - In line fifty-three, same section, the Roman numerals "XXXIII," changed to "XXXIIII." T. NINDE. Chairnman. The report was received, and laid upon the table, and the committee was discharged. ADJOURNMIENT sine die.-ADDRESS. Mr. VAN VATLKENBURGH. Mr. President, it is with a burdened heart that I rise to address a few words to you, sir, and to the members of this Convention. The thought of our speedy separation, probably for the last time on earth, notwithstanding the anticipated joys of home, sends to my heart a pang of regret, which many of you can appreciate. When solicited to become a candidate for a seat in this Convention, and when elected to this position, I looked forward to it with great solicitude, as a scene of labor and of toil, with little expectation of the happiness I have here enjoyed in the social converse with kindred spirits, who have cheered me in the weary hours, calmed the troubled emotions, rendered the labor a pleasure, and cast the bright rays of sunlight over all this long and otherwise tedious session. I have before remarked that I had never, in my long life, seen a body of men so dignified, so intelligent, so courteous. And I now add, that I think there have been few instances in the history of all the DERATES A ND PROCE.'EDT)S.IG past, in the ecclesiastical, political or g social relations of life, where a body of men so large as this body, with in- s terests so diversified, so extenive, and s so important to adjust, with views and feelings so varied and so conflicting, r gathered here from remote and distant localities of our State, with exacting con- r stituencies, urgent that their views and their interests be consulted-in my opinion, few such bodies of men, so 1 situated, have ever convened anywhere, under any circumstances, that have settled the vexed and important ques- t tions which were broughtthem together, with more wisdom, more cordiality, and with more unanmity, than this Convention. 1 The kind and Christian spirit which has characterized all our counsels, the deference for the opinion of our colleagues, and the manifest desire on all hands to promote the public welfare, must have been very evident to every ] unprejudiced observer. Nay, sir, I most sincerely believe that every member of this Convention has been actuated by an honest and ardent desire to perfect a Constitution that shall transmit to our posterity the inestimable blessings of " life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which we now so eminently enjoy; that our beautiful Peninsular State may retain the high rank she now holds among her-sister States. To me, sir, instead of being a season of unremitted toil, and labor, and perplexity, as I anticipated, it has indeed been "a afeast of fat things,"-a scene of solicitude indeed, but cheered by the counsels and sympathy and coop eration of men whose names are writ ten on my heart, and whose memories will be cherished to my last dying day. I shall ever recall the memories of these days with unspeakable pleasure, and retain in constant verdure the kind attentions and genial courtesies ex tended to me by every member upon this floor. In contrasting'the sanitary condition of the Convention of 1850 with that of this Convention, I have been deeply im pressed with our increased obligations of gratitude to God, for the vigorous health enjoyed by most of the mem bers of this Convention. During its entire session, but two cases have oc curred, to my knowledge, where dele gates have been prevented from occu pying their seats here for any length of time, and those delegates -have now entirely recovered. E 1850, there was constant sickness among the members of the Convention, some confined to their beds here, and others at their homes; indeed the air appeared im pregnated with a malaria that few escaped. Now, health, cheerfulness, and joy have abounded. The happy greeting has daily metus on every side. di In one providence I have noticed a sa striking coincidence in 1850 and at this T ession. An honored and respected o nember of the Convention of 1850, d now a delegate here, was suddenly di summoned to his home to perform the m right of sepulture to a dear son, taken a way in the dew of his youth. He had o our most sincere sympathy and condo- t ence. During our present session, a r venerable and honored member of our w body, also a delegate in the Conven- a tion of 1850, (Mr. DESNOYERS,) was r suddenly called from his labors here to I perform the last sad office of affection a to an idolized daughter, in his own in language to me, "the light and joy of t his house." He has our ardent sym- s pathy. We mingle our tears with his, w and commend him to the Being who t alone can assuage the sorrows of the a heart.. With one other exception, I know not that any have been called to_ mourn the death of friends. b In the Constitutional Convention of a 1835, there were 89 members, of whom e] 20 are now living; two of whom have h seats in this Convention, Governor t MCCLELLAND and Mr. BELA CHAPMAN. a The population of our State was then t 100,000. Now it is one million, or an s increase of one thousand per cent., c while our material resources have in- a creased in about as great a proportion. In the Convention of 1850, there were 100 members, of whom more than one- t fourth have passed away, while eight of d their number are members of this Con- s vention. In the kind providence of God, I still remain among you. Much of the success and.the happy termination of our labors is owing to c the diligent, the patient, the prompt, and the impartial manner in which you, t sir, have discharged the arduous duties of your office. And we shall ever re- member you with profound respect and ( esteem. The Secretaries of our Convention are also entitled to our high regard for their unremitted diligence and perseverance in the discharge of their 1 onerous labors. And we are proud to know that the correctness and fidelity with which our gentlemanly reporters have discharged their mission will 1 be a matter of record in all the future, and need no commen- ] dation at our hands. We fully ~ endorse their ability, and wish them God speed. And what shall we say; more? Our diligent, faithful and at tentive Sergeant-at-Arms, with his ever watchful assistants, have won for them-; selves golden opinions from the mem bers of this Convention, and will be, remembered by us with high regard. Our Postmaster has transmitted faith fully and frequently the messages of love to our Cherished homes, and scharged his duties to the universal tisfaction. Long may he prosper. the kind and courteous reporters r the public press, we are much inebted for their forbearance to our iniscretions and our follies. And our essenger boys, like the guardian agels, have watched and anticipated r wishes, and obeyed our calls, with e fleetness of the antelope. We shall member them with deep interest, and atch their future with great solicitude ad with high hopes. I shall especially rmember them, each and all of them, as shall frequently look upon their amible countenances, grouped together, i the beautiful photograph with which hey have presented me; and I shall end up a mental prayer that God will watch over them, guide them safely Lrough the intricate mazes of this life, ad at last crown them His. Indeed, Mr. President, I think we may challenge the world to produce a ody of men as large as this body, with 1 its appointments,; who -have disharged their duties more faithfully, armoniously, and successfully than his Convention. Permit me, sir, to ssure the members of this Convenion, one and all, of my high peronal regard, and to extend to them a ordial invitation to visit me, with an 0ssurance of the great pleasure it would afford me to welcome them to my home and my fireside, that we may ogether recall the memories of these lays which have passed so swiftly and o happily away. And now, before I close, permit me, sir, to make a suggestion which I know will find a ready response in the breast of every delegate on this floor; that is, before our final adjournment, before the President shall dissolve this Convention, that we unite our voices in 3inging the Doxology, in, the tune of Old Hundred,- an appropriate act of worship and of praise to our God, the Almighty Governor of the Universe, and the Disposer of all events, for His kind care over us these many days now past, and for the happy result to which he has brought our labors. Now, Mr. President, I move that this Convention adjourn sine die. Mr. SHEARER. I endorse most heartily and cordially the high and noble sentiments of the gentleman from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. ) May his days be long in the land, and when he goes down to his last resting place, may he go down like a shock of corn fully ripe. Gentlemen of the Convention, I thank you all for your courtesy and kindness to me at all times. Probably we shall never- all meet again. -But I should be glad at any time to see any of you atmy house in Plymouth, and I Will endeavor to 1021 AugtLat 22, 1867. I-' V - O I.- xI- L!''- -' - h.-... I make'your stay with- me.a pleasant one. Mr. BURTCH. I desire;to tender my thanks-to the members of this Convention for their kindness to me. The question was then taken on the motion to adjourn sine die, and it was agreed to. Before announcing the result of the vote, The PRESIDENT'said: The gentleman from Kalamazoo, Rev. Mr. BraDLEY, will now perform the closing religious exercises of this Convention. MIr. BRADLEY. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, I regard it as a privilege and an honor to engage in the services-to which you have referred. I am not insensible to the solemnities of the hour. Our work is done. In the care of our Heavenly Father, health and-life have been preserved. WVe go out from this Hall to our homes; the people will judge of our work and pass their verdict upon it. Our constituents are a Christian people, and they will regard with approbation our recognition of religious obligations. For the hundred days of our sessions, we have bowed at the altar, seeking wisdom from above. It is now our privilege to commend ourselves to His guidance and keeping for all our future. For me, personally, it has beep a rare opportunity to be associated with this body of noble men; men who will ever be true to the State and to God. I thank you, Mr. President, and the members of the Convention, for your uniform kindness toward me, coming as I did from a profession not generally represented in such bodies. This is the farewell hour. ~Hereafter, Christianity shall be our life, and the life of our commonwealth. As we pass on and close up our-earthly course, at noon, or late in the evening of life, may we have the consciousness of the Divine approval, in the testimony of a good conscience. Mr. BRADLEY, then came forward to the desk of the:President, and read the following passages of Scripture: They that trust the Lord shall be as Mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth forever. As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the Lord is round about his people, from henceforth, even forever. . * * * Behold how good and pleasant it- is for brethren to d-well together in unity. ~ *. * *. * Rejoice evermore.: Pray-without ceasing. In everything give thanks; lor this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is, good. -. - - Abstain from all appearance of evil. And the very God of peace sanctityyou' wholly; and pray (~d- your whole spirit, -and -raoul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. Brethren, pray for us Prayer by Mr. BRADLEY, as fol lows: Our Heavenly Father, we bow in Thy presence, on this solemn farewell occa sion. Now, as we close the sessions of this Convention, we desire to praise Thy holy name for Thy kindness unto us in the days in which we have been engaged in our work here. We thank Thee that Thou hast regarded us- in tender compassion, preserving our health, giving unto us strength and wis dom from above, ordering our steps, and ordering in-regard to our.work, so that we have been enabled to reach the conclusion of it so unitedly, with so little controversy, and no ill feeling in any heart. And now, Heavenly Father, as we go out to our homes, as we enter again upon our ordinary duties and occupations, we pray that Thou wouldst go with us, with Thy sheltering, overruling and guiding care. We pray that Thou wouldst be with us now in the toils and burdens of life, in our further anxieties; and if we are bowed down hereafter under any trial or disappointment, wilt Thou sustain and uphold us by Thy power, and by the manifestation of Thy grace. We pray that Thy presence may now rest upon every member of this Con vention; that Thou wilt spare them, as shall be for Thy pleasure and Thy glory; that Thou wouldst watch over their families and kindred, and prepare them all for Thy will, for the resposibilities of life, for the privileges that shall be granted to them, and for the enjoyment of all their opportunities. We pray that Thou wouldst so order that Thy name may be honored by us all; that when we act as citizens, we may act as Christian citizens, in all the circumstances of life in which we may be placed. We thank Thee, Heavenly Father, for the good fellowship which has prevailed in this Convention, for the kindness which has been manifested by the members towards each other. And now, though we desire to go, yet we regret to part; and we pray that a parting blessing may be given unto us by our Father above. And we ask Thy blessing upon our constituents, the citizens of this commonwealth, that they may receive the work of our hands, and approve of it, so far as it deserves their approbation, and that they'may sustain it as electors and as citizens; that, under this Constitution which has now been framed, this State may become more and more prosperous, m all its mate rial, its educational and its religious interests.' Heavenly Father, wilt Thou watch over each.member here; wilt Thou watch over all our families; watch over our commonwealth in its variousinterests. Prosper us in all our ways, in all our institutions, in our future legislation, ancld in everything connected with the growth, integrity, strength and prosperity of our people. We pray, Heavenly Father, that we may build upon sure foundations; that we may receive the principles of:Christianity as giving life to the individual, and life to the commonwealth, and thus prepare us to honor God as our Creator, prepare us to honor Christ as our Savior, and the Holy Spirit as our Sanctifier. And finally, when our earthly work is done, and we are called to passover the river, wilt Thou receive us among thy people in a purer and holier life, for Jesus' sake, amen! The members of the Convention -then rose, and, with the audience, united in sinmging, to the tune. of "Old Hundred," the words " Praise God, from whom all blessings flow, Praise Him- all creatureshere below; Praise Him-above, ye Heavenly:Host; Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost." The PRESIDENT then addressed the Convention as follows: GENTLEMEN OF THE CONvENTION —As I am soon to pronounce the words that dissolve our official relations, I should be dead to all feeling, did I not avail myself of this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and thanks for the invariable kindness extended to me by- every member of this Convention during the time that I have occupied this Chair. If my humble endeavors to well and faithfully discharge the duties of this trust, have in any measure proved a success, I am not insensible to the fact that it is largely due to your forbearance, cooperation and: generous support. With sincere satisfaction, I congratulate you upon the good order and harmony -that have characterized your proceedings, and marked your intercourse with each other. With honest differences of'opinion, strong convictions, and spirited debates, your discussions have not been marred by unkind words, offensive personal allusions, or bitter feuds. As you break -.up these associations, and turn your steps toward home and the loved ones there, you will bear with you the pleasant reflection that, however you may have differed, politically or otherwise, you have disagreed in kindness and parted in friendship. While I bear witness to the faithfulness, industry and zeal with which you have discharged the responsible duties devolved upon you-at this oppressive CONSTITUTION.AT,. CONVENTION. 10221". . Th,.urs.4y.,. _ August 22', 1867. DEBA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A~~~~~~D ~ ~~~~~ 1O2~~~~~~~~~ season of the-year, I cannot be satisfied without expressing my commendation of the work you have accomplished. In framing a Constitution, settling. questions affecting great interests, it cannot reasonably be expected that the work will in every respect be acceptable to all. I do not claim that your labors have resulted in the formation of a perfect instrument; but I cheerfully declare, that in my judgment, the Constitution you are now about to submit to the intelligent people of this State for their ratification, is taken as a whole, a decided improvement upon the Constitution now in force. As far as seemed practicable, you have preserved the form and language of the existing Constitution. Innovation is not always improvement, nor is change synonymous with excellence. Enlightened reason and the stability of our institutions demand that fundamental provisions of the organic law which have proved satisfactory and become settled and understood by a course of judical decisions, should not be disturbed for light and transient causes. But the circumstances of the State, and the spirit and improvement of the age have demanded changes. Since the Constitution of 1850 was adopted, the State has more than doubled in population. Its wealth has increasedfive-fold. By the energy and enterprise of its people, it has become great in material value, while its humane institutions, its University, the first at the West and rivaling the foremost at the East, its model schools and school system, and its numerous churches, bespeak advancement in all that elevates and ennobles man. With freedom of thought and freedom of labor, with active brains and loyal hearts, truly the State has grown into majestic proportions, and now presents one of the grandest developments of progress in the history of the na tion. Although in her youth, she has demanded that her Constitution be pruned and the dead branches removed, that she may have still more capacity for improvement and growth. To you this important and responsible work has been assigned. I believe that a satisfied constituency will pronounce it well done. Time will not permit me to refer to all the changes you have made. I will speak of but one. We have recently witnessed the sublime spectacle of millions rising in arms to put down treason and rebellion. The ground has shaken with the tread of mighty armies. Freedom and oppression marshaled their forces and struggled for the mastery of a Continent. The loyal North, pouring upon the South like an avalanche, vindicated the integrity of the Republic, planted its banner in triumph over every inch of its soil, and through victory secured peace. In this contest, Michigan bore an honorable part. When the first alarm sounded, her sons rushed to the rescue. On many a hard-fought field, they exemplified their valor, and proved that the leaping blood of the fathers had not curdled in the veins of the sons. Some came home maimed and wounded. Such there are here to-day, members of this CQnvention, bearing on their bodies honorable scars that attest their patriotism and valor. Others pined and starved in gloomy prisons under a treatment worse than the barbarity of the savages, while others on bloody battle-fields "sleep the sleep that knows no waking." The memory of their heroic deeds, the lessons of this terrible war, all the blood and treasure that it has cost us, remind us that the safety of a State lies in a strict adhe rence to righteousness and justice. That nation that perpetuates oppres sion shall perish from the earth. From their graves our illustrious dead appeal to us to destroy every foot-print of caste, to annihilate every vestige of that great wrong that has disturbed the peace and threatened the existence and perpetuity of the nation, to reassert the principle of the Declaration of Independence, the brotherhood of man, and to re-organize the State upon the granite basis of equal rights and justice for all. With the new Constitution sanctioned by the people, this much desired work will be accomplished. The wrongs of prejudice and caste will be swept from every section of our laws, and throughout this grand Commonwealth never more shall man be deprived of the rights of manhood by reason of class, color or creed. As we prepare to take leave of each other, I am reminded that, in the ordinary course of human events, we shall all probably never meet again. In this State, two Constitutional Canventions have preceded this one. Members of each, full of honor and years, are associated with us. Their long experience, their words of true wisdom, have contributed greatly to guide us to correct conclusions. Many of their former associates have passed within the vail. Long may they be spared to witness the prosperity and share the blessings of a State they have helped to create. Inspired anew with love of country, of justice and truth, may we all go from this:Hall —!lydetermined that our efforts shall promte the right, and ever tend to advance: the public good. Gentlemen, from the bottom of my heart I thank you for all your kindness. Health, happiness, prosperity, attend you. I wish you, a speedy and safe return to your families and friends. I pray that He who holds us in the hollow of His hand, through whose goodness we have been kept during our session from severe sickness or death, may preserve your lives, and lead you in ways of pleasantness -and paths of peace. I have only now to pronounce the Constitutional Conven tion of 1867 adjourned without day. August 2 1867., DEBATES AXD P11009EDIXGS. iO23 I ERRATA. tn remarks of Mr. LoGYuAnR, Vol. II, page 654,third column, end of first paragraph, "Even the forum is not in dispute," should read, "Even the form of the question is not in dispute." In remarks of Mr. FPARER, Vol. 11, page 865, second column, end of second paragraph, "I shall vot for this amendment," should read, "I shall vote against this amendment." In VoL II, page 866, first column,-eighth paragraph, "The'amendment of the committee of the whole was concurred in," should read, "The amendment of the cmmittee of the whole was not concurred in." It I-1 DI,. ABSENTEES, resolution in regard to publishing in journal, names of,.......Vol. II, 3 ACCUSED PERSONS, rights of,... Vol. I, 595, 607, 609, 610 Vol. II, 246, 248. ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE upon new Constitution, reso lution relative to,.................. ol. II, 1020 ADJOURNMENT OVER of Convention,.......Vol. I, 24, 78 Vol. I, 545, 546. ADJOURNMENT OVER of Legislature..........V. ol. Ii, 81 ADJOURNMENT sine die of Convention,..Vol. II, 600, 1020 AFTERNOON SESSIONS, resl'n relative to,..... Vol. I, 231, 253 Vol. II, 150. AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE......VoL I, 92; Vol. II, 440, 483 495, 513. communication from Secretary of State Board of Agriculturerelative to.,.........Vol. I, 229 AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY, Central Michigan, exhibition of,...... Vol..:01I, 583 AGRICULTURE, STATE BOARD OF, called on for informa tion............................ Vol. I, 92 communication from,:...............VoL I, 229 ALDRICH, LEVI, a delegate from Cass county, appeared and took his seat,.........Vol. I,. 1 appointed a member of committee on report ing...............................VoL I, 5 appointed a member of committee on corpora tions other than municipal,.... Vol.I, 31 appointed a member of committee on sup plies........................... VoL I, 31 motions, etc., by,....Vol. I, 50, 87,128, 296,437, 471 534, 613; Vol. II, 163, 209, 238, 246, 337, 442, 972 993. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) report on mileage presented by,.......... Vol. I, 296 resolution offered by, relative to printing lists of standing committees,..... Vol. I, 43 resl'n relative to postage of delegates,....Vol. I, 124 resolution relative to accounts of official report ers............................. Vol. II, 972 remarks by — on adjournment over,. o.............Vol. II, 546 homestead exemptions,...............Vo. I, 521 legislative departm't, passage of article on, Vol. lI, 853 libraries, City and township,..........VoL II, 423 military duty, persons liable to,........Vol. II, 235 postage of delegates,..................Vol I, 124 removal from office.............Vol. I, 350, 352 reporters, employment of,............Vol. I, 17 salaries.........................Vol. II, 824 schools, support of................ol. II, 300 ALEXAND]ER, LORENZO P., a delegate from Ber rien county, appeared and took his seat...........Vol I, 1 appointed a member of committee on finance and taxation,.................;..Vol.T, 31 appointed a member of committee on corpora tions other than municipal,..........Vol. I, 31 Vol. 2-No. 129. ALTEXANDER, LORENZO P.,- Continued. motions, etc., by,...........Vol.-I,25, 47,91, 111 - 135, 136, 195, 297, 340, 358, 398, 407, 438, 505 506, 520, 548, 610, 612; Vol. II, 102, 237, 240 250, 277, 314, 326, 366, 398, 415, 426, 433, 452 513, 516, 546, 547, 550, 598, 599, 615, 712, 713 738, 935, 970, 993, 1002. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) resolutions offered by, relative to -hour of daily meeting,.............Vol. I, 4; Vol. II, 547, 572 resolution relative to popular election of Speak- - er of House of Representatives,......Vol.. I, 73 resolution relative to notaries public,. Vol. I, 76 resolution relative to recess of Convention-, offer-. ed by...........Vol. I, 93 resolution calling on State printer fr list of newspapers, offered by,................Vol. I, 124 resolutions relative to journal and debates, Vol. I, 557 Vol. I, 969. resolution limiting debate, offered by,.. Vol., 551 resolutions relative toadjourmnent sine die, offer ed by,.........,.Vol.!I,600, 1002 resolution of thanks to messenger boys, Vol. II, 1020 remarks by, on_ adjournment over and recess,... Vol. I, 93, 136, 137 428, 432, 436, 440, 614, 615; Vol. II, 546. Agricultural College,...... Vol. II, 510, 512 amendment and revision of the Constitution, ar ticle onII... o 1, 607 appeals from decisions of boards of super -:visors,.........................Vol. I, 502 assessment of property at cash value,.... Vol. I, 276 277, 292. city representat'n on boards of supervisors, Vol.1I, 409 Constitution, voting upon new,...... Vol. II, 957 county buildings, etc., taxes for,....... Vol. I, 421 debate, limitation of,...............Vol. II, 551 deserters, etc., disfranchisement of, Vol. II, 291, 778 dueling, disfranchisement for,........Vol. II, 293 electors, qualifications of,..........Vol. II, 253, 254 exemptions.....................Vol. II, 736 Governor, eligibility for,................. Vol. I, 338 hall, use of............................Vol. I, 196 homestead exemptions,................Vol. I, 521 hourof meeting,..........Vol. I, 152; Vol. II, 572 Jameson's Constitutional Convention, resolution to furnish..........................Vol. I, 50 journal, printing of................... Vol. I, 557 leave of absence, granting,....Vol. II, 237, 339, 545 570, 599, 600. Librarian, State, pay of,........Vol. II, 999, ~1000 libraries, city and township.........Vol. 1, 422 liquortraffic,....Vol. Ii, 388, 390, 397, 518, 520, 521 679, 686. military duty, persons liable to,....Vol.I, 234, 235 236. municipal officers, election of. Vol. II, 299, 300 . s 0. - k -- 1 0 ram - 6 - - INDE_ ALEXANDER, ATONZO P.,-Continued. remarks by, on postage of delegates,...............Vol. I, printing, etc., for State,..............Vol. II, private property taken for public use, Vol I, Vol. II, 249, 250,-579, 582, 585, 592, 593. quorum, rule relative to,..............Vol. II, railroad from Detroit to Upper Peninsuiar, reso. lution relative to,.................. I, removal of officers,...................V01. I,. return of taxable property,............... ol. I, roads, vacaroltion or alteration of,.. Vol. II, salaries,....... Vol' II, 621, 901, 949, 988, school syste m,.......Vol. I,t-304, 400, 414, 514 sessions of the Legislature, ISVol.- II, 373, 708, 919, state' officers, postponement of article on, Vol. I, SRiffrage- for Npeople of color,.......... Vol. I II, suffrage forewomen,.................... Vol. X II, - township officers,'.................,..,Vol. I, ALIENs, rights of,......... Vol. I, 223, 612; Vol. II,' 246, AMENDMENT AND REVISION OF (ONSTITuTION, -commit tee on,.................ol. I,'9, report of com imittee on, V.... Vol., II, communication from Secretary Of State. refer red to,. i,.. Vol.., resolution of instruction t o, - Vo. I, AMENDMENT AND REVISION OF' CONS'SxTGTION, article rel ative to, reported from standing corn, Vol. II, considered in committee -f the whole,..Vol.., II, considered in Convention,............V ol. II, 760, referred to committee on arrangement and phra seology,............... Vol iI, 760, reported from committee on arrangement Sand phraseology,. -.'................... -..!Vol. II, passed,...-......... II, -AMENDMENTS, Constitutional, submission of, by Leg islatute,................... Vol. II, 605, 760, AZiESNDMEIT TO CONSTITUTION. o 1850, resolution - of inquiry relative to votes on,....'...,.... Vol. I, communication from Secretary of State relative to,........................... - -Vol. I, - ANI)US, WM. W., delegate from Hatcrb county, appeared and took his seat,........... Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on military department,.................... V-ol I, appointed a member -of committee on bill of rights~........................... Vol I, appointed a member of committee on preserva — tion fof order,.......... -.. Vo-l, I, -motions, &c., by, ~ol. HI, 151, 182,-223, 28-9, 479, _.petitions presented by, (See Petitfons.) -: LANNUAL SEssIOSs of the L~egislature, (See.1)egistatu~re. ) APPEALS from- board of auditors of-Wayne county, (See Wayne county.) --- APPEALS from boards of super-visors, (-See Super, visors, boards of.) - A PlR0PRIATION BILLS,................ - -.. —.- -Vol. II, APRroPRIATIONs. mn aid -of schools, resolution-relative to,. -................. Vo1. I, -A~BXTRATOBs, resolution relative to decisions of,: V-ol. I, A Ms, right to bear,.-............. V~oL I, 6:11; Sol. Ii, AiREANGEMENT AND PHRASEOLOGY, committee on,' ho. I. 13, 31. — resol-utions of instruction to, Vool. I,:. 9.2; ha., II, reports from, Vi. I,'-122, 141, 683;i.~o1. II,'280,' - 383, 571-, 572, 71l, 765, 796, 832,0 854, 936, A~RRANGEHENT OF ARTICLES in the Constitution, ~ol. It, Ai~TIaC~,ADOrTiON OF, yeas and nays-to be taken on,................ol.-I x:160, -On third reading, to be printed,............ Vol. II, /LRTCLES, THIRD READING OF, special order for, Vol. II, ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY........... VoL 1, 76, 276, (See State Board of -Equalization.) TTAINIDER, BILLS OF, expost facto laws, etc., prohib ited,........ Vol. 1, 591; Vol. II, 119, 247, ATTORNEY GENERAL, term of office of,...... Vol. T, place of office of,......................Vol. I, r: compensation of......... Vol. II, 609, 615, 795, A TORNEY, PROSECUTING, of county, (See County officers.) AUDITOR GENERAL, resolutions calling upon, for in formation,...............Vol. I, 42,124, 142, communication from, relative to expenses of office of..........................Vol. I, communication from, relative to expenses of Legislature,......... aVol. I, communication from, relative to corporations paying specific taxes............... 1oL I, 191, communication from, relative to appropriations for State Normal School,.............. Vol. I, term of office of,................Vol. I, place of office of............. Vol. I, discontinuance of office of,....oL. I,.550, 562, compensation of,......... Vol. II, 609, 615, to personally superintend his office,.... Vol., II, eAUDITORS OF WAYNE COUNTY, board of, (See Wayne County.) - = AUDITORs, STATE, organization and p-owers:of -board of,..............!o *d com* Vol. 1, 555, 557, AvERY, CHARLES, appointed messenger,......V ol. I, BAIL, EXCESSIVE, prohibited............... Vol. I, BAr, rights of accused persons to,............VYol. 1, BALLOT, elections to be by............. ol. II, 289, BAaNGOR, township elections of.............. Vol. I, pBANK NOTES, registry and redemption of,...... Vol. I, - 168. -- B sANS, Sincorporation of,...............Vol. I, liability of officers and stockholders, (See Indi vidual liability,.) insolvent, bills-holders of, (See Bill-holders.) suspension of payment by,...........Vol. I, BANKS, NATIONAL, taxation of,.... ol. I, 186; Vol. II, BAR, admission to........o. -....... Vol. II, BARBER, JULIUS S., a delegate from Branch county," appeared and took his seat............. Vol. I, appointed a memberember of committee on corpora tions other than municipal,.............Vol. I, appointed'a -member of committee on miscellation oodneous provisions,.Vol. I, motions, etc., by,... VoL I, 322, 425, 435, petitn p520, 606; Vol. II, 1, 124, 165, 181, 598, 600, 620, 678, 710, 733, 759, 811, 946, 1006. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) resolutions offered by, relative to granting leave APPAL frof -absence,......... — ol. II; - remarks-by, on- - -- 0 adjournment over and recess,... Vol. i, 426, 437, 614, ~; amendment and revision of the Constitution, ARBTRA S rarticle on,..............Vol. IT, 605, 607, corporations, granting and repealing charters of,.............................-.1, I, - counties, organization of new,......V...~ol. I, dams, construction of,..............ol. II, debates, distribution of, V..ol. II, English language, preservation of laws, etc., in, - 1.......................VoL I, 577, Governor's ineligibility to other offices,,.. VoL. I, hour of meeting,....V ol. II, o ice water for Convention,.Vol I, INDEX. 1026 .546. .281 27 373 613 571 . 387. 550 824 458''t 350 319 101 989 .516. .920 . 606 718 775 127 842 297 92 154 279 476 550 550 512 1625 -823 31 571 66. 66 571 605 851 .561, 47. 6io 609 791 374149 852 88.2' 852 146 852 27 168 182 828 65 15 31 13 31 31 .128 791 .31 500 605 547 . 8 167 1 76 246 1 q 609 215 381 593 970 578 368 150 298 330 281 995. 936 167 84, -................'''' —/.I[ &x i'2 BAIRBER, JULIUS S.,-BEontinued.:. remarks by, on- - oath ofoffice, constitution......... Vol. II, pardoning power of Governor,......... Vol. 1, preamble of the.o..stitution, V.ol. II, pr ivat e property tak en f or public use, Vol. II, 590, quorum,rulerelative to,.................. ol., II, school system,..... Vol. II, 469, sessions of the Legislature,............ Vol. II, State officers, postponement of article on, Vol. I, suffrage for-people of color,........... Vol. II, B aEmIAL SESSIfoS of th e Le gisature, (See Legislature.) BLL OF RIGHTS, committee on, e........... Vol. I,. 9, resolution of: instruction to,............ Vol. I, sections of Constitut'n of 1850, referred to, Vol. I, 75.: - report from,.....................".... V ol. I,BILL Or RIGHTS, article on, reported -from standing — committee,................. v......;. v~ol. I, considered in committee of the whole, Vol. I, 587, Vol.'II, 3. - -- reported from committee of the whole,. - ol. II;, considered in Convention,.... Vol. II, 239, 240, referred to committee -on arrangement and phra seology,.o..V o.. II, 250, reported from committee on arrangement and phraseology,.. -.. Vol II, passed,...:.-. Vol. II, BILL-HOLDERS of insolvent banks, preference of, Vol. I, BILLS, MTRODUC~On OF, in Legislature...-. ol. II, 81, 721, 724, 1006. - passage of, by Legislature,....... Vol. I1, 88, appropriation, (See Appropriation bills.) BTTTLS, PERLEY, a delegate from Lenawee county, appeared and took his seat,'. Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on order of proceeding,' -'........ Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on finance and taxation,,...'............. oL. I, appointed a member of committee on intoxica ting liquors,....... V..... I,. motions, etc., by,..Vol. T. 295, 296, 451, 509,:536, 606, 610; Vol. II, 7, 112, 120, 121, 181,-232, 453, 466, 550, 706, 961, 962, 963 petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) report from committee on intoxicating liquors presented by,......., Vol. T.,596;:Vol. II, resolut'n relative to reference of resolut'ns, Vol.: I, remarks by, on->- ~ adjournment over and recess,..-....ol. I, 29, 4:4:1, 614, 616.. -age of judges,...............Vol. II, 560,: amendment and revision of the Constitution, article on,......::......... -~0o.; II, 851,: appeals fIrom b'ds of supervisors, ~ol. I, 44:5, 4:82 assessment of prroertiy at cash value, ~~ol. I,: 277, Auditor-General, office of, eta.,,.....~. ol.-I, 567,0 chief justice as regent of University,........ ~ol, II,~ civil and religious rights,.....Vol. I, committees, appointment: of standing,...~Yol- I, 12, 14:. Constzitution, voting Upon new,.........Vol. II!, -contestants in; Legislaimre,..........Vo..0, IT, -corporations? granting and repealing charters of,,,.........,...'Vol: I, 149,: 171, 1262, counties, organiz~ation of new,..........,...o... V:I, county seats, removal of,...........Vol. I, debates and journals,:... ~.ol.!;'62; ~ol!I, 3, denomfinational sc]/0ols,.........:..,....... Vol. II, ;-diagram. of the hall,'.......:e.Yol. II,239, — BILLS, PERLEY,'Continued.:. —-.. remarks by, on division of powers of government,.. Vol. I, 100, drains and ditches, construction,.. Vol. II, 596, electors, qualifications of,......Vol. I, 286, 779,. English language, preservation of laws, etc., -uoru, re................. 11..Vol. II, 577, examinations for admission to the bar, Vol. II, 831. :t fines,.etc., accruing to the State,........Vol. II, ufreedom of speech and press,.... Vol. 1,. B homestead exemptions............Vol. I, 521, jury, trial by,................... Vol. I, 592, 593, legislative department, article on,. Vol. II, 856, Leg., compensation of members f,... Vol. II, 63 Legislature, qualification of members of, Vol. It, 23. Legislature, pay of presiding officers,. Vol. II, libraries, township and city,.. Vol. II, 427, 474, liquor traffic, Vol. II, 199, 200, 201, 330, 389, -1 392, 395, 518, 520, 522, 523, 525, 549, 558, 657, 660, 661, 686, 688, 865, 866, 872, 873, 879, 880, 904, 907, 908, 909, 911, 914, 915, oath of office, constitutional,...V..ol. II, 574, organization of townships, cities, etc.,..Vol. I, preamble of the Constitution,.....Vo. 1,-.:.iI, printing, etce. for State,.......... Vol. I,-90, 94, -V 7 private property for public use,.. Vol. II, 4, 5, 585, 587, 592, 742, 74 -; railroads, municipal aid to,.... Vol. II, 137, 170, religious societies, lands held by.....Vl. II, rules of Convention,............... Vol. I, 33, 52, :o t salaries,............. Vol. 11II, 802, 805, 819, sessions of the Legislature, Vol. IT, 50, 52, 53, 55, appeared and took his eat...........VoL 1, 1 sinking fund...Vol.,1,29 s'nk'ng fund,........................ol. I, slavery, prohibition of.................VoL I, State officers, etc.,.................... Vol. II, suffrage for people of color,........... Vol. II, suitors, rights of,..................VoL I, supervisors, etc.,.Vol. I, 464; Vol. II, 312, 313, taxation, uniform rule of,.Vol. I, 274, taxes, collection of specific, Vol., L, township officers,............. Vol. I, 120, 121, BIRNEY, JAMES, a delegate from Bay county,. :io appeared and took his seat.......... o I, appointed a member of committee on order of p proceeding.. ~.Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on executive er department.,'. ~..........Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on arrange ment and phraseology, Vol., - motions, etc., by,.....Vol. I, 1, 3, 31, 39,.175, 282, amen n -322, 366; VoL. II, 158, 250, 256, 276, 277, -327, 358, 398, 522, 568, 961,;991. ::petitions: presented by, (See Petitions.) report from committee on executive department, : -:presented'by.VoL 1,..V reports: from committee on arrangement and civil aphraseology, presented by,.....V ol. II, 571, resolution offered by, relative to order of proceed -1l, 1.,.V..ol, 4I resolution relative to municipal indebted ness,i..............L e..slatue. n.Vol.:1 I, resolution for separate submission of' liquor ::Vl q14,11uestion,...............~:.Vol.1 II, -remarks:by,. on- -_ adjournment over, etc.,.....Vol. I, 137; Vol. II, d2 afternoon sessions,.........~.Vol./1, -'Agricultural College,.Vol.11l, II,5 06, i chaplains in the Legislature.Vol.11, H, I INII)FIX., fa il,:'i.l...,;.. io7, 576 -345 934 591 571 . 55 561 718 '107 597 781 578 830 950 590 533 594 886 70 1 19, .31 .42 65 398 398 607 364 481 391 559 877 916 . 575 1 360 368 584 16. 762 762 383 762 168 365 ,178 841 53 . 821 720 2.99 612 9.52 714 608 - . 318 .275 270 130 366 1 5 31 31 - 591 %237 1 5 614 72 31 5,,98 .31 310. .310 561 852 484 284 570 482 590. -10 123 572 4 955 76 266 504 469 970 727 240. 23i, 875.. 556 253 506 375 io28 BIRNEY, JAMES,- Continued. remarks by, on co mittees, standing, app ointment of,. V. 2;ol.!, 1t, V11, 147. cdrporatibns, granting and repbaling charters o14,. 179, 240l, 17,1261I, 2136, 21, 2i8, debate, 7mittion of, V o,................. ol. II, debates an'd journals,. 8, 7Vol.,,21,9,2 denominational schools, Vol. II, elections, purity of,.................... Vol. II, electors, qualifications of,.... Vol. II, 259, 265, 271, 284, 288. executive power, definition of,-....... Vol. I, Governor, eligibility of,..................Vol. I, Governor, ineligibility to legislative appoint ment,.... Vol. I, en,...............................o.I Governor, length of term of,....Vol. T, 329, 334, Governor as commander-in-chief,... VoL L. 340, 362, 363, 364, 365. Governor, manner of electing,...... Vol. I, 338, judges, term of circuit and probate,.... ol. II, legislative department, article on,Vol. II, 852, 856, Librarian, State, pay of,............... Vol. II, Lieutenant Governor, duties of,.Vol. II, liquor traffic,..Vol. II, 201, 204, 205, 387, 388, 393, 394, 396, 533, 534, 535, 536, 852, 873, 877, 892, 912, 922. military duty, persons liable to,...Vol. II, 235, oath of office, constitutional,........... Vol. I), ~ orga,nization of townships, cities, etc.,...Vol. II, pardoning power,.Vol. I, 343, 344, 346; Vol. II, preamble of the Constitution,.. Vol. II, 931, 932, presiding officers of the Leg., pay of,. Vol. II, private property taken for public use, Vol. II, 580, 583. postage of delegates,........ Vol. I, 24, 44, 45, quorum, rule relative to,....Vol. II, railroads, municipal aid to, Vol. I, 242; Vol. II, 167,175, 176, 178, 179, 208, 230. removal of officers,'..,.... Vol. I, 348, 349, 353, 356, 359, 361. rules of Convention,........ Vol. I, 39, 55,.142, salaries,....................... Vol. II,: 899, school system,..................... VoL II, soldiers' monument, Detroit,........ Vol. I,' 253, taxes, collection of specific,...........~ol. I, township officers,................. Vol. I, 121, treason against the State,............... Vol. I' BLA_CKM3AN, SAMUEL1 E., a delegate from Van Bu ren county, appeared and took his seat,....... Vol. T. -appointed a member of commrittee on impeach, ment and removals from office,..... ol. I, appointed a member of committee on arrange -ment and phraseology,:....... Vol. I, motions, etc., by,....Vol. I, 26, 39, 60,,63, 73, 111, 197, 242, 273, 275, 278, 281, 298, 306, 392, 407, 450,: 550, 607, 610, 616; Vol. II, I, 46, 59,1i01, 146, 179, 240, 251, 257, 261, 26:4, 277, 280, 287, 310, 322, 329, 367, 390, 416, 4:19, 527, 54:7, 705, 724,- 731, 733, 740, 825, 890, 891, 923, 953, 962, 995, 1006, 1008. petitions presented by, ('See Petitions.) report from Committee on impeachment and re movals from office, presented bys,..... Vol. I, resolution offered bys, relative to school sys tem,.,.....,:... -.,:..i..: ol, I, - resl'n relative to extra copies of debates,'~0l. I, resolution relative to disposition o f fines- andx forfeitures,..... -.. ~:Y.:.... ol. T. BLACKMAN, SAMIJJ.",T. H.,-,Continued. resl'n relative to publication of debates, Vol.1, 2 resolution relative topay of delegates during ab sence,....... Vol. II, 1005 resolution relative to pay for enrolling Constitu tion,.. Vol. II, 1019 remarks by, on — accused persons, rights of,.. Vol. I, 609; Vol.II, 246 adjournment over, etc.,....Vol. I, 139, 430, 436, 437 age of judges,...... -Vol.II, 561 agricultural college,.Vol. II, 506, 513 agricultural fair, invitation to attend, Vol. I, 583, 584 amendment and revision of the Const'n, Vol. II, 852 appeals from decisions of boards of super visors,...Vol. I, 460, 463, 484, 490, 494, 495, 502 Auditor General, office of, etc.,.. Vol. I, 571, 578, 580 auditors, board of State,..... Vol. I, 558 bills, introduction of, in the Leg.,... Vol. II, 82, 83 boundaries, article on,.................. Vol. I, 158 canvassers, State board of,............. Vol. I, 589 chaplains in the Legislature,............Vol. I, 73 civil and' religious rights,.............. V ol. I, 589 Const'n, voting upon new,....Vol. 11, 957, 959, 960 Constitution, signing of.................. Vol. II, -1014 contestants in the Legislature. Vol. II, -77, 78 3corporal punishment,.............VoL -— II, 247 corporations, granting and repealing charters of,....Vol. I, 145, 149, 169, 175, 207, 212, 215, 226 - 263; Vol. II,,, 564.. counties, organization of new,.. Vol. I, 381, 386, 387 388, 389, 390, 503. counties, recommittal of article on,. VoL 1, 507, 508 county buildings, etc., taxes for,..... Vol. I, 443, 503 county officers...................~. Vol. I, 475 county seats, removal of,..........Vol. I, 411, 412 debates and journals,.. Vol. I, 61-2-3; Vol. II, 936 denominational schools,... Vol. II, 377, 378, 379, 380 deserters, disfranchisement of,.......... ol. II, 777 diagram of hall,................. Vol. II, 240 electors, qualifications of,. ol. II, 279, 283, 791 equalization, State board of,............Vol. I, 307 exemptions,...V. Vol. 1, 544; Vol. II, 736, 760 Governor as commander-in-chief,........Vol. I, 362 Governor and Lieutenant Governor, qualifica tions of, Vol.I, 374 hall, use of........................ Vol. I, 196 homestead exemptions,.. VoL 1, 520, 522, 548, 549 Vol,, 736. impeachments,.....................Vol. I, 524, 525 X inquiry, referring resolutions of,.........VoL 1, 71 . Jameson's Constitutional Convention,....Vol. 1, 48 judicial districts and circuits,......Vol. II, 979, 981 judges, removal of,................V....Vol. I, 526 leave of absence, granting, Vol. II, 237, 238, 383, 545 librarian, State, pay of,................Vol. II, 968 libraries, township and city,..~Vol. II, 473, 475, 481 legislative dept., adoption of article on,. Vol. II, 924 - Legislature, apportionm't of members of, Vol. I, 14 : 15. - - 3Legislature, pay of members of,. iVol. II, 61, 63, 64 69, 70. i Legislature, expulsion of-members of,... Vol. I1, 58 Legislature, qualifications and privileges of mem bers of,...V -.ol. II, 15, 17, 728, 729 liqml or traffic,. Vo.1..iqor......... Vol. IT, 200, 203, 204, 393, 518, 519 520, 522, 523, 528, 550, 555, 556, 559, 641, 655 :-686, 875, 87,6, 881, 908, 924. : messenger boys,........Vol. I, 43, 297 - military duty, persons liable to,. V..ol. II, 234 organization of townships, cities, etc., VoL.IT, 96, 366 - , I... I r IlqDEX.0 9 223 .551 . 24 387 290 269 329 337 368 37 341 339 562 1857 968 569 389 874 236 574 297 .569 934 364249 47 571 159 358 .143 963 .304 385269135, 346 I. 31 . 31 442 123 296 722 063 297 .72 . 78 97 ii)X. 1029 BLACKMAN, SAMUERT Hl.,-Continued. remarks by, on pardoning power,.ol. T. population of representative districts,.V ol. II, 697, 698. preamble of the Constitution,. Vol. II, 854, 933, presiding officersof the Leg., pay of,.. Vol. II, 72, 364, 722. printing, etc., for State,. Vol. II, 92, 93, 94, 368, railroad from Detroit to- the tUppe r Penin ~ sula,........ Vol. II, railroads, municipal aid to,'.... Vol. II, 122,16:4, 167, 168, 207, 208, 926. removal from office,ae.... -Vol. I, 348, 355, re presentativ e districts,.. V ol. II, 983, 984, 985, representatives, number of,...... Vol. IIT rules of Convention,-Vol. T, 33, 36, 39, 51, 54, 55, salaries,..V.ol. II, 802, 806, 812, 939, 944, 945? school system,,.Vol. II, 301, 302, 305, 402, 405, 4:13, 414, 468, 515, 516. sessions of the Leg.,... Vol. II, 48,- 706, 707, 709 -sheriffs,.......................... Voi. I, slavery, prohibition of,......Vol. I, 612; Vol. III, soldiers, quartering of,' Vol. I, State officers, election of,............ Vol. II, State officers, postponement of article on, Vol. I, Vol. II, 952. suffrage for people of color,. Vol. II, 714, supervisors, Vol. II, 313, taxes, collection of specific,....Vol. I, township officers,..................oL I, 117, veto power, -. Vol. H' yeas and nays on adoption of articles,....Vol. I, BouNDAIEs, etc., committee on,..... Vbl. I, 9, report from,................. Vol. I, BouNDARiS, article on, reported from standing com mittee,....... Vol. I, considered in com. of the whole,......Vol. I, 77 reported from committee of the,whole,. -ol. I, -referred to committee on arrangement and phrase ology,................. Vol. I, reported from committee on arrangement and phraseology,........ -......Vol. I, considered in Convention,.... ~ol. I, passed,............... Vol. I, BOUNDARIES OF CoUNTIES, change of,..........ol. I, BRADLEY, MILTON, a delegate from Kalamazoo county, -appeared and took his seat,'. Vol. T, appointed a-member of committee to wait on -clergymen of Lansing,..........,...........~Aol. I, appointed a member of commnittee on educate tion, ~....... - Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on sched ule,. -.. Vol. I, -motions; etc., by,........:.Vol. I,:31, 64, 87, 92,-136, 274:, 372, 4:70, 589; Vol. II?- 105, 15.0, 527, 726, petitions presented by, (See PettYions..) -remarks by, on- - -. adjournment over,.etc.,.......' Vol. T.'78,-427, -adjournmnent, ~sine- die,......... VOL. II, Agricultural College,......oi. lI, -chaplains in-the: Legislature,...........:...... ~Vol. II,- 375, -clergymen officiating in Conyen., payr of, Vol.-I, — county officers,.................:....~51,.o I, denominational schools,..-.. Vol. Il, 112, 113, 114, - 381, 727. - -: Governor;-.length of.term of;.............Vol. I; -homestead.exemptions,. ~..'. -.....ol. T, — legislative departre't,0 article on, VoLX It, $$$, $$6, BRADLEY, MILTON,-Continued. remarks by, on — libraries, township and city,.... Vol. II, 421, 476, 478,. liquor traffic,...Vol. I, 204, 528, 534, 638, 643, : 654, 860, 861, 869, 924. prayer df Rev. Mr. Vandriss.... Vol. II, railroads, municipal aid to.............. ol. II, regents of University,..................ol. I, relief of contractors............Vol1. II, removal of officers,.............. Vol. I,1 salaries, m..icaa...... Vol. II, school system,. Vol. II, sessions of the Legislature,..... Vol. II,, 47, State officers, postponement of article on,..Vol. I,) suffrage for women,..................Vol. I, supervisors,.........Vol. II, taxes, collection of specific,.......... Vol. I, BRIDGES, etc., building and repairof.....VoL., 73, 417, 443. BROWN, ASAHEL, a delegate from Branch county, appeared and took his seat,........ V. 1 I appointed a member of committee on executive department..........,. Vol. I,. appointed a member of com. on salaries, I.VoL 1, motions, etc., by,............ Vol. I, 39;V-ol. II, petitions presented by," (See Petitions.) BROWN, DAVID WOLFE, resolution to appoint as offi cial reporter,...... ol. 1, BUiLDINrs, taxes for county, (See County- Buildings.) BURNxuAM, W. D., appointed fireman of Conv'n, Vol. I, BURIAL GROUNDS, (See Cemeteries.) BURTCH, MTTITONP., a delegatefrom Eaton county, appeared and took his seat,...... V..... ol. I,1 appointed on committee on townships,. Vol. T. appo inted on committee on-bill of rights, Vol. I, motions, etc., by...... Vol, 15, 20, 23, 27, 42, 47, 61, 63, 64, 69, 72, 74, 79, 103, 105, 113, 123,131, 136, 138, 175, 176, 179, 215; Vol. II, 59, 60, 81, 96, 105, 209, 250, 251, 326, 327, 374,388, 545, 599, 695, 741, 758, 935, 963, petitions presented by,' -(See'Petitions.) resolutions offered by, relative to policy for the Convention,................ -t.Vol. 1, 5, 27, resolutions relative to committee on preserva tion of order............ Vol. -I,. 167, 176, resolution asking leave of absence,....,. Vol. I, resolution relative to delegates from counties, in the Legislature,... Vol. II, - resolution relative to rights of delegates in. Con cvention,...L n.-..........1, venionVol. II,' resol'n relative to provision for the poor, Vol. II, resolution relative to registers of deeds for acities,.-V.. -.-'~ol. 11, resolution relative to State and national finan ces, b: Vol. 31, resolution relative to rights of women, Vol. II, remrks by, on- -— < ---- remar:s by,on- adjournment over, etc..........78, 137, - amendment and revision of the Constitution, ara u n nil- tilde on,..' Vol. II, 606, 607, 608, - boundaries,.......1,.........VOL I, 82, chaplains in the Legislature,..;. 37,., Vol. II, 118, Constitution, voting upon new, Vol1. II, c contestants in the Legislature,.Vol. II,: corporations, granting and repealing charters of,............... f.. Vol. I, 184, 185; Vol. II, county seats, removal of,..........V.....-ol.-, 2It, dams, construction of,..Vol.. ":.......-...1o1, II, : dt: debate, limitation of,.Vo... Vol II, .INDEX. 029. 345 696 994 74 422 .653 240 209 555 lb9 361 824 408 50 604: 278" 326 279 . 93 372 .456 166 527 986 695 59 962 406 920 402 .'247 611 12.5 605. I 31 .-31 442 717 314 273 lal 86 .167 - 31 65 16. 15 . 1 31 1- 31 - 46 114 16 367 1006 65 103 112 122 157 160, 391 60 210 . 231 1 15 12,' 719. 31 71 31 .242 891 .1002 1019 ,669 160 119 959 . 77' 602 329 595 551 616 1022 503 876 141 395 . 376 .332 549 924, INDEX. BURTCH, MILTON P.,- Continued. e remarks by, on -- debates,........Vol. I, 23, 63, 124; Vol. 1, 3, 47 eight-hour system of labor,.................. Vol. I, 69 electors, qualifications of,.......... Vol II, 255, 898 -exemptions.. Vol. I, 544; VoL Ii, 73 finances, State and national,... Vol. II, 1002, 1003 hour of meeting,.........................1.'II, 150 Jameson's Constitutional Convention, resolution -to farish,.....f,ee.............. Vol. I, 48, 49 50 leave of absence, granting......,..... Vol. II, 570 Legislat e, pay of members of,... Vol., II, 70, 71 Legislature, expulsio n of m embers of,'Vol. II, 58 L egislature, qualifications of memberstof, Vol. H, 18, 21., Librari an, State, pay of,.....V.. Vol. II, 1000 liquor trafic,........ Vol. IT,-521, 528, 682, 687, 7688 '870,, 910, 9i6, 923. municipal officers, election of,.... VoL II,- 359 names of persons, laws to change,.......Vol. II, 119 oath of office, constitutional,.. Vol. 1 III, 574, 575, 576 population of represent're.districts, ol. II, 696, 704 postage of delegates,................... VoL I, 124 powers of government,........Vol. I, 86, 87, 88 presiding officers of the Leg., pay of,. -.Vol. II, 72 previous question, rulerelative to,..Vol. II, 739, 740 - private property taken for public use,..Vol. HI, 592 publicland s, s.Vol.1e II, 753 quorum, rule relative to,e..Vol, I, 570 railroads, municipal aid to,...ol. H, 134, 156 157, 168, 190, 194, 195,' 225. registers of deeds for cities,........... VoL II, 719 relief of oontractors,...e V ol. II, 103, Il 11, 02,. 728 rule s of Convention,.............gVo1 I, 34, c t35 - -,sala ries,.......... Vol.1 III, 620, 629, 901, 901 964 school system,... V.....-ol. II, 303, 514, 515, 516 sessions of the Legslature,'.Vol. II, 34 38, 55, 706 suffrage f or -pe ople of colo r, Vol. 1, 716 township officers,.e.....d, toVol. I, 117, 25, 126, 128 veto power,me.............. Vol., 84, 85 BURTENSHAW, JAMG ES, delega te from Ontonagon, appeared and took his seat,......Vn m.ol. I,, 1 appointed a member of Committee on order of proceeding,.. Vol. I, 5 appointed a member of com. on elec tion s, Vol. I, 31 appointed a member of com. on schedule, Vol. I, 31 motions, etc., by,..........Vol. I:5, 178, 451, 559 petitions presented by, (See Petitions.)'.o 1 -repsout fer e om committee on Stae bPefinsula, pre-' sented...................,.......... Vol. I, 596 resolution offered:by, relative to- State Prison -in Upper Pe~nins~ua,',.......-V..ol. I, 75 ~remarks bly, on —: — m,uniicipal aid to railroads, v......ol. I, 374,'375 CssANVSSES, ES~ATE, org~anization and; powers of board of,..................'V ol. I, 555,:,557 (3ArXTA PUEImWMENT for murder, (See Murder.) CAbetA, S TA~W,- (Seepeat of Government.) - , ASE, GEORGE,E-., delegate fErom Henrealma county, -appeared, and took his' seat,,.,................, ~ vol.' I, -, 1' appointed a member of corn. on srchedule, Vol. I? 31 appo'mt~ed a member of ceorn. on S:upples, ~ol, I, 31' motions, etc., by,........,..:ol.- I,. I05, 158, —471,.......593,,..;:~ol. -II. 1,; 104, 12,6,.'275,'277, 278,.:279, 282, 516 - 937,:-962. —- - - -pe~titins prese~nted by,:(See Pettions.:iX - rsolso!n'offered b~y, r~e!'ative'to'schobl'-sys-' -'tern,.'-.'.....,.......,......oL T.,78 {128 CASE, GEORGE F.,-COntinued....Vl1,1 resolution relative to amendm'tt of rules,. Vol. II, resolution relative to pay of delegates durimg absence, V. I...........'Vol.11, remarks by, on-' gadjournment over, etc.,.................VoL I,' appeals from decisions of boards of superi sors, ctantonh...........,......ol. I, Auditor General, o ffice of,................. Vol I, 579, countr buidings,..................Vol. I, 8-0' ct roffCers,........tk........ Vol.1,.I counity seats, remnoval of,.......... ol. I, 415, 41 7, e l ectors, qualifications of, l.............ol. II,, jury, trial by,........-..........ol. I, libraries, city and township,.......V01. II, 430, liq-uor' traffic,'.....'..Vol II, 521, oath fof officie, constitutional,............ Vol. II, private property'tcen for' public use,... Vol. II, railroads, mU1.cipal aid to,- V2, ol. II, saparies,eding.Vo., 5 giut,Vol.1, 4I, 621, 823, school system,........ Vol. IT, 806, 309, 418, CEmETREmS, streets, etc., n ot to be laid through, Vol. I, CHAPiiN, pDEWITT C, a' delega te' from Gratiot county, appeared and took his seat, pu,......Vol. T appointed a member of commsitte o:- educa tion, -'.- Vol. I, appointed a member of commitee on amend ment and revision of the Constitution,.. Vol. I, motions, etc., by,.. Vol I, 121, 136, 146, 191, 200, 351, 442, 610, 613'; sVol. II, 247, 267, 288, 441, 527,-598, 741,- 982. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) report'-from committee on amendment and revision of the Constitution,'presented by,.......................i,..... Vol, II, resolution offered by, rela tive t o township elec tions,............................... Vol. I, resolution relative to printing journal,'.. Vol. I, resolutions relative to pays of assistant secreta ries,...................... II,, 1006, remarks by, on- adjournment over, etc.,.- Vol..I, 434, Agricultural College, Vol. II, 483, 484, 491, /505, amendment and: revision of the Constitu tin.'.'.................... Vol. II, 605, appeals from decisions of boards of supervi — sors,......................Vol. I, 477r 480, assessment. of. property,.................'-.Vol. I, Auditor' General,! office' of,.. Y..':. ol. I, - boundaries,'. - r **...**..e*..*'... ~ * ol. I, committees, standing,.....~.........'.. ol. I, Constitution, voting upon.lew,.................-~. ol. II, -Convention, pay.of officers of,.........~.......*.. ol. I-I, -corporations,'granting and repealing charters of,.. [.V01. I, 208,~''211,' 217; Vol. ILs 565, 567,' county officers,..'.. i.:..'.'..'....,.:...'...~ol.'- I, counties, organization of new,...........V.....ol. I, dams, construction of,.......~.... ol. A7, 593, 59'4, 'debates and journals,...................'.ol. I, denomin ational schools,............... - Vo.'II,. -deserte~rs, disfranchisement of, Vol...~0. II,'disfranchisement for infamou:s' crimes,..~ol, 17, 293, 294. ~;;.... electors qualifications of,..... Vol.:II, 254, -'284, 285, 286, 291, 293,^294, 765. English language, preservation of laws, eta., -in,..........._.....:.... -VoL. IIl, 576, 57'7, - -equalization, state board of,...-,'...VOL. I, 306, i-exemption jaws, -.. i:..... -,:,Vol.-I, 1030 105 '547 .614 495 580 417 395 469 253 591 .474 522 573 249 .374 824 404 297 1 31' 340 471 571 50 78 1019 436 506 608 481 281 577 81 .10 953 .257 602, 396 387,.595 78 377 777 291 263 578 314 - 542 :~D]!1X. -'. CHAPIN, DEWITT C., —Continued. remarks by, on- - exemptibons,..........:Vol. I, 511; Vol. II, Governor, qualificati ons of, 56....... 5 CVol I, Governor, ineligibility of, to legsla tive appoint ment,........................... Vol. I, Governor as commander-in-chief,........ ol. I, impeachme nts,.........: ol. I, judicial districts and circuits,..........Vol. II, jury, right of trial by,......o supr. -,o 592; Vol. II, Librarian, State, pay of,.......V.......:ol. II, libraries, township and city, V... Vol. II, 430, liquor traffic,... Vol. II, 202, 547, 550, 679, 684, New York Convention, debates of,....-.Vol. I, pardoning power,..................V....ol. I, preamble of the Constitution,.... V ~ol. IL, private proplrty taken for public use,....Vol. II, 581, 582, 583, 745,746. public lands,.......V...........ol. ]I, raflroads, municipal aid to, Vol. I,.250; Vol'.II, '176, 217. regents of the University,..............ol II, religious societies,'lands held by,....... Vol II, removal of officers,..............,.... I, representative districts,.V. Vol' II, representatives, number of,..... -. Vol. II, salaries, [...,Vol. II, 61l, 612, 616, 617, 618, 625, 800, 810. school-system,..... - -. ol. II, 470,'516, seat of government,.................. Vol. I, sessions of the Legislature,...Vol. II, 363, 706, sheriff,............. ol. I, -slavery, prohibition of,.................o1., soldiers' monument, Detroi,.:..........Vol. I, suffrage for people of color,,.....Vol. II, sal~age-for Women,............V ol. II, 772, 773, supervisors,...................... ol. II, 313, taxation, uniform rule of,...............Vo. I, township officers,. Vol. I, 114, 119, treason against the State,....V...,..,.-ol. I, CH:APLAIS in the Legislature, Vol. I, 73; Vol. II, 116, CHAPMAN, BELA, a delegate from Maeldnac county, appeared and took his seat,... Yol. I, appointed a member of committee on order o! proceeding,.........................ol. I, appointed a member of committee on CState officers,......... — Vol. I, ~CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, (See Corporations' .' CHRTERs, resolution relative to amendment and repeal of,..........,.....ol. I, C~^~~s, (See Corporations.) GFTLDREN, MrsoR, (See Minor- Children.) -0 GEURCH PRoPRrTY, (See:Religious Societies.) -CmRCUT ~UD~ES,.................V. ol. II, CXRCWi COURTS, (See Courts, Circuit.) CmRcvxTs, ZUDXCiAL,........... VoI. II, 445, 965, 981, CITIES, registers of deeds for,............... ol II, CreIES representation of, on boards of supervi -sors,'. -Vol. I, - 02; ~ol. TI CITIES AND VILLAGES, article on, reported from stand, ing committee,,........,.......... -... ~ol.- II considered in coommnittee of the whole,...Vol. II reported from ~ommittee of the whole,...Vol. II — consider-ed in Convention,.............VoL. HI, 331, 338 referred to comnmittee on arrangemnent anc :phraseology,'.........~-' ol.;II, 360 reported from committee on arrangement anc ~phr~aseology,..........,..ol. II passed,..............,..,....~....}.:Vo1.I-] C~?:xr AND ~iLLAGrs, conmmttee On,.....Vol.I, 9 anL~S AND VILLAGES, reports from com. on,....Vol, I, 297; VOl. II, 105. sections of article on corporations in Constitu tion of 1850, referred to,..... Vol I, resolutions of instruction to,..Vol. I, 76, 157, UITIES AND VTTTJAGES, organization and powers of, ol... I, 76; Vol. 1, 95, 97, 296, 360, 366, election of officers of,..-...Vol., II, 298, 331, 338, CITIES AND VILLAGES, aid to railroads by, (See Rail roads.) CLERGYMEN OF LANsniG invited to open daily sessions of Convention,......................Vol. I, committee to wait on, appointed......... Vol. I, report of committee.to waiton,.... Vol. I, 19, compensation of,.............. Vol. I, 114, 141, *Vo. H, 1004. resolution of thanks to,...............Vol. II, CLERKS, COUNTY, (See County Officers.) CaLAIMS, PRIVATE, Legislature not to pay,... Vol. II, CLOAK ROOM, appointment of keeper of,.......Vol. I, 5, COLFAX, HON. SCHUYLER, use of hall granted for lee ture by,...................... Vol. I, reception and remarks of.............. Vol.I1, COLLIER, G.X. M., apponte asst. secretary,..Vol. I, COLORED SUFFRAGE, (See Suffragefor people of olor.) COMMISSIONERS, IRCoUIT COURT,......... 1 450, COMMISSIONERS, HIGHWAY, (See Highway C6mis'nrs) COMMISSIONERS, RALROAD, Board of, (See Railroad Gommissioners.)COMMISSIONEr.S To REVsr PrACTIcE, etc., in courts, (See Courts.) ColmISSIONS to be signed by Governor,.......Vol. I, COMMITTEES, standing, report on appointment sof,ld iers.. monumen. Dto'. Vo....... V ~.Vol. I appointment of,.........Yol.I, 31, resolutions of instructions'to,....Vol. I, 40, 43, publication of list of,................ olI, t manner of making reports from, o. I, articlesof Constitution of 1850 referred to, Vol. I, COMMON. CARRIERS, incorporation of companies to transact business as,.........~6iYo.I, CoMMuTATIONs, reprieves and pardons, (See Governor.) COmOl SCHOOLS, (See Schools.) CONGER, OMAR D., a delegate from St. Clair county, appeared and took his seat.,.......... ol.I, appointed a member of committee on legislative ofcs.o 1 department..................VoL I, appointed a member of comn. on militia,. VoLI, - appointed a member of committee on Upper rPeninsula,..........-....' Vol. I, motionstis, etc., by,..Vol. I, 25, 31, 50, 123, 141, CHL N M165, 195, 242, 295, 310, 475, 555, 556, 576, 583, 584, 594, 595, 596, 611, 613, 616; Vol.11, 104, 120, 123, 124, 127, 223, 225, 24Q, 256, 277, 278, 296, 326, 327, 416, 427, 527, 646, 723, 731, 732, 733, 758, 795, 854, 923, 924, -. 937, 970, 995, 998, 1006, 1007. petitions presented by, (See Pdeitions~j) rseports from committee on.-legislative depart Coment, presented by,.. VoL I, 7:5, 572; Vol. 11, - resolution' offered by, relative to a newspaper ar cniele,. -:....Vo.6 ti..Vol. I, r resolution relative to recess of Convention, VoL.1, resolution' relative to dedication of Soldiers' Mon t cmitument, Detroit,..........: 1.:~o I, resolution of thanks to Michigan Central Agri re fr coultual Society,. Vol. 1I, resolution relative to the debates of the New . York Convention,....L oi.II, Cresolution relative to index of debates,...Vol. II, .113 75 231 367 355 4 15 141 157 1020 119 15 24 154 25 4 373 9 125 438 43 75 9 -146 13 31 31 125 153 582 88 257 722 925 903 113 437 453 584' 258 760 . D. -1031 735 -338, 367 345 526 975 243 969: 475' 871 298 34.4 .334 249 756 133 43 _ 841 .298 985 694 619 517 162 - 919 400 612 385. 714 775 319 .276 125 -610 375 5 3i; 60 -'44 992 719 310 .105 296 309. .355. 763 572 763 31 1032 CONGER, OMiAR D., —ontinued. remarks by, on adjournment over, etc.,.....Vol. I, 138, 139, 426 440,598,614,615. Agricultural College,..... Vol. II, 484, 487, 488, 510, 511, 513.; aliens, rights of,...................Vol.II appeals from decisions of boards of supervisors, VoL 1, 466, 478, 479, 484, 501; Vol. II, 317, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 327. assessments of property at cash value, Vol. 1, 228, auditors, board of State,...............Vol. I, bills in the Legislature, introduction of, VoL II, 82,366, 721, 722. boundaries,..................Vol. I, 159, canvassers, board of State,.......Vol. I, 560, chaplains in the Legislature,.........Vol. II, circuit court commissioners,.... Vol. II, 451, 459, 461, 462. circuit courts, jurisdiction of,..... ol. IL, 448, contestants in the Legislature,... Vol. II, 79, 81, contested elections,............. Vol. 1, 561, corporations, granting and repealing charters of,... Vol. I, 186, 197, 199, 210, 211, 213, 214, 254, 261; Vol. 11, 835, 836, 837. county seats, removal of,.....Vo..ol I, 410, 412, 414, 469; VoL II, 329. - debates............... Vol. I, 22; Vol. II, denominational schools,..........Vol. II, 114, deserters, disfranchisement of,....Vol. II, 776, diagram of the hal,..............Vol. II, dueling, disfranchisement. for,... ol. II, eight hour system of labor,.. V..... ol. I, elections, purity of,.................... Vol. 11, electors, qualifications of..... Vol. II, 259, 264, 274, 766, 781, 782, 787, 788, 789. equalization, board of,.....Vol. 1, 315,;316, 317, Vol. II, 826, 827. exemption laws,............... Vol. female college,....................Vol. II, homestead exemptions,.......Vol. I, 528, 529, 532; Vol. II, 734, 738. homesteads,................... VoL II, Jameson's Constitutional Convention, resolution to furnish,..................... Vol. 1, judges, election of,.............. Vol II, judges, removal of....................Vol, I, judicial districts and circuits,........... Vol. II, jury, trial by,..................~I...V.1, leave of absence, granting, Vol. I, 613; Vol. I, 237 legislative department, article on,....Vol., ll, 857, 873, 874, 875, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 893, 903, 904. Leg., election of members of,..V..ol.II, 7, 9, 13, Leg., qualifications and privileges of,....Vol. II, 34, 729. Legislature, pay of members of,....Vol.II, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70. Legislature, expulsion of members of, VoL. II, 56, Legislature, eligibility of members of, to othler offices,.....................Vol., 15, Legislature, interest of members of, in con tracts, ~ol..II, 89, Librarian, State, pay of,.. VoL 1I, 966, 967, 968, libraries, township and city,... Vol. II, 430, 432, liquor traffic,...ol. II, 124, 199, 200, 202, 203, 205, 388, 389, 390, 393, 397, 521, 522, 524, 529, 538, 641, 646, 660, 661, 686, 687, 688, 868, 869, 880, 882, 905, 906, 909, 910, 911, 916, 921."~ 433 502 247 318 290 559 81 160 589 117 452 449 727 564 230 413 937 386 .778 239 293 66 290 265 318 543' 212530 758 48 997 526 980 241 238 855 891 14 28 63 57 16 90 1001 433 204 525 862 912 CONGER, OMAR D., —Continued. remarks by, on — manual of Convention,.............Vol. I,280, municipal officers, election of,.. Vol. II, 338, 339, 341, 342, 346, 348. names of persons,laws changing,...V...Vol. II, New York Convention debates,.......Vo...1. II, organization of townships, cities, etc.,...VoL II,: 100,360. presiding officers of Legislature, compensation of...................... Vol. II, 72, 73, previous question, rule relative to,..Vol. II, 740, population of representative districts,..Vol. II, 703, 704. postage of -members,................. Vol. I, 27, powers of Government,.... Vol. I, 102, 103, 108, printing, etc., for State, Vol. II, 92,44, 367, 369, private property taken for public use,... Vol. II, 851. public lands,.................. Vol. II, 752, railroad from Detroit to Upper Penin.,... Vol. II, 455, 456. rilroads, municipal aid to,..Vol. I, 252; Vol. II, 122, 129, 144, 146, 147, 148, 161, 162, 163, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 183, 184, 187, 188, 195, 197, 199, 207, 208, 211, -212,7 213, 214,' 219, 220, 223, 225, 229, 230, 374,- 375,- 688,) 690, 691, 692. railroads, time for completing land grant, Vol. II, 206. regents of University, Vol. II, 434, 435, 437, 439, relief to contractors,..........Vol II, 102, 108, representative districts,............V.... ol. II, representatives, apportionment of,... Vol. II, roads, vacation of,............ Vol. I, 100, 101, rules of the Convention,.........Vol. I, 32, 35, salaries.... VoL II, 803, 805, 806, 811, 812, 814, 820, 821, 824, 929, 938, 939, 941,963, 964,989, seat of government,............ Vol. 1I, school system,.. Vol. II, 300, 305, 402, 405, 406, 411, 412, 415. senators, term of,......... Vol. I, 41; Vol. II, sessions of the Legislature,.... Vol. II, 36,44, 53, 706, 707, 708, 710, 720. State officers, election of,....Vol.I,585; Vol.II, 126. State officers, postponement ofarticle on, Vol. I, 606. * suffrage for people of color,.....Vol.II, 712,713, 717, 787, 788, 789. supervisors,............Vol.I, 405; Vol. II, taxation, uniform rule of............ Vol. I, taxes, application of specific.......... VoL 1, Upper Peninsula, committee on.......Vol. 9, veto power,.....................Vol II, 8 witnesses, competency of,.............Vol. II, yeas and nays on passage of articles,.... Vol. I, CONsTITUTION, enrollment of, on parchment,....Vol. I, form of,..........................Vol I, separate submission of provisions of,.... Vol. I1, 329, 367, 390, 517, 527, 551, 630, 646, 663, 679, 712, 779, 786, 789, 855, 870. submission of, to the people,.... Vol. II, 953, 987, voting by the people on adoption of,.... Vol.1 IT, 961, 988, 993. printing pamphlet copies of new,..VoL I1, 969, resolution relative to signing the,......Vol. II, final reading of,.................. Vol.II, compensation for enrolling,..Vol.11, corrections of the engrossed, Vol. II, 1008, 1019, I 4 INDEX. 281 340 120 330 — . 96 365 741 .701'.1 124 109 871 850, 758 426.. 1'.21 - 1-64 -194 -215 689 483 728 .984 15 102 37 818 990 163 408 -725 705 12.5 561 716 314 275 96 87 246 167 231 545 124 678 993 -960. 995 1004 1006 1019 .1020 - -'..... 2.... CONSTITUTION, adoption of, by Convention,.. Vol. A, 1008 the new.......................Vol. II, 1008 signing of the,.V..........ol. II, 1019 resolution relative to an address to the people upon the new,.....Y.....Vol. II, 1020 CONSTITUTIONS of 1835 and 1850, printing of, for use of Convention..............Vol. I, 4, 7, 13 CONTESTANTS in Legislature, pay of,......Vol 11, 75, 727 CONTRACTORS, relief of.............. VoL 11, 102, 106, 728 CONTRAcTs, State,................. Vo, 88 CONVENTION, call of.......Vol., 471; Vol. II, 238, 326 598, 763. CONVENTION, expenses of, to be provided for by Legis lature,........................Vol. II, 965 CONvENTION, resolution defining policy for, Vol. I, 5,25, 27 COOLIDGE, HENRY H., a delegate from Berrien county, oon appeared and took his seat, Vol. I, 1 appointed a member of committee on exemp tions,.-.. --. —-. Vol.-I,..31 tions........................... Vol.1, 31 appointed a member of: committee on arrange ment and phraseology............... Vol. I, 31 motions, etc., by,..... Vol. I, 77, 236, 253, 295 494, 588, 613; Vol. II, 1, 7, 209, 224, 239, 279, 453 553, 579, 615, 745, 825, 993. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) report from committee on exemptions presented by.... Vol. 1, 253 resolution relative to taxing national banks, offered by,.............. Vol. II, 182 ?remarks by, on adjournment over, etc.,...oL I, 429 Agricultural Colege..............Vol. II, 506 amendment and revision of the Constit'n, Vol. II, 605 608, 852. appeals from decisions of boards of super vi- sors.........Vol. H, 447, 449, 491, 492, 493, 494 Auditor General, office of,.............. Vol. I, 564 banks, taxation of national..........Vol. II, 182 Constitution, voting upon new,...... ol. II, 956 contested elections,........ Vol. I, 562 contestants in the Legislature,... VoL., 77, 78, 80 Convention, pay of officers of,........Vol. II, 258 county seats, removal of,..............Vol. I, 412 debate, limitation of,...............Vol. I, 551 debates and journals,......Vol. I, 63; Vol. II, 3 denominational schools,...Vol. IIH, 385 dueling, disfranchisement for,.....VoL II, 292, 293 electors, qualifications of...Vol.., 262, 782, 783 equalization, State board of,.........ol I, 314 examinations for admission to.the bar,.. Vol.- II, 829 exemption laws,............. —......Vol. I, 538 exemptions,.... VoL I, 509, 510, 513, 515; Vol. II, 734 735. habeas corpus,.,.....oL I, 591 homestead exemptions,.... VoL I, 521, 522, 523, 528 530, 531, 549. judicial districts and c'rcultSs,. ol. 1, 975, 981 jury, trial by,........;...-..Vol. II, 244, 245 Legislature, qualifications of members of, Vol. IT, 19 20, 22, 23, 27. - libraries, township and city,........1Vol I1, 433 liquor traffic,.....Vol. II, 634, 636, 637, 661, 877, 880 oath of office, constitutional,...... Vol., 574, 575 preamble of the Constitution,.....Vol.1I1, 933, 935 printing, etc., for State,.......Vol. II, 94, 370 private property taken for public use,.. Vol. II, 249 581, 586, 589, 850. railroads, municipal aid to,...........,-Vol. I, 246 relief to contractors,.............V.-oL II, 110, 1tl VoL H2 —o. 130. COOLIDGE, ENRY H.,-GContinued. remarks by, on religious societies, lands held by,... o...Vol. II, 839 840, 841. reporters, employment of..............Vol. I, 18 roads, vacation of,...................... oL II, 101 salaries,.....oL II, 615,623, 793, 813, 814, 822, 824 899, 900, 947, 962. school system,.................Vol.- II, 402 sessions of the Legislature,.... Vol. II, 34, 42, 43, 44 State officers, postponement of article on, Vol. I, 601 supervisors,.....................Vol.: II, 317 suffrage for women......... ol. II, 766, 767, 768 taxation, uniform rule of,...,........ Vol. I-, 275 CORBIN, WILLIAHM, a delegate from Monroe county, appeared and took his seat,.......V...ol. I, 1 appointed a member of committee on public lands,............................ Vol. I, 31 appointed a member of the committee on crimes and punishments,..............Vol. I, 125 motions, etc., by......Vol. I, 62, 207, 322, 439, 450 Vol. II, 208, 598, 599., petitions presented by, (See Peti tion s.) CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, (See Punishment, Corporal.): CORPORATIONS, suspension of payment by.... Vol.' I, 168 CORPoRATIONS, granting, amending and repealing charters of,..Vol. I, 143,146, 171, 176,- 197,% 210 230, 254; VoL II, 563, 600, 614, 834, 843. Coro6RATIONS HOLDING REAL ESTATE, (See Real Estate.) CORPORATIONS paying specific taxes, (See Taxes, Specific.). CORPORATIONs, State not to be interested in,..Vol. I, 268 CORPORATIONS, OTHE TEN MUNICIPAL, committee on,............... Vol. I, 9, 31 resolution of instruction toe. - v-.1. ~ol1, 60 reports from,.. 1o I, 75, 113; Vol. -II, 479 CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN MUNICIPAL, article on, re ported from standing committee. Vol. I, 113 Vol. II, 479. considered,in committee of the whole.. VoL 1, 143 .146, 168, 176, 197, 210. committee of the whole discharged from further - consideration of,................... Vol. 1, 230 recommitment to standing committee, Vol. I, 230, 254 considered in Convention,. Vol. II, 563, 600, 614 834, 898. referred to committee on arrangement and phraseology,..,....,...V-ol.1, 843 reported from committee on arrangement and phraseology..,................ VoLi1, 854 passed,.......................Vol. II, 898 COUNTY BUILDINSS, etc., taxes for,....Vol., 417, 443, 466 473, 502.:...... CouNz STS, county offices to be -held at.....Vol.1 396 469.:.. removal of,....Vol. I, 410, 413, 469; VoL II, 327 Corsets, article on, reported from standing commit tee,.....:.......... Vol.1I, 123; Vol. It, 280 considered in committee of the whole,....:Vol. 1, 375 386, 399, 413, 442,'453. —------ reported from committee of the whole,... Vol. I, 467 considered in Convention,...Vol. I, 467, 477, 494 507; Vol.11, 310, 326. -- - -- X recommitted to' standing committee.-. Vol. 1, 508 referred to committee on arrangement and phraseology,.......oL I-I, 329, 733 reported from committee on arrangement and -phraseology,..............-....Vol. II, 571 passed,'.................. Vol. II, 732 T-N, D E X. 1033 36~4 ......................................4......... COUNTIEs, boundary lines of,............... THol.MAS 391,, CUTIES number of townships in',...Voi. I, 73, 376, 472, 475. CouNTIEs:composed of islands, organization of,Vol. T, - 467.: COUNTIES in Upper Peninsuli, authorized to aid rail roads, (See Railroads.):,;: CouiqTis, aid to railroads b y ai COUNTIEs,. committee on..........:..o.1 V I, 9, -, resolutiuons Of instruction tO,..V. o.1,60, 73, ?.;; reportsof committeeon,.,oVO i!1'23; VO1. ii, Cav~; p~owers ~of,....., *.........-........-~ —.-i, organlzation of new,)..:..Vol i: 876,,376,':386, 503; ~ol. I, 327.-: COUTIEs, territory of,.............Voi. -1I, 953, COUTY QFFICES,........Vol. I, 392, 475; Vol. II, COUNY.SUVPErITENDENTS T OF COMiMN SCHOOLS, (SeeN .:-;,hool.s.): ( OU.RWi CPC:RUlT,- business n,........... —T1 I 9 length of term,............:..V. II, - organization of,:............... V II, terms of,....................II, judges of, ineligible to other ofices Vol;.1I, 464, ju-idcin of l; - VoL., terml "f office of judges of-......,il:, 4L/4, practice in.................-VoL, 1l, election of judges of,,.,..Vol. II, 965, 991, 993, clerk of 3..-.... -II, compen~sation~of judges of,...-Vol. H, 464, 609, 626, 795, 805, 899.. cony COURTs, continuance of, under new Constitini,.:Vol i11,, C.OURT, DISTRICT, res.olution relative to orgain',iZation ~and terns of,-......... -.....- -......VoL'I? COURTS. PRACTICE IN, resolution relative to appoint; ment of commissioners to revise,. ~. oi. I, COURT, SUPRE~:Judgsof, Judges Of tSe e Judgesmof thet ot .prenme Court;.) - CoURT, SuIP'REME, organization of,........ Vol.: II, chief justice of,...............oII, - iurisdicfion-of,............-.-...,-..VoLTI, terms of,................:II, practice in,......o 7..... VoL T9 clerk- of,.:. Vol, II, -;XrepOrter-of,...,:.:,.....:.:, —: -:.......* -... Y.ol.:1I1, coompenpsa ion of judges- of,..., oL 464, 609, 625,. 899...:. -. judges of, ineligible to other: offices, Vol. I, 464, r:pctionr fo jcidges of,....., V0. 9f5, 991!, 993, 'R!U' AND PUISHMENTS, appointme ntm o f commi ttee n'.... Vo.11, 315, 316, 1007....~o193 :; r-piort of State- Prison ageni retch ed; to'om'mit:, tee on,......... -i *.-.-. -1.2=.: ~.' i, :, report fr.om:: aommittee on,.:.,. >..;.:. — J~.:: 8 l:i!,0 C}ROCKElR, THODHAS M.,'a delegat~e fom:Miaomib arreareda: na:ook:h:is soht...:. i..:?VO1 I,: - app~ointea/'a memtber ~f-co~m..on 91ecfi0'ns,' Yol.' i, -arpointea..:am~ember:0f:,.com, mi-tte,e 0.o n e,x.eiciai~ department, -:.-.- >.V.o.......... ;petitions presented by, (S;ee.Peitions....-. ::prosented: by, -....s. V.l..I -.cireci ~u~ uisaictioni of,.,.,,,.:,./-.,V,: 9!. ll,II ,- ele~tO~rs,q,Ua~ifi,C&ti~ns o,....o!, Il: 283',-'289, :E 786, 787, 7 88.' teom,:.r of, V o i.:. I,:ai CROCKER, THOMAS M.,- Cordinute& r- d imar7cS.by, on — 4.libraries, township and' city, Vol. II, 426, 432, 475, liquor taffic,.......................... prosecuting attorney, etc.,...........Vol., II, religious so-eiefieS,"iaiS held by,....V. ~ol II, s ( Rsuffrage for people of color,.......vol. II, 787, s. ( township officers..............Vol. I 131, ,CROSWELIL, CHARiLES M., a delegate from Len awee county, appeared and took his seat,..... Vol. I, elected President of the Convention. Vol. I, remarks: by, (in committee of the whole) on amend't and revision of the Constitut'n, Vol. II, arms, right':to bear,'................-. Vol. I, electors, qualifications of,........... Vol. II, 285, impeachments,...............Vol. I, Legislature, ineligibility of members to other OUT,ClT...offices,..... Vol II, Legislature, qualifcations of members, Vol. II, 18,:20, 22, 23. .... miscellaneous subjects,..Vol. I, 589; Vol. 11, 256, ;466. ": roads, etc., acation of,..... Vol. II, sessions of the. Legislature...... o. 1, 54,V .(See Pr~ei.e., of o,veto) - ton') DAMS, CONSTRUCTION OF.Vol, VO. II, DANIELLS, NATHANIEL I., a delegate from Cliinton county, appeared and took his seat,..... YOl. I, ' appointed a member Of committee on arrafge m. ient and phraseology,............. Vol.:, I, appo mted a cmember of committee on esxe'm,p tions,...:...............................,VOl. I, appointed a member:of, ic:mmttee' on tobacco smoking in the public streets.........Vol. I, moti6ns, etc., by,. 1,7, 3....., 2, 3, 1 che j o250, - 282, 298, 310, 337, 438, 489, 477, 494 . 572i 59, 607; Vol. II, 3, 28, 60, 96, 123, 139,1 164,:' 198; 336, 373,: 401, 442, 482, 598, 599, 715, 726; 740, 999. -apetions' presented: by, -(See.Petitions.) rp- resolution oferedby, relative to township offi ers,......... Vo 11 44, 60, -. -e*s-. —.0VoL 1, resolution r elative to hour of afternoo6n session, - Vol i, 253.:..... e res6oluitioni relative to printing of journal of COUR2TS, SEALOF.....-;.. Vol.11. -ue I, resolution relative to privileges: of messenger - 1,9,..... boys.....,.... resolutfion relative, to firemen of: the Convention, Vol II0, 8, 26. remarks by, on —' : aftern6on sessions, hour of,............ Vol.I, Agric'ulituial Colnege,.Vol. Ii, 440, 497, 501, 502, Agricultural fair, invitation.to,........ ol. I, 583, e aac ne ionsamendment and revision of the Constitution, ; -:~0ii; Ii, 606...... - appeals from decisions of boards of:supervi sors,....Vol. I, 458, 459, 484, 485, 486, - Vol. II,- 31S,.316, 1-007-.: -t asosespesented f proieety....n,s..... a s o pVol. 1, 282, r.:(muditnoreeral, ifti)e,f,r:.c.i..onetios udtrfolI,:.552, pst b1onstution, vtmgg upon new., -.. Vol.1p II, e contstants in- the Legislature,..... Vol. II, 76, counties, organization of,........9...ol I? county seats, removal of,....V..........ol., I, - 77 dams,' construction of,.'...... i, debates, distribution of, 0.o II,, i 467 386' 387 481 464 83'9 788' 134 31: 931 280, 375 472 987. 951 .1 3 . 606 286 525 16 815, 75i 444, 446832 448 562 i, 996 463-. .615 068' 433 101 56 593 1 7 31 .31 63 451 241 146, 695 442, 442 443 443 444 Ill. 444' 615 77 832, 996 44' 476 125. 583 5 6" 1310 253 510 584 31. 31 442: 500 291 554 959 77 391 415 590 971 .53-4 449' 77.9 336 ........~~~DE. -, DAlaIELLS; NATHANIEL I.,-Continued. remarks by, on elections, purity of.................ol.1, electors, qualifications of,.........11I,261, equalization, State board of............Vo., qxemptions,...................... Vol. IL Governor, eligibility for,...........Vo. 1, Governor, manner of electing.........Vol I, Governor and Lieutenant Governor, qualifica tions of,................., Governor, term of,.....................VoL I, ice water for Convention.............Vo1, Jameson's Constitutional Convention, resolution to furnish,.......................V 1,: journal of Convention, publication of, Vol'.1,:476, jury, trial by,................IVl1, 593,: leave of, absence, grantin,..........Vo1. I, Legislature, pay of members of,...Vol,11 Legidlature, qualifications of members of, Vo1.1TI1, 22. Legislature, election of members of,....vol., libraries, township and city,........Voli11, messengers, priileges of,......,.....Vol1, population of,representative districts,. Vol.1L1 presiding officers of Legislature, pay of,Voi.11li,L private property, taken:for public use,. o1, probate judges, quai-fcations of......:Vol.1, prosecuting attorney, etc,, V0!. il, railroads, municipal: aid to'...... Vol.!,245, Vol. II, 131, 137, 167, 184. religious societies, lands held by,......Vol. I returns of taxable property,. Vol I,: 318, 319, 321; Vol. II, 597, 759. salaries.. Vol. 11, 610, 611, 614, 617,: 622, 804, 813, 819, 822, 900. school'system...............:.ol searches and seizures,....,.............Vo1, senatorial term, length of...........,o.. V11::If, sessions of the Leg.,....'ol. 11, 40,41,54,707, sheriffs....................., suffrage for women, Vol. II, 276, 277, 278.,'767, 774, 775. veto-power,...................Vol.1I, 86, .29 '781 315 737 337 339 374~ 335 297 49 501 594 224 65 :20 10 473 583 704 :71 580 464 465 246 842 32 812 515 609 725 721 402 768 87 300 DEAF, DUMB BLIND AND rNSANE, institutions for, Vol.' H, 300 DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER, (See::Murder.) ":DEBT, IMPRIqONMENT FOR, PROHIBITED.........VOL 1, 610 Vol. 1, 246. DEBT OF STATE, resolution of inquiry relative to, -Vol1., 4 communication from State Treasurer:relative to0:....................... Vo120, 41 payment of...................Vo, 231, 232 unfunded, fundingof,........... Vol. I, 238: for public defense, (See War debts.) evidences of.........................Vol. 1, 268 account of, to be published with laws,- Vol., 294 304.. DEBATE, LIMITATION OF,..................Vol;:1, 551 DEBATES, REPORTING, Com.n Upon appointed,. Vol"I,:4; 5 report of committee on......15 distribution of journal and%. VoL I, 20, 40/:56, 124 157; Vol. II, 969, 971, 995, 1004. publication of.......Vo 01;,24, 60, "61, 74, 75, 78 Vol. II, 2. proof-sheets of....,., Vol.'i;123, 156 exchange of, with: ew York Convention Nr ew York Convention.) (Se indexing of...........Vol II, 76Q, 937,972, 1002: bindinag of,...................:..~oL:iI, 971 DEEDs,' R EGOISTIEl Or, for cities)............11, 7 DEEDS, REGISTER OF, of'county, (See CountyoffiCers.) DEFICITS IN REVENUE.................. V., 238 '"DELEGATES, SORN' IN,.. Vol. I,- 2, 9, 13, 15, 39, 64,: 78,, 1 75. DELEGATES, OCCUPATIONS, ETC., OF, Sergeant-at-Arms to ascertain and report,.5, 4.. DELEGATES, PAY or, DURING ABSENCE,... VoLI, 437, 438, 606; Vol. 1, 547, 1005.. DENoMirATIONAL SCHOOLS,....... Vol. II,-112, 376, 384, ~DESERTER'S:AND BEBELS, resolution relative-to.'disfran ciemen ofi................VoL I. 7 '/DESERTERS,!DISQUALIFIED FOR VOTING....Vol. 11,291, DE'SNOYERS,fPSTE RP a delegate; from Wayne county, appeared and took his seat,..........'Vol': 1, appointed a. member of com'e onsalaries, Vol!I appointea member of committee on sched ule,..... Vo........ motions, etc., by,.......... remarks by, on equalization, State board of,... Vol..., :' religious soc'ietfies, lands held. by. Vol. 11, ".: DETROIT SOLDIRS'- MONUMENT:AT, (Se troldi.rs"on untent.) DIAGRAM OF HAr,L,L.....Vol. 1, 1t5; iVol11,I224,:2, DISFRN'HI'SEM'E-WT OF REBELS AN DES3ERTERSt-,-(e ; Deserters.) -DisTRIOT'COURTS, (See Courts.). DISTRICTS, j..Udicia..... Vol. II, 444, 965, 972, 992'9.2 DIVINE, JOHN, a delegate from Sanilac county,:, appeared and'took this seat,. Vol. 1, appointed a member of committee on:report.:.Vo.1,. appointed a member of committee on judicial department.....Vol, appointed va member of committee on coun...ties,.V6 1,:;............3Y1.:I motions, ebtc., by,.. Vol. I, 138, 351,475; VoLt11, 37: petitions, etc., presented by, (See Petitions.) rem arks: by, on adjo::u:ment over, etc.,.. Vol.., I) appeals from boaxds of supervisors,.. Vo1,448, 48 a:ssessment of property,..;....... -Vol.,:.I, corporations, graiting and repealing:charters of,.....................,. 1.203,2 equalization, State board of,.....:o.1, 3, Governor, te:rm of,............;:,.ol.1:I ru~les of' fCo~nvention,....1..'....:.......Vol.1:,' 5 to~Wnshi.p o6fficers......;.,;...........V..;Yol.1 1,1 :DivisfoN'oF: POWERS oF GOVERNMENT,:(See Powe~rs 'of; qovern~ ment, ):~.. DivoRCEs, Legislature prohibited from granting,VoL. 1,19 :DOGs,t: TAX oN,............V. ol. 1, 56, 297; Vol. 11, 7 DRANS AND: reTCHES, construction of,........Vl.1,~o 59, /DRAP/mR, A. and W.H.li, motions to appoint.as.offticial reporters,........... 1,....1..6;:ot resolitifon to p ay: $30' to.......' Vol'1 24 -''':' 0'j' iI0' DuELINGa, disfranchisement for,7.......Vo.:o11, 29, :DIJNC:AN, DELAMORE, a delegate from Kalama::'zoo county,::': appreared and:took his seat,.. i....,....Vol.1, appoin~ted a member'of com. on salaries,.:::ol.1 I, ar0'ainted a member of committee::on corpora ~ tions other than municipalVo 1,,:.1..:~lI m~otions, ~etc,.,i by,: ~~;,;'.....Vol1, I,419,' 509,.::45, 61 ~petitiopns r~esented by, (See Petitions.). -,r~es:6~ti.fion]-'rel1'ive t'o: di'sposalof swamp..lands, im 1035 238 104 451 44 .726 . 76 776 1 .31 " al 595 310 842 239 997 1 5 ,31 -31 l337 439 :,4- -'49 ,.. 2.8,5 257 308 332 55 131 119 .678 .596 16, 291 1 31 31 ..613 77 _ _ --' A _'e DUNCAN, DELAMORE,-Continued.. remarks by, on — Governor, term of,.....".....VoL I, leave of absence, granting,.............oII, military duty, liability to,. I................ Vol. II, railroads, -municipal aid to,.... Vol. II, 175, salaries,........................Vol. II, DUNCOMBE, CHARLES, a delegate from Van Buren county, appeared and took his -seat,,......,..... Vol.- I, appointed v member of committee on bill of rights,........................ol. I, motions, etc.by, 4Vol. I, 82; Vo:l. 1, petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) remarks by, on-. debates and journal,........,Vol. Li, ECCLESIIASTICAL COTPORAT'S, real estate h eld by, Vol. II, EDUCATION, article on, reported from standing com Lmi ttee,u.................... Vol. II, considered in committee of the whole,. Vol. II, - 398, 415, 426.; reported from committee of the whole,,.,Voc. II, considered in Convent ion,. VVol. I, 467, 779, 495, 764. - referred to committee on arrangement and phra seology,.........- Vol. II, 517,: reported from committee on arrangement and phraseology, Vol. II, passed,.............,: -.. sol, II, committee On,............. ~ol, I, 9, resolutions of inatructions to,.... -VO I, 76, 97, 231, 297,- 545. -; -:! reportfrom,............. State board of,...Vol........ IT,.Vo EDUCATIONAL FUND, (See S'chool.Fund.)V EDUCATIONAL. INSTITUTioNS, resolution relative to ~d mission to,....... I, EIGHT HOUR SYSTEM OFI LABOR, reSolution in relation to,...............:. VOL I, 63, report of committee on legislative department upon,,o. I, ELDER,- WILLIE, appointed messenger,;......,.. Vol I, ELECTIONS, article. on, reported - om standing com mirtee,.... -.-.'. -Vol. I, consider ed in committee of the whole...~oL 1IT, 258, 267, 282.::- - - reported from committee of the whole,. 0Vol. II, considered in Convention....... Vol. -II,.765, 780, ~referred to committee on arrangementf and -iphraseology,............ ~ V-...ol. II, - reported:from committee on arrangement and phraseology,......:.. -.....-.-.-........~ol, II, :passed;................ ~~ Vol. II, — by ILegislature,..............;......o1. II, contested, of State officers,........... Vol. I, 560, -:committee on, ~........... Vol. I, 9, :resolutions of. instructio0ns to,..................~01,. o I, 72, 73, 76, 231,.297.:'.; sections of Consfit'n: of 1850 rolmrred: to,;..V oh. I report from,................... 0!. Vol. I, -: overnor to issue writs:of, to fill vacancies in .L Iegislature,........,.-.,...,Vol. L, ~elections, time of,..-...-...-.-..-V *** ol. I}, -' tvo be by ballot,-....V....... ~ ~-'5-@.V.:..~0. I-, -:j/J,oNS, TowNsHifP, (.See To wnship;lections.): E*r~i'~os, qualifications of,..,,~o1.:WI,:2:52,:258, 267, /f295x 765, 780,...:..r ~: privileges and exemptions Of,:,:.oil ii,: 29:,290, -reg istry Of,..;.........'.' *.-,- -.-:.:X:As*,@::~*!:;(!I, disqualifled for duding,.. **.,.... a,:..,' 0.Voi:::H, ELECTORlS, residence gained or lost by,.... Vol. II, ELIGIBMITY TO OFFICE,................... Vol. II, TTTELLIOTT, ADAM, a delegate from Barry county, appeared and took his seat......... Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on amend ment and revision of the Constitution,. Vol. I, motions, etc., by,....Vol. I, 74, 190, 595;:Vol. II, 337 609, 678. resolution relative-to decisions of arbitrators, of -fered by...........o................Vol. I remarks by, on appeals from decisions of boards of supervi mtors, etc., b..........1........Vol. I, assessment of property,. Vol. I, 281 publication of State indebtedness,....Vol. I ENGLISH LANGUAGE, laws, public records? judicial and EA Rlegislative proceedings to be in,..Vol II, 576, ENROLLMENT OF CONSTITUTION on parchment, (See Constitution.): EQUALIZATION, STATE BOARD OF,.......V I, 77, 292, 310; Vol. II, 826. rESCHEATED LANDS, proceeds. of devoted- to primary -schools,.r..........i C.... D. VoL II, ESTEE, PERRY H., a delegate fromIsabellacounty, appeared and took his seat,.........;:..o. I, appointed on committee on printing,....Vol. I, motions, etc., by,........Vol. I, 337, 522, 529, Vol. II, 30, 59, 104, 122, 150, 559, 630, 646. i petitions-presented by, (-See Petitions.)..,L remarks by, on- -;: adjournment over, etc.,.. Vol. I, assessment of property,.V: rol., 276, Auditor General, office of... Vol. I, 578,. county office rs,..............VL, 0. e —.Vol. I, 393, county seats, removal of,. VoL I, -electors, qualifications of,.Vol. II, 259, population of representative districts,... V.. II, 703.: representative districts,...........Vol. I, 984, representatives, number of,. Vol., II - returns of taxable property,...., Vol.,, school system,..............Vol. II, 305, 306, suffrage for women.......Vol. II, supervisors,....,............o. I, township officers,.........Vol. I, 118, 2EEcUTIvwE DErPARTMENT, article on, reported from standing committee,............ 0o. I, considered in committee of the whole,... Vol1. I, -340, 352, 363. X:: 0 reported from committee of the whole,.. V~ol1. T. considered in Convention,... Vol. I, 374; Vol. II, referred to committee on arrangement and phraseology,................-... ol., I, 375, reported from committee on arrangement and phraseology,.... Vol. II, passede on................... I9..as.Vo11I, Crommltee o on,..........V1ct on.V.ol. I, 9, 7.- report from,............ol. I, ExERTIONs, article on, reported from standing com mittee,.........-....-Vol. I, considered in committee of the whole.... Vol. I, 520. -. -—.:. reported from committee of the whole,... Vol. I, considered in Convention,.. 1..ol. I, 527, 535, -:- ~ol. II, 733, 760.; referred to committ~ee on arrangement and phra se2logy5,. 75,!..se... VoL. I, 550; Vol. 11, - reported from committee on arrangement and - - phraseology., Vol.- II; pdaed-.....*....,.,.Vol. II, I INDEX. 0136 0 290 105 337 238 233 180 808 I 1 31 150 . l. 31 76 I 455 290 294 22 837, 741 181 300 304 441 514 440 .. 39 . 31 556 798 572. . 7.'7 : -.31 .142 436 288 581 394 412 — 274702 181440 -142 66 .985 695 .320 403 1 775 506 .134 75 47 534 252 296 898 123 .38 379 568 732 791 .. 832 -899 562 . 81 47 280 731 31 123 . 1 75 .534 253 509 342 295 289 527 546 282 761 281 761 .776 .291, 'j 1037 _ _.._.,: EXE3MPTIONS, article on, committee on,...... Vol. I, 9, report of committee oni...............oLI.reakbyol. I. minority report from committee on,..... ol. I, EX,PFNDITwRs, (See supplies and erpanditures.) E'XPOST FACTO LAWS, bills of attainder, et.; prohibited, . -(See Attainder, bill of.) EXPULSION OF MEMBIEBS OF L.GIsLiTUlU,...VO1. H, 55, EXT-RA COMPENSATION, PROHIBIT]D,.,....Vol. II, 102, 106, FARMER, WITJTIAI SMYTHiF~, a delegate from Berrien county, appeared and took his seat,............,. Vol. I, appointed a-member of com. on elections,V.ol. I, appointed a member of committee on miscella neous provisions,. Vol I, motions, etc., by,.ol. I, - 25, 25,27, 34, 35, 49, 64, 71, 88, 104, 107, 126, 127, 128, 197, 208, 242, 246, 267, 310, 321, 501, 528, 584, 587, Vol. II, 59,. 81, 123, 124, 126, 157, 181, 239,: - - 255, 277, 280, 296, 569, 579, 597, 715, 729, 730, 821, 844, 990. petitions pesented by, (See Petition#.). resolution a 6ffered by, relative to admission to educati alinstitutions,.........sprt, oVol. I, resolutioe isrelative t o taxfon sch ools, 1. 77bl. I, resolutioei ative to printing artioles ordered to third ul di sng,.....Vo11.......... peVoL II, remarksb, on — - adjou:int over.......,.....Vol. I, 425, 426, appealeom decisions of boards of supervi sors,8 {,..............~o. I, 491, 492, 500, aS~e~wt ofproprt~rs.. s.... *.........o..I, assess:O:en of property,...:: 0i1 "a —/tecretarles,................. -Vol. I, 3, Auditt{:~i?Genera!, effice of,..... Vol. I, 515, 569, 571, 58!. bills Jul the Legislature, introduetlon of,- l. II, -civil ma dreiigious rights,....,........... Vol. I, Consitufion, separate submission of provisions of,............................ Vol. II, Constitution, voting upon new, Vol. II, contestants in the Legislature, Vo~. IT, 76, corporations, granting and repe aling chters of,... Vol. I, 14l, 149, 150, 171, 175, 195, Vol. II, 566, 567, 600, 601, 603, 604, 834, county buildings, etc., taxes for,.ol. I,, 422, 423, 473. counties, organization of new, V l. To. I, 380, Vol.:lI, 327. cdams, construction of,..............Vol. II, debates- nad journals, ~........... ol. I,- 22, deserters, disfranchisement of,.............. Vol. II, 7-76, -dueling, disfranehisemen-tfor,.........~....... ol. II, eleetitonsXi purityr of, Yd............ o. II, election, time of holding,..............Vol. II, electorS, privileges ana -qualifications of,..~ol. Ii, -25-4, 261, 264, 288, 290, 785. English language,- preservation of laws, etc., in,.............. Y.~ol. II, equalization; —State board Of,.......Vol. I, ...exemptions-of p-ersonal property,....Vol. I, 512, - Governor, eligibility for,............. - olI,37 1~Governor, term of,...... Y-... ol. I, 330, homestead exemptions,f............vo.I impeachments,.......7..-..........-.-*.Vol. t, jurys, trial by, ~01.......... o. I, :laws, revision and compilation of,...Tol.: II, leave of absence, granlting,.. ~o1..:.VLII, 224, legislative department, article on,... Vol. II,'874, L~ibrarian, State, pay of,...........,..... ~ ol.- II, -libraries, township and city,..ol.,.... liquor traftie....:......:,. -....VoL. II, $-75, FARMER, WILLIAM SMYTHE,-Cont/nued. - remarks by, on —..:.. manual of Convention,........... o... l. I, military duty, liability to,... —.Vol IT, municipal officers, election of,... ol. II, 336, oath of office, constitutional,... Vol. II, 573,: pay of delegates during absence,.......:~ol; I, population of representative districts,...Vo1. II, postage of members,;..............Vol., T powers of government,..........Vol. I, 108, preamble of the Constitution.......... 1o! II, presiding officers of Legislature, pay of,..VoL. I1, -365:...;- - -;... - -... printing, etc., for State,...Vol.... II, private property taken for public use,.Vol II, 5 579, 584, 585, 586,~ 587,-689, 590, 5- 91 2 railroads, municipal aid to..'.Vol. I,; 155, 172, 2 13. -.. -.. —. regents of UJniversity,...'. Vol.* II, salaries,... VoL II, 609, 614, 617, 620, 625, 626, 800, 810, 938, 939i: - ~ -... - school system........ ol. II, sessions of the Legislature,.. ol. IT, 706,. State officers;postponement of article on, Vol. I, State officers, election of,........... o. I,V suffrage for women,....Vol. 1I, 275, 276,-767, 776, 789, 790, 791. a suffrag-e for p e opleofolor,.;.... Vol II,L supervisors,.... ol. 1, -409; Vol. I,321, taxation, uniform rule of,.....Vol. I, 274, taxes, collection of specific,..i.... Vo. 1 I,.. township officers,.o. I 1. 116, 125, d e5yeas and nays on adoption of articles,...oL. I, FxE AIND PERQUISITES OF OFFICERS,..VO1. 11, 609, 792, 819. FEMALE COLLE.G, establishment of,.Vo... -,-.:o I, -Vo1. II, 512;. FERRIS, JACOB, a delegate from Kent county, appeared and took his seat,... V. ol. I appointed a member of- committee on intoxica ting liquors,......... Vol 1,; .appointed a member tf committee: on elec Vl. tiens6,..;7 6 0...0-. 6 0'.. I,. appointed a member of committee -on tobacco smoking in public streets,'........... I, motions, etc., by,......... 1, 1,41,; 45, 51, 66, 91, 122, 128, 136, 15,- 223, 230, 322, 436, 451, 502, 504, 510, 511, 530; Vol. II, -30, 60, 81, 121, 158, 181, 257, 282, 328, 367, 375, 736, 737, 758. -...:.. petitionls presented by, ( See Pcifton,.) ~ report on tobacco smoking in streets,....Vol. I, el-s tresolution offered by, calling for Executive infor eematiOn, a.....;.. a.. it-./,.......VoL I, 4, resolution relative to stock subscriptions by mu Englih lnicipalities,...,Vol.1, 13 i - resolution relative to powers of gov't,!. V.. Vol. I, 0 resolution relative to bureau of statistics~. Vol. I, rresl'n relative to grantingleave of absence, Vol., 1, resolution relative to streets through cemete Goies, t.e o.............V.I, 30.. reVol. I,; r emarks by,~ on —:/; ;c.. V 5 adjournment over,:c..-ol I, jappeals from boards of supervisors,. V-... Vol. T. l, r n a 444, 445, 461, 479, 481, 483,-484 4,90, 491,;493, ln, - assessment of property; -....-...V ol. I, leis v dbills in the Legiulature, introduction of, Vol. I1, Li Se,civil and religiouu rights,.......Vo.L I, 589, lib s t,committees, standing,......'. Vol. 1, 9, 11, lu teont'eauts in the Legi~ltur~..Vol..Yl. 11, 79, 4 IN-I)EX. ..31 .253 296 280 234 -337 576 437 704 45 ill 932 78 59 728 Si 31 61 231 . 595 251 1 766 373 249 193 436 .799 414 7.07 601 586 -773 142 545 84 441 713 .324 276 270 126 167 615 501 284 . 6 570 82 '490 97 330 955, .77 1 31 215 836 418 31 451 50 373 41 630 504 595 61 777 294 291 294 253 597 5 63 42 76 154 577 307 513' 334 547 525 594 . 758' 678 887 . 069 432 974 297 29 443 495,, 1288 590 -12 - 81 0 1038 .FERRIS, JACOB, — Continued. F remarks, by,,on- FINES, PENALTIES, ETC., accrning to the State,.. Vol.11, 949 corporations, granting and..repealing charters ;'. ~~~~~ ~~~~0f J,'.'..~l,i8~ii:i072,'18220 210 :VLli, ~603, 604.:/ /i. county; ofcers,........:..... Vol.1, 393 397 county seats, removal of.....I.. Vol.i, 414 cOUnties, organizationf,.....VoLI1, 387, 388, 473 'debates'and"ournals...,.......Vol 63, 477G eight hiour system o! labor,;..,....:...:.,.Voil1, 67cony de0:r,qUncton o,...::ro:),II,- s 285~ .'exemption ofpersonal property,.'Vol., i-~,'1;.2, 513: freedom of speech and press,.Vol.1, 591 Governor as commander-in-chief,: 362' GOvernor'. an"d':ie:'U~n~n:'Gienr qafia tionsof.V...., 374r 'Governor, succession to the offic'e of,.:.'.Vol,'/I,'. 365: LGove rnor, term of,............. Vol.11,0L, 3306 homestea memberpofcommittee on,. o,d o,, ho o tn pmesteads for o actuthe Co,nt 758 impeachments, 152, 154, 163, 175, 1525, 526 relisonmentiefr d ebt,. Vl....11, 8..0. V, ol 610 611b LegislatUre, o f mConention.Vo1, 68 rt offie s e sr68, 69.r r b on Legislature,'expulsion'of,..... -..:o,', 56,:', F egislat ure, qualificatio ns rofon u.,sigi1.o.21, 221 req.or fram c i Qf 8w 6,..8., V.', 87 8 ~912. referredrtocommittee on,.arrangement an o mumictpal, ofiers electiong O i,....,. Vol 21,, 979 FI NANiCE atioAA oftowns,ip, cities,e tc...V61,i 95, 398 rodbning. -power.,. 1,22 2 Vol.1 7.1'3 V9,oi, 345 powers of government,.. V.I 83, 90.ol.11, 1002 diagram ohl presiding o of. Vo1 o-the -Leg.,lecator, qa i., f.VoL 11, o 76 printing, etc., for Sta te,. ~...'92 r~i~:~o~rroror:~z)~.ke:bluic use,:.)::. V-.'I,.-744 7:-t5.' 74:6, 850.' rir,ad,'mnial' aid:. to,i':' "::'., VoL. i!,: 24,. 246 ::Voli/ii,!52, 154i, 1.63, 175, 17'6, 182,.1:84, 851 religious~soci~etes,,lands held by..-...~ol!IL 841 rules!:of Convention,..,.................Ioli.,68 Sa~res,.:.'.....o1..I,B6 8'06,:'812; 8.!.3 929 searvhes and seizures,.'.... VoL:, I, 609. senators, term..,.' Vol,. II'..41, 4:2 'sessions ~of:- the Legsature.,-o1: I 54,5 soldiers'.o m'!enentotrot,.,...~ 1o l 1,:, 384 Frre' AND rt~UmSH~sT,. excessive, prohibited,. - Vol..'I,' of. Vo:.11,15,17010FIRE N Fo Cov o, appointment and compenV o L 11, 0 3 604'. sB.ation'' of.IVol1, (Se, ..p.eecth,.Press, nddiom' "::'": CxERMvA!IN, GEORGE..,..a.delegt:frobm Io-nia - e appeared and took his seat. V...... 2 89.appointed on' committe on:State officers,. Vol.1, 31 exempt m ins,:etc., by,. 1.:', 79,:138,:613; Vol.11, 678 Governor andL eutenantGoverno, (scee -by t,. V hreomeste ad.e xe mp i o s, Vo l 5, t ffio l,red impeachments ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~:. i y,:.:"'.:..Vol.~.,:',.4 525,. 526'.: sesion o,fh Le.aatr.Vo.'' 1:, 710 lm~~~~~pflsonment~~~~~~~~~~ fo'.rdebt.Vol.1 b, 610-. 611 solders monuent Detoit..Vol'.1, 386-. j u r, ri l y.V2 5 3 t n sh i p fi cer s.o l. 1, ts8 Legislature, expulsion of ~ yol. 11, 56,'57,;58 i apparied andy took ~o'his seat.V, ol.1iH.:'2, 17 liquor~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~" traffict~l,'..'. ~. ~-.V'.:I.. 673, 862 866 875, 878 proeedng. Vol.. 1~b'~I, 568 messenge~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~rs, a p i t e nt ur o f V o., 4 i l e at mx e n t,..V o L y, 1, 3 1... pardonig Spower.Vol.1, 34i5on,.Vo I, 341 powersDof go ernment. V l, 8, 90, 9, 9, w0 m o - Vol'1, 1II',m2,5 2, 4 7 2 pri~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~' -':ontin, etc., o tt.Vo.11 92 230 281, 296,...' 318 476,477,'502,508,572,:595 p vatepropearty. n.o. p ic se,..............1.. 762 V. 7115,1, 681 salaries~~~~~~~~~...Vapoln.11, 626,806,812 813 929. stmitution.o 11 1004 s e n a t o r s, t e r m o f.V o l. 1 1, 4 1, ~. 4 2 -:ad j o u n m e n t l o v e r,'e tc..Vo nL 1,. 2 26-C n ti retrns of theeilau.., ",.Vol.11, 5-.'. 54. Agricultura Colle.Vol.11, 321 soldiersmonu t, et.386b,....Vol.1,4,8, 502 S t a t e o f f i c e r s, p o s t p' o n e m e n t o f a r t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~Ii c e o, dVL 1 6 0 b o u d a r e s.ol., 6 suitors~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~.. 7, right of.ol., 136 08 can as er, board of!State. Vol.1, i97, 560 su~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~apervsr.Vl1 403 404~ chalins snte Lgsat,r....Vol.11 6 t r e a s o n a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e.. V o ].'0, 2 81, 2 9,-34,! 6, 1:7, 6 10c v l, d r e i i n s l b e t.. o 10, 1 5 8 8, 5 89 5 vetopo we r.Vol.11, 88 e m committee s, s a i no, 10i, 17, 18 consid~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~k p a;ered in co-mmitteee ofon the whl. o., 21 cnetdeetosVl1j6 242, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'a 267 28.co t s an s i the L g s a u eV L 1, 7 consider d in C v tie.. Vo.'a98, 3 6.,' 9,' 1 44,.15 7, 15 1, 1 69',17 9 05, 19 V o l 1 8 2 5, 8 9 6. 1 9 1,ion 1 9 9, e 2, 2 0 3, 2 0 9, 2 1 5, 2 1 9,' 2 2 0, 2 3 0, 2 56 2 5 phras~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~esuoloyVl1n22 0ffereII, 89 contes,'~';: orgaiain'of.o L 1,C508 r arjunment cons, etc., by.VoL 1, 503 and- seol g..i.Vol 1, 5 8 3e bates a n d ou r n. o l e1g,.' 21, 210, 1 2 ap~eafrsoluto2dns of 7structisons.'Vol 6 2,. 1, 9114, 53 3 - " 466~sr,bor o49f Sae....:-7.'.:,6.I 59 6 .evi7'n reiiu'ie~~;i: i~:."''o:I'887; 986 22omites 72' s tnig.".......-.olI,7 25,'.6 Oon/i~in:sgigo~-J- "'./:':'..Y1."02, 10074: Contituion -o ffe6'Ueo new,..:::.' ~1,I,94 conesteole ction s:',be -..-."b: -.[",.:.-0.'...'o.I 6 adju'.en over, etc.,,...... Vol. I, 224'ii.,i I"69'1 71:1019 ~:,)i:91,ura'Col99, 0,0;2,'<25':29~6.23) II0 485 Agt~e,'rg n zioo,..,,.,...'..:.:.:'.,,~1,. 0 :.e le fromt boardins; ofC,- suxesOr;,,. 1'.':~Vol, i 502 .".. i....'" ~'..':!' 6 .':' t;h9e37'Legi......'I37 and i reiolh~1 us,r......,,'i':'.. V'.;'-ol.'i58, 158 ' "O'(ie'to..,qaitu etion,:0,:::."''.: n e,:'."..' 95 4Y0iI' ~C~ i: ~ ~':'.''..... -'- 562 I -- ,. I'll....." .i- i". I. ". l. "-...'..",.,. ",-., --- ,. , 1.-.. . 1;,'..;,.,- ". - E.X. 610 "949 326, 10.39 GIDDINGS, MARSIH, —Gntinue G A remarks by, on-p equalization, State' boardof......'.Vo1, 293 rmoi examinationi for:ad''mis'n'tothe bar,.. oL. 11,829, 830p exemption laws....................VoL I, 538ul exe'mption of personal property,-.. Vol. 1, 510, 511 512, 513.r finance and taxation, article on, ~..?Vo.11, 897 fines, etc., accruing to thie State,. V,ol.1-I, 949, 950 homestead exempti on.Vol.1I 521,528, 529 530, 5.31. .hour of- meet ing,..ii,....:ol:,10 impeachmentS,............., 5254 judicial districts and circuits. Vol.11, 978, 982 judicial statistics of'counties.Vo. II, 815 le'ave of absence,. granting,. VoL 1, 165; Vo. IL, 711 c legislative department, article on,. Vol. II, 873o Legislature, pay of members of, Vol.. of new, II, 60 61, 62,- 63, 65, 66, 68, 70.: Legislature, electiion of members of,,.. V'ol;. ~'i; 14 Leig., qualifications. of, membeors 0;:~1::i:2 24.25, 27, 32, 33, 34. Librarian, State, payo,.......~:I'9'99, 1.001 libraries. city and township,... I 426,'7432, 433 473, 478, 480. liquor traffic,........ Vol.11, 74, 534 s c631, 687 861, 918. names of. 1 appointe,.d a..Vm1e:m e, e c,120 organil atd f cDitit, to Ushipp;erPeni., Vol.11, II 99 360 poeers ofgtheUov ernmenty,.... I 1, 554 VoL 11, 110 preamble of the Conv n tittion.V ol., 58,.1.......rksby,O58 prsd'mg offieers of Leg., pay of..o:I -~ 364 rinting etc. V for State,2, 235 939 370, 373 Siatepocers,tyta en fa r Puticl use, Vol.1, 61 468,76 obatxe courts. ofrisdieti ofi Vol I, 4 65 railr oad from Detroit to bupper enine, wit v me oUt .426, 4=54, 455,z4=57, 4=58.-.... railroads, municipali aid to,,~6.~1 1,246; VoL 4 160, 162, 163, 170, 189; 190; 925. r ege ntsof th kUniversi t,...OL.. 54; Vol. 1It 4i35 p4.36, 4=37, 4=38;439,1 4823.. rule~s of' Convention,.............. 1Vl-.,-58, 14=2 salaries,...V.5ol. II, 801, 803, 808,,818, 820.;~ 8'21, 822 823. sChool-system,........ ol. -Il,,'398,' 399,::48,''419 469 sesosof the Legislat:Ure,:,p,Y I,;7 4=8:4~i9 50: 707,'710.'.. superisor,........ V....:,ol. 1, ~ 232, 23 5~026 GOODWIN; X ]E —G,i,~... petition s pr sentens, by; (See Petition$.V) hour epea om bommiaoteeronv is'ors,. Vol.1, quo 6resented by,.......... Vol. 40 Leiltre,eluc off bers o.y,. relative tco disti. oL 11, 3 Leg.', qualifications of~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ membaeSaorsM% [.... V....1 2 24 juica cicut.Vl1 445,:446 25, 27, 32, 33, 34.Legislatures, eletin.f.mmbrsof.. V ol.1, 8, 9 Lib~~~~~~~~~~~~rearian Stat, pay- o...Vo.11'9 01 lqo rfi.. ol1 9 4,0unicip off'ere, eectin of.Vol.11, 35,6, 861, 918. piowes of government.Vol. I,: names ofperolS, l cla. Vol1r s of suniersity.or1,: 440 482 ognat of5 7 c, s e, term of. ol1, 443, 444 p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~owedris, of gvrmn,..V.. ol.1 10, 110 Wyecut, auiosof8Vl1, 6 probaecouts,sdictions o..... 4........ Vo.1, 426, 454, 455, 457;458eorpo. me, grntin an d removals' ftrom effc. Vl1, 3 rr, m p,...1,.,,...V 1, 534;Vo.I, 84; remarksnternalioprvemnt,. b.y1, on ebesand' ou'rnm ato'er: s~t,:..:.:.....1 I43 83eqaizationl: ais, Sa b of..' Vol.!1i 31 s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~jdcioolcsysutes;.'..........Vl1,39,39 08, 1,49GviNRcle pnfrifrnto,. Vol.1i:,:: 5 sessions of the L~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~egislature,..VL1,4,4,4, initdtatensessions0iebr of;..venio,Vol.1 5L8 606; Vol., II, 816r o i.9, 3226 9 twnshipa officers,anr of elecg....Vol. 1, pper P costeaoe on. ieaenteo;.VoL 1 361, 52i, veopower 1t of bgoer-inmanef;.. V.l. 1,.340,:361,Vot rof.entson.Vol......,...,..V.. Y 01.1I2, 221 DAelate Wayne conven aleiors of,. e..,...Vol.... c~~~~~~~~~~~~ounty, to L IAK grnrrpiee, p~doe iegetc. VoLm 1,a 343 : I app ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ rointed a member of commte o ues. o. 1 Lgsanur e.Vlu1a-4 'iroc itso.........V... 1o, 0, appointed asmember'of ommittee o i i -ificaion of;.Vol. I e. iengot e rals::iofiebyele,'ctonoLi, motions, etc., by. Vol. II 1, 03, 389, 30 9, Mlcea fificesreseneb,- (ele etitins) 351, 32, 353 358, 59, 36, 363,368,, 72, 37 tosin.. c'misosVol1 373 4 8 4stag olfto ovej es on re latioes-, VoL 1, 5n 4 egento copr:vernsatio.... Vo.... upmarks b,'II-: 4:8 eWay/ain;Sae cont, aud Of,.........:6. ~GolDI, W! I -, F1., f~ eligibiland- too offi e f,....,:,;.Vol:,.'37 eo ~vo- oaco mee oan educos..,:, a. men,Yt and eleting.41::,:r-,,. i'..... impea~~~~~~~chent,',.:....:". o II,31 'otions b e:_cmad —he,.. by, Vol, i; 534,0 3 61 .. etilotrnsactp br'esSoited by, (-Seeo'f:u:~i*e ' ocnaesecMsessions offrd Leg., re~ie'tc, d.;,:''it6I, -tor grn rprieve ns, Pkonat,~....Vol. I ~ 0hr ~:O~rt'eoe-f:omatksy,, o n - Y1:'~ 4pu,~ifro bard~s of,,'-orig.........,;.0.I,3, eqatelig7o~iobe StoOthro~ieb y ~eon/s:id~ : tr e,........~~......,..,....::0.! t0remol e udgeso n reloh/ivn6!eg, oI, :cmpnstonof....,,Yl H]6'9 61~: 66 ........, - I I. I......... - ........1.111; -.-".l., 41.t.,.,.."..-,.-.-................... I 1....1.......I.,...",.11, ll. I 11 1. -. I I - I -. I I -. I........ I... 1 8 7 0 0 0 5 4 3 6 5 5 5 2 'i.1 " Ix ........... 1.111.11, ll., 111. -. I,- I -56 92 440 612 443 160 561 226 387 40 380 446 9 596 356 .-47 105 .482. 444 463 1 31 31 366 i5 461 310 5 . 5 84 328 374 348 .338 527 341 342 343 342 348 731 366 373 526 900 ' _ v' 7'.1 4 - I a 0 —l..-. i -... i _1. - - -u.. GOVERNOR to personally superintend the duties of his office,....................Vol. I, 823, GOVERmNMENT, DIVISION OF PowIW OF, (See Powers of G-overnment) GRAELV ROADS, Vol.1 II, 122, GRIMES, PROF., lecture by,...: Vol. I, 176, 195, -GULICK, ROBERT F., a delegate from Keweenaw -county, appeared and took his seat,..*.... Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on judicial department,..... ~ol I, appointed a member of omm ittee on'ntoxica, ting liquors,.............V.. ol. I, appointed a member of committee on Upper aPeninsula,:Vol..I, HABEAS CORPUS, WRIT OF,.......1 -. reoto........ tprnol. I, HAIRE, JOHN, a delegate from Ottawa county, appeared and took his seat,....... Vol. I,; appointed a member of corm. on supplies,.. Vol, I, appointed a member of committee on exemp - tins,.......................... — ol. I, petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) - remarks by, on — assessment of property,........... Vol.., equalization, State board of,.........,.. i;.Vol. Is HALL, resolutions granting use of,.....Vol., 24, 27, ol,. II, 84, 600. diagram of, (See.Diagram Olal.' ) HARRIS, EDWARD P., a delegate from Oakland county, appeared and took his seat.........-... Vol. I appointed a member of committee on impeach ment and removals from office,..... Vol., I, appointed a member of Coom. on schedule, Vol. I, 367,-398, 1007. 39 motions, etc., by,.V. ol, I, 60, 134, 280; Vol. II, petiions presentedby, (See Petitions.) 8 remarks by, on- -n-' county officers,......... V ol. I, 392, electors, qualifications of,.,..............V ol. II English laguage, preservation of laws, etc., in,.............................. Vol. II, hall, use of,.Vol. I, leave of absence, granting,............. -ol.II, - 71 678,' 711.'-;: -' libraries, toswnsip and city,.........'. aoL II, printing, eta., for: State,........,..,,Vol. II, quorum, riule relative to,....$...........~ol. II, rules of Convention,.....................ol. I, ~School~system,...:..... -.~ol. II, 400, 467, supervisors,......:.,,~ ol. If -~ol, II, 310, 311., - treason against the State,. V......ol. I, HAVEN, EZRA, a delegate from St. Clair couty, :-appeared and took his seat,..,,............. 7.........:Vol. I, -appointed a-member 0f committee on corporal -tiens other:ttia municipal,.............. -.. Vol. I,; -appointedi a member of Cormmitce on public motions, etc.; By,.,....:.ol. I,: 8, 13, 82, -450; ~01. II,:514, 94:7, 967. pet~itions presented by, ( See Petitio ns.).: ::-resolution offered by, relative to homesteads for actual settlers,............ Vol. i, resolution relative to recess of Cony'n,..; VOL I, remarks by? on-':.. adjournment over, etc.;.........' Vol. T. county seats, removal of, Vol...!I^, debates and. journals,,.,....'..,.,,.....V ol. I, 21, -SchoO!'.system,;,......,..,.;, - ~o1.,.I, ~01, H ]oNDER.ON, EDEN F., a,dele gate from Calhoun county, appeared and took his seat,............V....ol. I, appointed a member of com'e on counties,,ol. I, appointed a member of committee on inance appointed a member of ~~~~~~~~~committe o Upereouinofrdb,rltvtopsae on.flmem and taxa.ion.......1 b. V.ol. I, motions, etc., by,...mol. I, 25, 2 7, 34, 43, 47, a175, 195, 278, 295, 438, 466, 474, 487, 506, a522, 534, 556, 583, 587,7 588, 607; Vol. II, 6, V1041, 118, 124, 127, 151, 208, 209, 225, 280, 424 65 4, 71, 527, 545, 547, 551, 573, 578, . 852, 857, 858, 864, 966, 988, 989, 100, 1019. petitions presented by, (See Petitions,) resolution offered by, r elative to postage of m, m bers,..........01. Vol. T, res olution relative to printing rules of Convetn.- tion,................Vol.- I, English language, preserva~~~~~~~~tion. of las et. in,.Vol.11 7 resolution relative to time for committee to report,.............o. - Vol.I, remuarks by, on-, -adjournment over, etc.,....o,.. Vol. I, 426, 43243, 435, 437, 610, Agricultuiral Cofege, o.......~o116o5'II, .aliens, righof,t - b. VoLf I, appeals ofrom boards o f super visors,.. Vol. I, Vol. I, 317, 322, 323, 3246 --: assessment of pr operty,........1. 1 93.7, 3 291, Auditor General, office of,..............1ol. 1., bills in the Legislaturej introduction of, Vol., II, corporations, granting and repealing charters - a of,ul. Vol. I,!9,180,V190,191; Vol. II. 566, countiesm organization of new,.Vol........1 7 I, ;88, 390. icounty officers,.......... ol. I, 395, 397, county seats, removal of,.... VoL I, 470; Vol. II, 329. debates and journals,........... VoL I, 7, 20, 22, deserters, disfranchisement of:,..... Vol. II, diagram of the hall,,.-.......,,:. Vol. II, English language, preservation of laws, etc., mn, - Vol.: II, equalization, State board of,...VoL I) 313, 314, ;Vol. II, 827. - - exemptions,........... Vol. I, 521; Vol. II, jury, trial by,.................ol. I, 592,/593, leave of absence, granting,..... Vol. II, legislatiTe deparmnent, article on,......Vol. II, 858, 895, 926. Legislature, pay of members of,...V01. II, 65, 70. -;. — Legislature, qualifications of members, j ~ Voli.II, :30. ilibraries, city and township,.............. Vol. II, 420, 865, 871, 878, 884X 904. 0 ~ n popillatixonf representative districts,.....ol. II,. 703. -~. V.-.:.:. postage of member~. ~,..........1Vi. I, 26, d>, printing,: eta., for State,'.~- ol. II, 93, 369, 370, private property taken for public use,!. *:~ol.~ II, 579, 586,~ 590. - 0.. raflroafcs, mun1ipal aid to,........... V01. II, 167, '-rules of C7onvention,......VoW I,'34, 57, "58, Salaries...'..'.'.'..'.'.'.'.'..~01. II, 806,' 820,'823, School system, ~........ o1. II, 306, 401, sessions of the Legislature, ~Vol II, 37, 65X, '-705, 707,' 708. -''.'.: she' riffs,.'......... ~-'''-0''T1. I,. 401, sirki,g fund,......'. -01. I, 237, 298, I- -W D V,'X. 10.10 949 1 31 .151 31 127 508 75 415 70 9 31 31 125 591 .26 74 438 9 31 31 427 505 612 500 292' 571 - .-83 - 834 382 276 306 453 I 3i 31 296 328, 40 ,777 224 395 284 578 607 578 209: 570 733 594 570 85.3 474, 90 570 1 32 469 407 68 20 346. 421 l' 684 31 702 . 47 . 372 . 6 78 690 77 824 402. 363 297. 425 426 416 62. 302 402 299 10 1 HENDERSON, EDEN F.-Continued. remarks by, on State ofiers, etc...................- Vol I 606; Vi!. Ii, 125. suffrage forpeople of color,..........VoLI. IT, suffrage for women,....... I.......... I I, supervisors,...... - Vol. ii, t axation, uiform rule of,.. V..5 60ol. I, taxes, colection of Specific,............ ol. I, township officers, etc.,...o.......ol. I, 115, 118, HENKEL, PETER, a delegate from Wayne county, appeared and took his seat,...-. Vol. ", appointed a member of committee on cities and villages,............. Vol. T. appointed a member of committee on sup plies,. *-**.~I. T. HIGHWAY COMMISSIONERS, resolution relative to aboli tion of,..........4,. Col I, resolution relative to number of,.......... Vol. I, report of committee on townships on,'. V.ol.e!, election of,.......................... Vol. I, 125, HIGHWAYs, (See Briges, etc.) HIGHwAYs, private property taken for, (See Private - property tkienfor'public use.)"... HIXSON, DANIEL, a delegate from Washst'enaw county, - appeared and tOok'his seat,...........VOL I, appointed a member of Com'e on counties, Vol.-! motions, etc.,'by,... Vol. I, 152; Vol. II, 124, 415, 545,. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) HOLMES, CHARLES D., a delegate, from Calhoun, county, - appeared and took his seat;,.......,..:.ol. I, appointed a member of com'e on elections, Vol. I,, appointed a member of com'e on salaries, Vol. I, motions, etc., by,....Vol. I, 138, 403; Vol II, 96, 209, 397, 544, 545, 572, 593,- 599, 630, 720, petitions presented by, (Set; Petitions.) resolution offered by, relative to organization of counties,............o.- T..... resolution relative to professorship of homeo-, pathy,......................... Vol. I, remarks by, on — appeals from boards of supervisors,..... Vol. II, assessment of pro perty,............Vol. I, ConstitiUtion, voting upon new,.........'VoL II, counties, organization of new,........... - ol. I, counity> buildings, etc., taxes for,.........~...... ol. I,4 deserters, disfranchisemnent of,............Vol. II, equaliz~ation, state aboard Of,............. -~ol. I, liquor traffic, Yo......... v!.VL II,. 522, returns- of taxable propRerty,..VOL. I, salaries,....:....... Vol. II, 618, 621, 626,: suffrage for people of color,................ -~ol.!.T, t ownship officers, etc.,.......>..~..-~ ol. I, 01A~, HOLT, HF,l NRYZ H., a delegate from Muskegon county, appeared ~an took; his seat,...............,VAoL!,k appointed a member of coimmttee on order of proceeding,..................... ~~o. I,i appointed a member of comimittee on the judicial departmnent,..... ol. I, appointed a: member of committee on citfies and villages,..../.................. Vol.-I, motions,: etc., by, V....o1. I, 9, 15, 51, 55, 69, 14:6, 352, 373, 4:08, 4:5i,- 534; Vol. II, 1, 30, 88, 105, 112, 252, 286, 326, 4:19,0 427, 513, 598, 614, '706, 718, 724:,-727, 950,- 997. petitions preSented bys, (seed Peri~ions. ) VoL. 2 —No. 181.. -HOLT, )iJ",NRY H.-Continued. resolution offered by, relative to occupations of Sameofbers., e....',V...ol. I, 15 resolution relative to additional messenger,. Vol. I, 42 resolution' of thanks to the citizens of Lan -sing... -....... Vol. II, 1020 remarks by, on.- - appeals from boards of supervisors,... Vol, 502 county officers,. Vol. I, 392, 394, 475 electors, qualifications of,........VoL II 289 Governor, manner.of electing,.............Vol. I, 337 Governor, term.of,...........Vol. I, 334,. 337 homestead exemptions,........ Vol. 1, 522, 554, 550 0ol. I,. 733, 738, 761. jary,, trials boly, I........;Vol. I, 248 Legislature, expulsion of members of,... Vol II, 55 Leg., qualifications of members of. V...ol.. II, 22 messenger, employment of additional,.... Vol. I, 42 names of persons, laws changing..... Vol. II, 119 oath of office, constitutional,.. VoL II, 573, 575, 576 occupations of delegates,..........Vol., 15 organization of townships, cities, etc... Vol. II, 95 powers of government, Vol. I, 105, 106, 112, 221 presiding officers of Legislature, pay of,..oi IT,.74 rules of Convention.V6ol., 32: -— 233 salaries,...Vol.' II, 612, 615, 624, 630, 817, 818, 822 9'02. ~ school system,......... Vol. II, 416, 418, 467,'514 sessions of the Legislature,............ Vol. II, 708 suffrage for people of color,. Vol. I, 718 suffrage for women,......Vo..-.VoL II, 776 sHupervisors, CHARLES. a dele t f* C u s.oL 1., 407; VOL II, 314: taxation, uniform,............... Vol. I, 275 township officers, etc.,,............ 1s c......;o. I, 135 aHOMEOPATHY, professorship of, in State Universi a: m.m o o................ o s,.. Vol. I, 231; VoL II, 517 m,HOMESTEADS FOR ACT'L SETTLERS, Vol. I, 63,297; Vol. 11, 758 HO.MESTEADS,, EXEMPTIONS -or, 0o1. I, 520, 527,- 546 - Vol. Ir, 733, 760. HOUR OF- DAILY SESSIONS or CONVNTION,...ol. 1 Vo1, 4, 76, 152 - 167; ~o1 II, 251, 672, 676, 1005.. HOWARD, SUMNER, a delegate from Genesee county, " e appeared and took his seat,...... Vol. I, 1 appointed a member of committee' on impeach ments and removals from office,......Vol. 31 appointed a member of committee on intoxica ting liquors.......................Vol. I, 31 appointed a member of committee on crimes -and- punishments,............1 7nVoL I, 125 motions, etc., by,......Vol I, 15, 61, 71, 72, 138, 426 Xr.Vo 5 450, 451, 582, 587; VoL II, 201, 209, 326, 327, 517 550, 557, 570, 630, 678, 688,'854:, 931. petitions presented by, (See 2etitions.) -. resolution offered by, relative to board of par tons,...............dol. I, 47 remarks by,: on —:' adjournment over, etc.,......VoL 1, 24, 137, 430, 436 437, 441, 442. age of judges,........ -.....-Vol. II, 561 - Agricultural College)........V.......Vol. II, 490, 500 appeals from boards of supervisors. V 1, 461 4:62, 481, 4:92, 4:93, 494; Vol. II, 324...0.i, 9 capital punishment,................692 committees, standing,..........V.........~ol. 1,.- 11 Constitution, voting upon new,.... ol. II, 956 - debates and journals,..............VoL, 22 denominational schools,......Vol. II, 379, 380, 382 - eight hour system of labor,... I...-..;.'.-.~I. 68,,' 69 examinations for admission to the bar,.~.1ol. 1i, 880 ..I- -. -. -. y I, -.1, -, -- I --- -, — -. -. -. -... " - I. I I - - IND:Exo. 600 '718 776313 274' 270 126 64 31. 31 . 63 77 78 129 1 . 31 209 'i - 81 31 .46 721 73' 231 316 282 956 .388 1417 779 292523 .319 811 786 125 .I 5 '3. 31 71 -101. 705 1042 INDEX. HOWARD, SUMNER.,-Continued. remarks by, on- homestead exemptions,.......... Vol. I, 329, 547, Jameson's Consti tution al Convente rslion, resolution to furnish,...... Vol. I, judicial districts an d circuits,. V ol. II, 973, 974, 977, 978, 980, 981, 982. jury, trial by,.................. Vol. I, 592, leave'of absence, granting,.. Vol. I, 322; Vol. II, legislative department, article on,..Vol. II, 892, liqu or traffic......... Vol. II, 204, 205, 388, 389, 396, 523, 527, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 636, 862, 863, 866, 871, 876, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 92l, 923, 924. military duty, persons liable to..... Vol. II11, 233, powers of government,.................Vol. T. quorum, rule relative to,................ Vol. II, railroads, municipal aid to,.......... Vol. I, 247, Vol. II, 155, 177, 178, 179. salaries,............................. ol. II, taxation, uniform,..................... Vol. I, taxes, collection of specific,..........Vol' I, township officers, etc.,.....V;....o. I, 119, HULL, LEVI T., a delegate from St. Joseph county, appeared and took his seat,.............. Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on print ing,.....V. ol. I, ....................... To.I appointed a member of committee on educa tion,................... Vol. I, motion, etc., by,... Vol. I, petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) reports from committee on printing, presented by,................. Vol. I, 156; Vol. II, HUSTON, BENJAMIN W., a delegate from Tuscola county, appeared and took his seat,...........Vol. I, appointed a member of com'e on militia, Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on amend ment and revision of the Constitution,.. Vol. I, appointed President pr o tempore,.. ol, II, motions, etc., by,.... -Vol. I, 78, 303, 395, 508, Vol. II 121, 122, 237, 240, 251, 326, 329, 367, 387, 388, 583, 596, 686,-825, 826, 861. petitions presented by, -(See Petitions.) resolution offered by, relative to reform-of legal practice,..........................ol. I, resolution relative to assessment of taxable prop erty,.................~..ol.. I, resolutiojx relativeto pay of postmaster of Con — vention,...............V....o]. II, rem-arkcs b~,> on — appeals from boards of supervisors,...............Viol. I, Auditor General, offce of,...............-ol. I, 552, 575 counties, boundaries of,............ Vol. I, 467, counties, organization of new,................~ol. I, 375, county' buildings, etc., taxes flor,-........... Vol. I, county seats, removal of,....Vol. I, 4:10, 412i ~ 16, 4:19; ~~ol. II, 32.7, 328. -, - dams, Construction of,...................Vol.'-II, 593, deserters,- disfranchise~ment of,............ -~Aol. II, electors, qualifications of,j..............~.ol. II, 254:, equalization, State board -of,.....Vol. I, 292, 293, 303, 304:, 308, 313, 314:.' judicial districts and circuits,.. Vol. iI, 975, 978, jury, trial -by,..'..........*.. - Vol. II, liquor traffic,....- Vol. II, 861, 867, militaryr duty, persons liable to,....... Vol. II, 234:, 236.... population of representative districts;,... Yol. II, HUSTON, BENJAMIN W.,- Continued. remarks by, on postmaster of Convention, pay of,...... Vol. II, public lands.... Vol. II, 748, 750, 752, 754, 757, railroads, municipal aid to,.............Vol. II, removals:from office,................... Vol. I, representatives,.number of,............. Vol. II, salaries,..................... Vol. II, 609, 620, school system,.................... Vol. II, IDIOTS AND INSANE PERSONS, voting by,........ Vol. I, Vol. II, 291. IMPEACHMENT OF GOvERNOR,...........Vol. I, 361, IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE, committee on,..............................Vol. I, 9, report of co mmittee on,................ ol. I, IMPEACHMENT, article on, reported from standing com mittee,.....................Vol. I, considered in committee of the'whole,....Vol. 1, reported from committee of the-whole,... Vol. I, referred to committee on arrangement and phraseology,....... Vol. I, 550; Vol. II, reported from committee on arrangement and phraseology,.......................Vol. II, passed,........................... Vol. II, IMPEACHMENTS, House of Reps. to direct. o 1:V, 2I, to be tried by Senate,..................Vol. I, manner of prosecuting,.... ol. I, to vacate office,................ Vol. I, Legislature to be convened to try..... Vol. I, INDIANS, SUFFRAGE OF,........ V. ol. II, 252, 258, 267, .779, 780. INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY of bank officers and stock holders,.... Vol. I, 148, 226, 230,254; Vol. II, INGALLS, ELEAZER S., a delegate from Menom inee county, appeared and took his seat,........Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on State -officers............................ Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on print ring., Vol. I, motions, etc., by. 08. Vol. I, 41; Vol. II, 122, 165, 479. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) resolutions offered by, relative to committee bus mness,......... I...................ol. I, 40, resolution relative to diagram of hall,....Vol. II, resolution relative to railroad from Detroit to Upper Peninsula.Vol. II, -remarks by, on diagram of the hall... Vol. II, 224, electors, qualifications of,....Vol. II, 252, 253, 259, 283, 284. law terms of courts,.............: Vol. II, railroad from Detroit to Upper Penin.,. Vol. II, 426, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457. railroads, municipal aid to,.... Vol. II, 153, 158, 16INQUIRY, RESOLUTIONS OF, mode of reference of,. VoL I, INSANE PERSONS, VOTING BY, (See Idiots and Insane persons.) INSPECTORS, SCHOOL, ( See School Inspectors. ) INSURANCE COMPANIES, resolution of inquiry relative -0to,30,0,3,34 tol........1 I, INSURANCE COMP~NIES, (Sea Corpor ations.). INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS, resolution for committee liqu~~~~~~~~~ ~~~or, trfi..............VLI,8186,88o.........................Vol. 1, INTERNAL X~PXROVEMuENmS, ( See.Railroad s. ) INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS, State not to be interested id,.fiO..............Vol. I, 268, 303; Vol. II, 1042 INDEX. 548 281758 127 349 694 799 302 49 975 594 398 893 395 637 909 76 364 236 '111 571 252 31 297 297 523 527 814 274 273 135 762 -281 761 523 523 523 *-525 527 282 104: 31 31. 153 1002 837 1 31 15 31 31 941 595 384 31 150 43 224 63 77 337 281 239 254 446 425 458 576 468 391 419 413594 777 779 294 71 4 980 24:1 868 233 700 15 896 INDEX:01 ISLANDS, counties composed of..............Vol. I, 387 JAMESON'S CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, resolution to -.purchase copies of,...............V ol. I,.47 JENNISON, HIRAM, a delegate from Ottawa county, (Did not appear.) appointed a member of committee on amend - ment and revision of the Constitution,.. Vol. I, 31 appointed a member of com. on elections,.. Vol. I, 31 JOURNAL AND DEBATES OF CONvENTION, distribution of, (See Debates.) printing of,................ Vol. I, 8, 25, 31, 78, 476 indexing of...... Vol. II, 936 JOURNALS OF LEGISLATURE.,..............-..Vol. II, 81 JUDGES, AGE OF..VL.......... II, 449, 559 qualifications of,.................. Vol. II, 561 election of, under new Constitution,.......Vol. II, 965 991, 993, 996. resolut'n relative to eligibility of, to office,. Vol. I, 93 JUDGEF or SUPREME COURT, resolution relative to appointment of,................Vo1. I, 42 resolution relative to number of,....... o1. I, 42 JUDGES OF PROBATE, (See Probatejudges.) JUDGES, separate submission of provisions relative to, -................................Vol. II, 124 (See Courts.) JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, committee on,........ Vol. I,' 9, 31 resolutions of instruction to,......Vol. I, 42, 60, 76 92, 93; Vol. II, 182. reports from,............... Vol. I, 65; Vol. II, 182 JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, article on, reported from standing committee,................. Vol. II, 182 considered in committee of the whole,.. Vol. II, 442 458. reported from committee of the whole,..Vol. II, 466 considered in Convention,....VoL II, 559, 828, 832 referred to committee on arrangement and ~ phraseology,...................Vol. II, 563, 833 reported from committee on arrangement and phraseology,....................... Vol. II, 711 pass ed',........................I.....ol. II, 833 JUDICIAL OFFICES, vacancies in.....,.......... Vol. II, 463 JUDICIAL PROCESS, style of...............VoL II, 466 JURY, RIGHT OF TRIAL BY,....Vol. I, 591; Vol. II, 240, 247 248.' JURY, VERDICTS BY........................ Vol. II, 466 JUSTICES OF THE PEACE,.......Vol. I, 77; Vol. II, 466, 953 r KENNEY, MYRON C., a delegate from Lapeer countys, appeared and took his seat, 1 cmitn............. tol. I,- re1 appointed a member of comnmitt~ee on mix litia,.Vol. I, 31 appointed a member of committee on bill of rights,..................... ~ ol. I, 31 — motions, etc., by, ~...... ol. I, 582; Vol. II, 237' petitions presented by,.(See Petitions.) resolution of thanks to Sergeant-at-Arms, offered by. w.-..:......... Vol. II, 1020 LABORERS' AND MECHANICS' LIENS, (See Liens of labor - ers and mechanics.) - -0LABOR, EIGHT HOUR SYSTEM OF, (See Eight Hour Sys - tem.) LAMB, JOHN M., a delegate from Lapeer county, appeared and took his seat,............ Vol. I, 1 appointed a member of committee on bounda - ries, seat- of government, and division of the powers of government, ~....... ol.: I,..31 appointed a member of Committee on executive department,.31 506 520;.Vol. I, 1, 31 appointed a member of committee on rules, VoLr I,..,...b................ 15 LAMB, JOHN M., —Continued. motions, etc., by,........... Vol. I, 11, 69, 79, 329, 340, 466, 481, 545, 556, 571; Vol. II, 124, 223, 230, 231, 861, 884, 895, 920. petitions, etc., presented by, (See Petitions. report from committee on boundaries, etc., pre sented by,......................... TVol, I, resolutions offered by, relative to qualifications of electors,.........................ol. 1, resolution relative to tax on dogs,. Vol. 1, resolution relative to form of Constitut'n,. Vol1. I, resolution for recommittal of article on legisla tive department, 4 bonaiset.Vol. II, resolution of instruction, relative to article o n legislative department,............ VoL II, resolut'n'relative to pay of messengers,. -Vol.!I, remarks by, on adjournment over, etc.,....Vol. I, 139, 426, 429, 436, 440, 441, 442, 597, 614.1 bo undaries, etc..Vol. I, 77, civil and religious rights,..........Vo. - Vo l. I, 589, counties, organization of,..Vol. I, Governor as commander-in-chief,........Vol. I, homestead exemptions,...Vol. I,0 hour of meeting,... Vol. I, jury, trial by,i.....ocmie m Vol. I, 594, -le ave of absence, grant ing,... V oL -II, 2 legislative departmsent, article on,... Vol: i I, -856, 857, 858, 859, 861, 864, 873, 874, 875, 887, 904, 911, 926. liquor traffic,............. Vol. II, 885, 913, 918, preamble of the Constitutio....n,.. Vol. 1I, railroads, municipal aid to,............Vol. II, State officers, etc.,...Vol. I, 562, 586, 587, 604, Vol. II, 952. L.IND OFFICE, CoMMISSmINER OF STATE, called upon for information,...................... Vol. I, comimunication from,.....'Vol. I, to personally superintend his office,....Vol. IS, term of office of,...................... Vol. I, place of office of,............. Vol. I, to be a member of State board, V ~ol. I, compensation of,......... Vol. II, 609, 615, 625, LANDS, PUBLIC, COMMITTEBE ON,.............~ol. I, 9, report from,....Vol. II, resolutions of instruction to,...Vol. I, 61, 63, 97, resolution relative to grants of, from the United States, Vol. I, communication. from State Land office, referred - o,......' Vol. I, LANDS, PUBLIC, FoR HOMESTEADS, (See Homesteads.) LANDs, STILE, resolut'n of inquiry relative to,.. Vol. I, commnunication from Commissioner of State L~and office relative tO,........... -...... Vol. I, application o f,........Vol. IT, 600, 74:7, LJAND,S SWAMP, resolutions relative to disposition and salo of,............ Vo1.TI,77, 97, LJANSINO, THANES TO LADIES AND CITIZENS or,...VoL I, 507, 1020. — entertainment by ladies of, to delegates,.. Vol. I, 4:67, 507. LNCsmaG TolwssnP ELrCTIOSS,...... VO1. I, 166, LAWREN(CE, BENJAMIN,>W.,i a~ delegate frotm Livingston county,: -appeared and took his seat,. Vol. I, appointed a member of corn. on counties,.-. Vol. I, -motions, etc., by,........... ~ol. I, 25, 77, -152, 153, S06, 520; Vol. It, 1, 84:, 123, 337, 415.: resolutions offered by, relative to convicts in State : ~ -prison for murder,...............Vol. I; 323, -1-N, DE X. 10-13 209, 65 76 297 545 855 1896 435 80 - 590 1 505 341 546 152 .595 --- .238 855 886 920 935 925 605, 4 -66 823 550 550 555 805, 31 600 297 - -61 66 4 66 754 167 399 453 - .297 1 31 323 557 1044 LAWRENCE, BENAMIN W.,-Continued. remarcs by, on- - adjournment over, etc,.............Vol. I, 441 appeals from boards of supervisors,.... Vol. 1, 447 500; Vol. If' 320:............. assessment of property,..........Vol. I, 277 county officers, et6.,.ol. I, 395 exemptioin of personal property,..... V..oi. 1, 513 Governor, ineligibility of, to legislative-ap - V pointments,.........o,. r mVol. I, o69 Governor and Liutenant Governor, qualifica- s woens.....,...........Vol....Vol.1,... -Eons, *. Vol. I, ~374 Governor, term of,....................VoL I, 336 homestead exemptions,...,........Vol., 521, 530 L egislature, qualifica tions of members of, Vol. -II, 20, librari es, township and CVoitr,........4....Vol. I, 23 railroads, municipal aid to,...Vol. II, 135 relief to contractors,.Vol. iI,.. 2106, 11 r eturns of taxable property,.......... I s, 319 sessions of the Liegislaturno,. a c d -.Vol.1.i, 4I, 3 Lherifs,.........V............. Vol. VI, 401 soldiers monu ment, Detroit,....... Vol. I, 386 suffrage fo r women, t... Vol. II, 775 township officers,, etc................. Vol. I, 133 LAws, AMENDMENT OF,............ Vol. I, 76 Vol., 2 88 Aws, ADAPTATION OF, to new Const itutio n,.... Vol. II, 953 LAWS, CHANGES. IN, to be reported'to6 tfieLeg',. Vol. II, 953; -992.LASS, ETC., CO NTINUANCE Or, under new Constitu- - ~ fion,.............. -.T..Vol. II, 949LAWS, PUBLICATION OF,.......................Vol. II, 94 to embrace but one object,.....Vol. -II, 88, 122, 366 LAIVSj NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF, resolution relative .. o *. \..,. ~....... I, 4.2., to,..........................Vo I, 42 LAWS, REVISION AND COMPILATION OF, -. Vol. II, 758: LAws, STYLErO,............... Vol..IT, 207 LAWS, -TE OF TAKINGm Er FEeT........... V.O1. II, 88, 366 LEACH, DEWITT C., a delegate from Grand Traverse county, appeared and took his seat............Vol. 1 appointed a member of committee on order of proceeding,.......;...... l, 5 appointed a member of committee on bound aries, seat of government, and division of the powers of government,............ ol. I, 31 appointed a member of committee on finance and taxation, -.............. I -31 appointed a member of~ committee on preserva -tion of order,...........' V o1.T 31 ~motions, etc.,by,..,......l. VI, 61, 64, 65, 74,78, 79 87, 88, 92,. 104, 111, 12.7, 138., 13.9:.152, 155, 185 - 25,,29 425 98, 318, 382, 386, 39, 89s,41 424,~~~~~~ 40-41 6 4646,50, 5s87, coc, 607 6183; Vol. II,.!05, 106, 118,.-158, 179,-.236, 239 -251, 276, 326, 341, 359, 368, 433,: 520X 527, 561 571, 600, 604, 607, 620, 687, 692, 719, 736, 739 740, 758, 762,?64,.797, 948~ 949,.952, 9060' 1007 reports brorn committee on finance and taxation, by,.......~ ol. I, 122, 279; ~01/Ii, 7ill,...........827 resolution offered by, relative to- appointment of ~ postmaster,.........,......ol. I, 3 resolution relative to distribution of ]our resolution. relative.to'days for offiering..resovlu (ions,....... -... -.......ol1-I, 73 resolution relative to hour of daily meetinag? resolution gifnting leave of- absence to Mr. ILEACH,::DEWITT C.,-Continued. resolution of thanks to ladies of Lansing, VolI, resolution relative to articles on townships and counties,....................i.......Vol. I, resolution relative to' pay of officers of Conven tion, ol. II, resolution relative to index of journal,...Vol. II, resolution fixing time for vote on liquor traffic, ~ol. II, 550. remarks by, on adjournment over, etc.,....Vol. I, 24, 'Vol. - I, 545, 546. Agricultural College,...... Vol. II, 486, 490,. assessment of property,........ Vol. I, 276, 283, Auditor General, office of.....Vol. I, 569, 570 boundaries,....o.....l. I.Vol.1, 80, civil and religious rights........... Vol. I, 588, committees, standing,................ol. I., I Constitution, voting upon new,.V. 1,ol. contestants in the Legislature.... VoY01. II, -Convention, pay of officers of.....V. ol. II, 257, corpor ations granting and repealing charters , of,.......................Vol. I, 216, county buildings, etc., taxes for,...... Vol.'I, county boundaries,, Vol. I, debates and journals,...VoLl,. 17, 2Pj1; Vol.1I, a d eficits i n revenue, ob, w a c. VoL1-.I electors, qualifications of,..... Vol. II, 524,5,5 259, 264, 265, 267, 269, 270, 271, 272, 275, 780, 783, 785. equalization, State board of,.... Vol. I, 292, 2 94, - Vol. EII, 826, 827. Governor as commander- in-chief,......V. ol. I Governor, ineligibility to- l egislati ve appo int - ment,:.... - yoI, I mthaU, use of,y.. l..............V. 5 l.I,-!95, hour of meeting, Vol. I, 4; Vol. II, Jameson' s Constitutional Convention....Vol.I, land, 0, c0 mmi s sion e...Vol. 740, 758, 762, 76w, 797,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 94i.,.,,.,,49,....95..2..,.-60_, *_ 1::07....regents........of....the....University...............n.......omisionrVf,.-..1-1, 4 *ol I leave of abse nce, granting,.. Vol. I, 231;.Vol.' I, libraries, township and city,....V Vol. I., bliquor traffic,,....... I.nmeo........ *olL 1, 548?50 messenger, additional,.... Vol. 1, population of representative districts,...Vol. II, 698, 699, 703, 704. postmaster of Convention,.............. Vol. I,. 3, Powers of government,..............Vo.I, - 89 printing, etc., for State,.o Vol. II, ~ probate judges, qualificaio ns o f,........Vol.1,' ?ublia lands, -...... -.......Vol. IT, 750, 75!; railroad. from Detroit~ to Ripper P.enins'a,,.~ol. Ii, 454. railroads, land-grant, time of completing,. Vol. I, 206. railroads, mnunicipal aid to,.......;.VlII ra'ilroads, interest of State in,............Voi. II, regents~of the Universitys,....,..............~0-Vo. II, reporters, employment of, Vo....I,... repn'esentative districts,...........ol, II, representatives,: number of, Y......ol. II, returns of tax'able property, Vol...~). I? 319, roads, vacation of,........... Vol. II, rules.of. Convention,....... Vol. I, 33, 34, school system,..............Vol. I!, 305, 410,.4!!, sea'of government, "' ~....... ol. T. 161, sinking~fu;n~d,.... ~o1.. I, 233, 234, 237, 2:98, 300, 303. slavery, prohib~ition of,................ - Vol. II, State officers,y etc., Vol. I;. 561, suffrage for people of color,........ oi. II, 205 . I- - i; I - f im -"Xi 4 - .67 -5. 07 251 936 431 502 292 574 159 589 13 958 78 261 222 474 46-8 936, 238,. 262' . 784: 307' 340) - 367 19G 150 48 552 570 '428 .0 5 48 695 90 -- 91 753 425 122 896 436 . 18. 983 1, 693 .320-, 101. 417' 163302. 247 602 71' .:DEX. 10_5 LA' IH, DEWITT O.,-'Continued. remarks by, on-...... taxation, uniform,................. Vol. I, 274, 275 taxes, collection of specific, Vol I, 269, 270, 271 : 272, 273.:..... -.....' township offcers, etc............. Vol. I, 119, 'tpper Peninsula, committee on,...... Vol. I, 94, 95 LEAVE OF ABSENCE, GRANTED TO r. Aldrich,...........:Vol. I, 613: ;-Alexander,........... Vol. I, 136; ol!. II, 1, 337 "Andros,.........................ol,I,49 - Andrus,. T Yo. II,. -479 Barber,................ol. I, 39; o II, 181 n Bgs., Vol.1, 77, 295; Vol.- I, 237 CCBirney,.Vol.. 7, VO. l,64 39 8 Vol. II, 398, 599- 995. CBlackman,.......................Vol.II, 527 Bradley,....... ol. 1, 136, 153, 494; Vol. II, 52 7 931. Brown............... Vol. II, 442 Burtch.......Vol. I, 2 31; Vol. II, 209,367, 545 739, 931. 5 BurtenshawL. 1,255,.9; Vol. I,, 121, 425 Chap in, VoL. 1 5. 1, 613 Conger.........Vol. 1, 77, 295; Vol. II, 1, 527 885. "Coolidge,...............,o. 1I, 77, 295, 898, 613 Corbin..Vol., 77, 450 Vol. II, 208, 326,.599. Crocker,...........Vol. I, 47 5; Vol.-II, 545, 908 "Croswel, (the President,).....3.7 VolII, 314, 3, 770 941. ,, anis,.....Vol. I,352,534; Vol. II, 224, 854 995. "Desanoyers,. -Vol. I, 152, 595; Vol. II, 1,. 570 "Divine,'. Vol. I, 138, 475; Vol. I, 337,. 885 D — uncan,.....Vol. I, 112,.582, 613; Vol. II, 1, 238 966. , Duncombe,...Vol. I, 26, 39; Vol. -II, I,' 514 , - Eliot,........Vol. I, 595; Vol. II, 150 "Estee,.............. Vol. I, 556; Vol. II, 780, 796 ~ Farmer,......Vol. I, 138, 595; Vol. II, 453 , Feri,.... Vol. II, 208, 237, 367, 479, 966 :' Germain,........... -Vo. I,;138,153,322, 613 Vol. II 237, 678. "Giddings, Vol. I, 25, 79, 136, 153, 322, 556 -595; Vol. II, 181, 545, 930. " D. Goodwin,. Vol. I, 25,,138, 475 Vol. II, 30, 514. ~;'s W, Goodwin,..,................ @.:V....ol. I, 534: .Vol, II, 84,366, 739. ' ~ Gulick,.................................Vol.I!, 39, 152 -, " aire,...............Vol. I, 74:,322; Vol. II, 1 ";Harris,...............Vol. I, 450; Vol. II,l1, 398: 571, 711.- "sHazen,*.*.......... Vol.Tj,79, 450; Vol,II, 1,...........514: "Henderson,.B........Vol. I, 77, 351-; Vol. II, 209,...........527 599, 630. "H enkel,.........i........Vol. I, 79 -"H; Exson,...............Vol. I, 74:, 4:75 ; Vol. II, 209, 545~796. "H Iolmes,......,VoL-I, 25, 138, 506,- 534, 556 Vol. IT,209, 280, 54:5, 995., "'; Holt,... Vol. I, 153 " Howard,....Vol. I, 26, 74:, 138, 152, 155, 322 -5-82; Vol. II, 209, 296, 630, 678, 8^54:,931. "'Hull,.....V.ol. I, 138, 278; Vol. II, 30,...........570 "Huston,....Vol. I, 26, 79, 91, 595; ~Vol. II, 367 i; Ingals.....Vol. i, 60, 69; Yol. II,........... 79 '; Kene,......>*.@*.~o1:I, 39, 79, 582; Vol. II, 337 -"' =Lam ab,....;Vol. I, 152;: Vol.TII, l, 209 L~~vE OF ABSENCE, GRANTED TO — -: Mr. Lawrence,.... Vol. I, 138, 582; ~Vol. 514, 995. - "Leach,..,,-......................... VoL. I, "Longyear,... Vol. I, 398, 450; Vol. II, 84, 366, 1019.? _ "Lothrop,...Vol. I, 77, 136, 165,.295, 413, Vol. II, 75, 223, 545, 711. ', Lovell..- Vol. I, 74, 77; Vol.:II, "Luce,........II, . McCleland,,....Vol. I, 450; VoL II, 208, a McConnell,....Vol., 26,:352, 613; Vol.I, 2 "McKerean,....Vol., 122, 136, 351;:ToL. 11, - 739.~ V"1 3859Miles,... -Vol. I, 646, l Miller,..Vol.1I, 136, 582; Yol., II, " Morton,. Vol. I, 322, 595; Vol. II, 367, "M. Murray......Vol. I, 79, 122, 595; VoL.II, "r I4ussey.....Vol. I o237, -Mc. l1 2usgrave. VoL I, 136, 322; Vol. I, 209, 545.' Ninde...... ol. I, 77, 295; Vol. II, 1, . Norris........Vol. I,77,295,506; Vol. II, 545,.885..-.-. " Parsons,..V... ol. I, 79, 295, 613; Vol. II, 366,.458, 739......'...... -. ",Pratt,.... Vol. I, 74, 138, 278, 425; Vo1. I, 678. -- . Pringle,....Vol. I, 39, 278; ol.II, 8, 398, '" Pucell,................. C urosell, (thePresident,).VVol.1I, 91, 112, Rafter..Vol. II, l Richmond,....Vol. I, 152, 322, 534; Vol. II, 908. Root,..................Vol. II, 237, 280, -"Sawyer...........Vol. I, 25, 534; Vol. 11, u" 1 8 3Shearer,.........V..ol. I, 77, 442; Vol. II, " Sheldon,. Vol. 1, I,77, Sm; ith, T. G.,..... Vol. I, 138, 152; Vol. II Smith, W. A.,.V. V.oL I, 112, 152, Vol. II, 208, 764. -.; StockweU,......Vol. I, 79,. 252,613; Vol. II, 570,951. Stoughton............. Vol. I, 77, 91, 138, ~ol. I, 209,.479,-885. "Sutherland,.. Vol. I, 77,136,152, 322, Vol.I, -181,. 280, 514. " Thompson,.. Vol. I, 295, 450; Vol II, 527, , Turner. Vol.I, - 26,79, 322, Vol. II, 1, 123, 337, 545. --- , 6,Tyler,..... Vol. II, 599, " Utley,....V.....oL1, 136; Vol. II, 30, 104, " Van Riper,... Vol.I, 136, 398, 534; Vo1. II, 367, 54:5, 710. - " Van Valkenburgh,. Vol.II, 326, 398, " -Walker,... Vol., 79, 494; Vol. If, 425, 678, -n"rP. D W arner,..........Vol.I, 153; VolQ1II, 5" W. E. Warner,.............-olI, 77, 322, Vol. II, 181, 514:. "' . F. C. Watkins,...Vol.I, 25, 79, 322, ,V01.II; 208, 398, 545. H1 M. C. Watkins,. Vol. I, 138; Vol 11, 415, V 2White,.V.ol. II, 367, " Willard,.VoL I, " Winans,...VoL I, 25, 1~8, 152, 506; Vol. II, " Winsor,.Vol.I, 582; Vol.1I,9 " Withey,.......Vol. I, 136, 295; VoL I, 209, -54:5, 599. cic Williams,.........Vol., 136, 152, 155, 467, . Vol.1II, 1, 527,.995, " Woodhousei,,..,....'VoL ol. 5 -95; Vol:-:-I, -7 -...... 844 .613 613' 75 1 545 224 425 931 366 545 . il 931 367 367 453 224 ..1 527 175 995 479 710 514 267 136 383 556 209 153 475 678 .966 453 1 570 '966 tgg 582 .613 995 96-6 534 1 1 995 582 8i5 1046 INDEX. LEAVE OF ABSENCE, GRANTED TO- Mr. Wright,.... Vol. I, 74, 77, 278; Vol. II, 209, 678 885, 908. Yeomans,...... Vol. 1, 79, 152; Vol. II, 209, 545 LEAVE OF ABSENCE, resl'n relative to granting,. Vol. I, 154 Vol. II, 547. LUBITY OF BANK OFFICERS, etc., (See Individual Lia bility.) LIBRARIAN, STATE, compensation of,......Vol. II, 966, 999 1020. LICENSE OF LIQUOR TRAFFIC, (See Liquor Traffic.) LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, article on, reported from standing committee,..... Vol. I, 572; Vol. II, 903 considered in committee of the whole,... Vol. II, 7 16, 31, 47, 59, 75, 84, 106, 112, 127, 139, 151, 165 182, 198, 209, 225. reported from committee of the whole,.. VoL II, 231 considered in Convention...Vol. IL, 360, 367, 384 517, 551, 630, 646, 663, 678, 696, 719, 724, 843 852, 855, 870, 885. referred to committee on arrangement and phraseology,.................. Vol. II, 730, 928 reported from committee of arrangement and phraseology,. Vol. II, 796 recommitted to standing committee,.....'Vol. II, 895 passed,............................ Vol. II, 926 LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, committee on....Vol. I, 9, 31 resolutions of instructions to,.....Vol. 1, 42, 60, 63 73, 75, 76, 92, 229, 297. section 5, of miscellaneous provisions of Consti tution of 1850 referred to,............Vol. I, 65 reports from,...................VoL I, 75, 572 LEGIBLATURE, SESSIONS OF....O1. I, 60; Vol. II, 34, 47 124, 361, 705, 719, 855, 870, 888, 889, 903, 908 election of members of, sections of Constitution of 1850 relative to, referred to the committee on elections,............ Vol. I, 75 expenses of, resolution calling for information in relation to, -..V ol. I, 124 communication from Auditor General relative to,.................................... Vol. I, 154 LEGISLATURE, SPECIAL SESSIONS OF,.. Vol. 1, 342; Vol. II, 60 vacancies in, (See Governor.) powers of each house of the,..... Vol. 1I, 55, 59, 364 466. length of sessions of,............. Vol. II, 75, 84, 719 houses of, authorized to require opinions of Sa preme Court,................ Vol. II, 466, 561 LEGISLATURE, MEMBERS OF, (See Senators and iRepresen tatives.) LIBRARIES, TOWNSHIP AND CITY,.......Vol. II, 419, 426, 472 479. LIBRARY, STATE, use of, for Convention,......Vol. I, 43 LIENS FOR PURCHASE MONEY,............o I, 510, 520 LIENS OF LABORERS AND MECHANICS,.........Vol., 509, 520 546, 736. - LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, term of office of,......Vol. I, 328 eligibility to office of,............. Vol1 I, 336, 374 manner of electing,.................Vol.I, 338 powers and duties of,.......VoL I, 366; Vol. 1I, 569 not eligible to other office by election of Legisla ture,..............VoL I, 366 compensation of,.... Vol. I, 373; Vol. II, 71, 75, 364 722. LILE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, security of,.....Vol. I, 610 LIQUORS, INTOXICATING, committee on traffic in,.. ol. I, 11 31. section of Const'n of 1850, referred to,...Vol. I, 75 resolutions of instruction to,.....Vol. I, 73, 142, 231 Mass; legislative report, referred to..... Vol. I, 157 LIQUORs, INTOXICATING, reports from committee on, Vol. I, 596, 614; Vol. II, 614. license of traffic in, resolut'n relative to,. VoL Ii 73 separate submission of provisions relative to traffic i,.... Vol. II, 124, 367, 390, 517, 527, 55i 630, 646, 663, 678, 855, 870, 902, 903, 908, 924 LIQUORS, INTOXICATING, (See Petitions.) LIQUOR TRAFFIC, provisions in relation to..Vol. 1, 596 614; Vol. II, 199, 387, 390, 517, 527, 547, 551, 630 646, 663, 678, 922, 924. LITERARY ASSOCIATIONS, (See Corporations.) LONGYEAR, JOHN W., a delegate from Ingham county, appeared and took his seat,...................Vol. I, 1 appointed a member of committee on report ing,................................Vol. I, 5 appointed a member of committee on bounda ries, seat of government, and division of the powers of government,............... Vol.I, 31 appointed a member of committee on public lands,.................. Vol. I, 31 appointed a member of committee on Upper Peninsula.........................Vol. I, 125 motions, etc., by...... ol. I, 24, 50, 51, 126, 127 128, 130, 131, 164, 241, 242, 268, 882, 581 Vol. II, 84, 91, 121, 139, 599, 600, 856. - petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) report from committee on public lands, presented by........................... o.II, 600 resolution offered by, relative to publication of debates........................Vo I, 23 resolution relative to use of hall,....... Vol. I, 24 resolution relative to sale of swamp lands, Vol. I, 97 remarks by, on adjournment over, etc.,........... Vol. I, 24, 28, 298 Agricultural College...... Vol. II, 483, 493, 508, 509 amendment and revision of the Const'n,. Vol. II, 608 assessment of property.............. Vol. I, 286 Auditor General, office of............Vol. I, 566, 568 boundaries,........... Vol. I, 80, 81, 82, 83, 158, 160 committees, standing,................ Vol. 1, 9 corporations, granting and repealing charters of,.........Vol. 1, 150, 185, 186, 213, 214, 267 county officers,..................... VoL I, 394 counties, organization of new...........0Vol. I, 377 debates and journal,............... Vol. I, 22, 23 electors, qualifications of,...............Vol. II, 259 English language, preservation of laws, etc., in,.- Vol. II, 578 exemptions,.-...................VoL I, 541, 543 female college,....................VoL II, 513 Governor as commander-in-chief,... VoL I, 363, 364 365. homestead exemptions,......... Vol. I, 531, 532, 533 impeachment and removals from office,. Vol. I, 525 526..- -- judicial districts and circuits,..........Vol. 11, 980 legislative department, article on,.... Vol. I, 888 Legislature, interest of members of, in con tracts,....-.Vol. II, 89 Legislature, pay of members of,.. Vol. I1, 63, 64, 65 Leg., qualifications of members of,..VoL II, 17 23, 25, 28, 30. Librarian, State, pay of,.........VoL II, 999, 1000 liquor traffic,.....Vol. II, 522, 548, 549, 653, 654 655, 657, 861. messenger, additional,............... Vol, 1, 43 oath of office, constitutional,.......Vol. II, 575, 576 organization of townships, cities, etc.,...Vol. II, 96 population of representative districts,...ol. II, 702 104-6 .INDEX. :NEX 10 LONGYEAR, JOHN W.,- Continued. remarks by, on — postage of members,..................... ol. I" powers of government......ol. I, 105, 106,1 printing, etc., for State,............... Vol. II, private property taken for public use,... Vol. II, 590, 591, 592, 743, 744. public lands................. Vol. II, 747, 748, 750, 753, 754, 755, 757, 758. railroad from Detroit to UpperPeninsula, Vol. II, railroads, municipal aid to.........Vol. II, 122, 150,151,153, 17 9, 718, 179,180, 181, 185 186, 193, 194. relief to contractors,.............5 5 6 Vol. II, 107, removal of officers,.................. Vol. I, 361, reporters, employment of,....... VY..ol. I, rules of Convention,.......a Vol. I, 34, 35, 38, 54, salaries........................ Vol. II, 612, seat of government,................. Vol. i, 83, sessions of the Legislature,...... V ol. II, 3 5, 36, 53 53, 54 7, 707. slavery, prohibition of,................. Vol. I, soldiers' monument, Detroit,..........., Vol. I, State officers, etc.,...........Vol. I, 601, Vol. II, 1006. supervisors,....... ol. II, -Upper Peninsula, committee on,......... Vol. I, LORD, WILLi&m BLAIR, resolution to appoint, as of ficial reporter,..................... Vol. I, - (See Reporters of Debates.) LOTIHROP, GEORGE V. N., a delegate from Wayne county, appeared and took his seat,..........-.V.ol. I, appointed a member of committee on judicial department,................ VoL I, appointed a member of committee on - educa tion,.................... V..ol. I, motions, etc., by,....Vol. I, 136, 138, 165, 295, 613; Vol. II, 75, 179, 180, 223, 365, 382, 433, 545, 561, 692,'711. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) resolutions offered by, relative to unlawful use of public money,................... Vol. II, resolution relative to separate submission of negro suffrage,-.. Vol. III remarks by, on accused persons, rights of, Vol. I, Agricultural College,..... Vol. lI, 508, auditors, board of State,.......Vol. I, 557, canvassers, State board of,........ol.1,. chaplains in the -Legislature,. Vol. II, 375, circuitt court comamissioners, -V...ol. IL 450, 461, 462, 463. circuit courts, jurisdiction of,-...Vol. II, 4:48, -civil and religious rights,,....V..ol. I, 588, corporations, granting and repealing charters -of,.......Vol. I, 14:3, 169, 170, 173, 174, -Vol. II, 564., county offiers,........................ -~ol. II, death of Hon. B. En. H. Witherell,..............~.. ol. I, equalization, State board of,...................Vol. I, freedom of religion and speech,....-.Yol. I, 588, imprisonment for debt,...................Vol. I, 610, judges, terms of circuit and probate,....~ol. II, jury,- trial by,....... Vol. I, 591, 592, law-terms of courts,.................. oLf II, Legislature, election of members of,.. ~V)1. II, 8, Legislature, expulsion of mnembers- of,.... Vol. II, L~egislature, privileges of ~members of,..~ol. II, libraries, township-and citiy,.... ol. IT, 428, 429, 475, 476, 477, 478, 480, ~1. LOTHROP, GEORGE V. N.,-Continued. remarks by, on — liquor traffic,....Vol. II, 201, 390, 393, 394, 395, 520, 521, 522, 523, 538, 660, 665, 687. municipal officers, election of,.. Vol. II, 299, 331, 337, 349, 350. population of representative districts,.. Vol. II, 703. powers of government,..............Vol. I, 110, printing, etc., for State,............... Vol. II, railroads, municipal aid to..........Vol. II, 136, 148, 182, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 193, 194, 195, 208, 211, 212, 218, 222 223, 225, 226, 228, 229, 691, 692. regents of University,...............Vol. iI, school system......... Vol. II, 308, 309,411, 414, 416, 417, 468, 470. sessions of the Legislature............. Vol1. II, sinking fund,.................. IVol., 291, slavery, prohibition of................. Vol., 5soldiers' monument, Detroit,........... Vol. I, 253, 266. - State officers.................. L I, 585, suffrage for people of color,........... Vol. II, 713, 718. suitors, rights of.................... Vol. I, taxes, collection of specific,......... Vol. 1, 272, treason aguinst the State.............. VoL I, LOTTERIES PROHIBITED,..................Vol. II, LOVELL, HENRY R., a delegate from Genesee county, - appeared and took his seat,,............. ol. I, appointed a member of committee on judicial department,................. Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on exeemp -tions,................... Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on tobacco smoking in public streets...........Vol. I, motions, etc., by,.............. Vol. I, 25, 61, 74, 77, 91, 93,121, 152,155,168, 185, 195, 197, 253, 266, 281, 296, 337, 340, 373, 382, 399,442, 467, 508, 520, 527, 556, 587, 594, 595, 610, 614, Vol. IIL, 1, 16, 75, 161, 224, 225, 231, 240, 247, 250, 254, 256, 294, 296, 433, 440, 441, 466,478, 597, 598, 615, 718, 818, 982, 1004. - petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) report (minority,) finom committee on exemp tions, presented by,..............Vol. 1, bresolution offered by, relative to equal su.frage, 'Vol. I, 47. resolution relative to veto power,.......Vol, I, - resolution relative to arguments before commit tees,... Vol.1I, resolution relative to occupations, etc., of men aers,..........................Vol.1I, resolution relative to New York Convention de bates,.V.....~ol. I, 298; Vol. It, resolution relative to manual of the Conven tion,..................Vol. I, .-remarkcs by, on — - adjournment over, etc.,...Vol. I, 136, 426, 429, 437, 595, 616.: age of judges,............. Vol. II, 559, 560, Agricultural College,.....Vol.1I, 440, 484, 485, 503, 504.- -: aliens, rights of,............,...Vol.1, appeals from boards of supervisors,..... ol. I, 487, 501. assessment of property,.... Vol. I, lir s tAuditor General, office of............Vol. I, INDEX. 1047 46 109 372 580 397 332 702 ill 373 137 197 689 749 456 130 192 109 526 . 17 . 57 997 163 40 482 413 37 302 612 252 612 383 603 . 587 712-, . 608 273 .610 119 322 . 95 .16 , I I 31 39 1 31 31 297 .533 31 451 . 63 237 451 615 579 59 712 009 .509 558 589 376 460 296 .92 93 449 589 281 338 175 464 582 305 591 611 563 1 593 448 10 58 .729 433 -328 i3l 561 497 - 613 486' .278 581 II.-. - - - l. LOVELL, HENlRY R.,-Continued. remarks by, on bills in the Legislature, introduction of,.. Vol. II, 365 chaplains in the Legislature..........Vol. II, 376 corporations, granting and repealing charters of,...,Vol. I, 151, 169, 201, 208; Vol. II, 565, 566 600, 601, 604. counties, organization of,.............Vol. I, 505 county boundaries,............... Vol. I, 468 county buildings, etc., taxes for,........ Vol. I, 474 dams, construction of,..................Vol. II, 594 debate, limitation of................... Vol. II, 551 debates and journals,...............Vol. I, 40, 61 denominational schools,....... Vol. II, 380, 382, 384 drains and ditches,............... Vol. II, 596 education, passage of article on,......... Vol. II, 764 electors, qualifications.................Vol. II, 255 263, 264, 265, 269, 270, 274, 766, 781, 782, 783 785. English language, preservation of laws, etc., in,............................ Vol. II, 578 equalization, board of,.-...Vol. I, 308, 310, 311, 312 Vol. II, 827. examinations for admission to the bar,.. Vol. II, 831 exemption laws.....................Vol., I, 542 exemption of personal property,.... Vol. I, 509, 510 511, 516, 518. freedom of speech and press...........Vol. I, 590 Governor, ineligibility to legislative appoint ment.....................Vol. I, 369, 370, 371 Governor and Lient. Governor, qualifications of,..................Vol. I, 374 Goyernor, term of,.................. Vol. I, 332 hall, use of,.................. Vol. I, 195, 196 homestead exemptions....Vol. I, 523, 527, 528, 546 548; Vol. H, 733, 734, 760. hour of meeting,................. VoL II, 151 imprisonment for aebt................. Vol. I, 611 judicial districts and circuits,.....Vol. I, 976, 979 jury, trial by,....... Vol, I1, 591, 594; Vol. II, 242 Legislature, election of members of,. Vol. II, 13 Legislature, pay of members of,.......Vol. II, 67 Legislature, qualifications of members of,Vol. II, 19 - 20, 22, 27, 33. library, township and city............ Vol. II, 478 liquor traffic,.......VoL II, 548,;549, 683 manual of Convention,.!.....ave...........Vol. I, 328 military duty, persons liable to...... Vol. II, 234 miilitia officers, election of,...........ol II, 248 municipal officers, election of,.....Vol. II, 346, 347 348. New York Convention debates,. VoL I, 298 Vol. Ii, 330, 338. oath of office, constitutional;..... Vol. II, 573 pardoning power,.....Vol. I, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346 preamble of the Constitution,.....Vol II, 932, 934 population of representative districts,...Vol.II, 701 703. postage of delegates,................Vol. I, 46 powers of Government,............Vol. I, 111 prayer of Rev. Mr. Vandriss,.........ol.II, 282 private property taken for public use,. Vol.II, 6, 592 742, 743,, 745, 746, 762, 845, 846. railroads, municipal aid to,............~Vol.I, 248 Vol.II, 149, 164, 228, 230. regents of University..............oL II, 433, 434, 436, 437. religious societies, lands held by,......Vol. II, 841 removal of officers,.......1o I, 348, 351, 857, 358 -rules of Convention,.ol., 32, 34,i, " 56 LOVELL, HENRY R.,- Continued. remarks by, on salaries,:.....-.....- Vol.II, 616, 629, 900, 962 963, 988, 996. school system,......... ol. II, 304, 410, 414, 517 senatorial term, length of,............Vol. II, 725 sheriffs.......................... Vol T, 400 State officers, etc.,.............Vol. I, 604, 605 Vol. II, 126. suffrage for women, Vol. II, 276, 277 770, 771, 776. supervisors,....................-Vol. I, 408, 409 taxes, collection of specific,...........Vol.I, 271 township officers, etc.,............ ol.I,114, 1 36 LUCE, CYRUS G., a delegate from Branch county, appeared and took his seat................ol., 1 appointed a member of committee on order of proceeding,..................... ol, 5 appointed a member of committee on legis lative department,............................VolI, 31 appointed a member of committee on counties, Vol. I, 31. appointed President pro tempore,......Vol. II, 770 motions, etc., by,.... Vol. I, 13, 25, 231, 321, 437, 466 508, 520, 521, 527, 548; Vol. II, 105,: 139,' 224, 225 232, 239, 281, 310, 314, 322, 327, 331, 512, 577, 722 728, 733, 740, 764, 856, 930, 931, 1005, 1007. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) reports from committee on counties,....Vol. I, 123 VoL II, 280. remarks by, on adjournment over, etc.,.... Vol. I, 430, 435, 439, 440 442, 615. Agricultural College,.....V. ol. II, 483, 492, 502, 503 504, 505, 506, 509, 510, 511. amendment and revis. of the Constitut'n, Vol. I1, 607 appeals from boards of supervisors,:....Vol. I, 444 445, 454, 459, 478, 479, 502; Vol. II, 315, 316, 319 321, 322, 324. Auditor General, office of,...........10. 581 bills in the Legislature, introduction of,.. Vol. II, 365 366. chaplains in the Legislature,.........ol.i, 117 committees, standing,............. Vol. I, 10, 12 contestants in the Legislature,......Vol. II, 76, 78 Convention, pay of officers of.,......... Vol. I, 258 corporations, granting and repeal'ming charters -of.,....Vol. I, 148, 220, 222, 223, 230, 260, 261 Vol. I, 601, 602. counties, boundaries of,................Vol., 468 counties, organization of,....Vol. 1, 375, 376, 378 382, 387, 388, 390, 473, 504. counties, recommittal of article on,...... V1,ol, 407 - 408. county buildings, taxes for,......Vol. I, 420, 421, 466 474. county officers,...........VoL I, 395, 396,. 398 county seats, removal of,..............Vol. 1; 412 dams, construction of,.............. VoL II, 594 debates and journals,..... ol1 I, 7, 20, 21, 78 Vol. II, 937. dueling, etc., disfranchisement for,....Vol: Ii,, 294 eight hour system of labor;.........Vol. I, 67, 69 equalization, State board of,... Vol. I, 311, 313, 316 Governor, ineligibility of, to legislative appoints ments,... 1.., 367 leave of absence, granting,.. Vol.1, 164; Vol II, 237 238, 545. legislative department, article on,......Voi. I1, 892 904, 909, 919. I i,, 1 INDEX. 1049 LUCE, CYRUS G., Continued. remarks by, on Librarian, State, pay of...... Vol. II, 966, 967, 1001oo libraries, township and city,... Vol. II, 424, 476, 481 liquor traffic,............ Vol. Ii, 203, 208, 685 municipal officers, election of,.........Vol. II, 294 organization of townships, cities, etc.,...... Vol.II, 95 96, 99. pay of delegates during absenc e,....Vol. I,48, 442 power s of governmentL.................1 5ui Vol., 91 presiding officers of the Legislature, pay of,.........................., Vol. II, 75 printing, etc.,for State,.4 cut..... Vol. II, 371 private property taken forpublic use,.V...360 deaeaol. II, 744 745, 848. railroads, municipal aid to,.............o ol. I, 267 Vol. II,207, 27, 14,231. relief of contractors,.................... Vol. II, 104A rules of Convention................V Vol. I, 35, 53 salaries,.... ol. II, 628, 806, 812., 813, 942, 943, 996 sessions of the Legislature,.m....-ol. II, 36, 919 sheriffs,..................... Vol. I, 1, 400,401, 402 Stateofficers, etc.,................ Vol. I603., r605 Vol. II, 126. stationery for delegates,.................. Vol.I, 7 suffrage for people of color,...........o.. Vol. II, 718 supervisors,..... Vol. I, 404, 4054, 4 08, 4640, 4 662 506; Vol. II, 310. taxes, collection of specific,............. Vol. I1, 273 town nship officers, etc.,.................. Vol. I, 127 A oNUAL, LieGISLA,TIVE, copies of, for use of Conven tion...............................Vol. I, 5 MANUAL oF CONVENTION,...........~VO1. I, 279, 297, 328 MAP OF MICoIGAN for use of Convention......Vol. 1, 41 MARRIAGE, BREACH OF PROMISE OF,....Vol. I, 610 HARRIED WOMEN, (See Women, married.) Mrtin, CLAUDE, appointed messenger,........ Vol. I, 47 McCLELLAND, ROBERT, a delegate from Wayne county, appeare d and t ook h is s eat,.............. Vol. I, 1 appointed a member of committee on order of proceeding,......................... Vol. I, 5 appointed a member of committee on executive department,........................ Vol. I, 31 appointed a member of committee on finance and taxation,......................Vol. I, 31 motions,.etc., by,.....,.Vol. I, 2, 5, 25; 39, 66, 77 -ol. 1 46, 1 52, 169 173, 175, 176, 184, 185, 191 197, 199, 200, 210, 242, 309J 323, 413, 437, 442 '450, 555, 556, 583, 594, 595, 6;06, 613, 614, 615 Vol. II, 100, 105, 124,-182, 208, 224, 225, 296 3B7, 471, 472, 479, 517, 546, 564, 704, 705, 726 728, 731, 740, 857,-859, 904, 910, 949, 953, 982 1005, 1007, 1008. petitions presented by, (.See Perilions.) resolutions offSered by, calling for executive infor — mation,....................~ ol. I, 27, 124,.....210 resolution relative to term of senators,... Vo1. I, 41 resolution relative to appointment of -Slate officers,......,Vo1. I, 42 resolultion relative to votes on amendments to the Constitution,..............V..ol. I, 66 -resolution relative to -compensation of clergy men officiating in Convention, ~.......... o1. I, q14 resolution relative to appointment of municipal officers,.......... -.... Y..VLI, 157 -resolution re-committing with instructions, ar ticle on legislative department,.............. ~ol. II, 888 resolution of thanks to President of Conven tionl,. -.V..........ol. I, 1020 Vol. ~ —No. 182. McCLELLAND, ROBERT,- Continued.8 remarks by, on adjournment over,etc.,.....of Vol.I, 54, 175, 457. age ofjudges, o............ Vol. II, 559, 560, Agricultural Colleg.e,......... Vol. II, 505, 506, agriculturalfair, in vitation to,...........1 Vol. I, aliens, rights of....................... Vol. II, a mendment and revision of the Const'n,..Vol. II, Auditor General, office of,-..V.ol. I, 562, 576, auditors,board of Stat, d o a.................i Vol. I, bills in the Leg., in troduction of....Vol. II, 82, chaplains in the Legislature,......... Vol. II, 11 7, Colf IIa, Ho n. Schuyler, rec eptio n o f....1. Vol. I, Cons titution, voting upon new,....Vol. II, 987, Constitution.o, signing o f............... Vol. II, corporations...... Vol. I, 260,261,266, Vo l. II, 835. counties, organization of,.......... Vol. I, 375, 390; Vol II, 987. county officers...................... Vol. I, county seats,...................... VoL 1I, d ebates and journals,..................Vol. 1I, debts to repel invasi on,.................. Vol I, deficits in re venue,..................... Vol. I, de nominational schools,........... p.i.ngp rVoL 1-I 3, 9 education rpassage oric,........ ol.eII, electo rs, qualifications of,.......... Vol. II,, 766, esxemptions,.................Vol. II, 733, 735, equalizationL, State board of, l......ol. I, 293, 317. freedom of religion,...... Vol. I, Governor, as commgander-in-chief,..V....ol. I, Governor, eligibility for,................ Vol. I, Governor, ineligibility to legislative appoint ments,.....................Vol. I, 367, 370, Governor, manner of electing,........... Vol. I, Jameson's Constitutional Convention, resolu tion to furnish,........... ol. I, judges, election of,................... Vol. II, judges, probate, qualifications of,......Vol. II, jury, trial by,.......... Vol. I, legislative dep't, article on,........ Vol. II, 887, Legislature, authorizing, to call for opinions of Supreme Court,......... -Vol. II, 562, Legislature, election of members of,.... ol. II, 7, Legislature,- eligibility/of members of, to other offices,................... i......Vol. II, 15, Legislatulre, pays of members of, V...ol. II, 61, 64,- 66. Leg., qualifications of- members of,..V.ol. II, 22.~ Librarian, State, pay of, V.......ol. II, libraries, ~ity and township,..........~ol.......... Q. II, Lieutenant Governor, duties of,......Vol. II, liquor traffic,....V ol. II, 200, 203, 204, 391, 392, 395, 520, 524, 548, 633, 660, 6X86, 687, 883, 884, 895,.912. municipal officers, election of,............. ~ol. II, -298, 331, 335, 336, 839, 340, 341, 342, 355. organization of townships, cities etc.,...Y. ol. II, pardoning power,'..... ~ oL. II, population of representative districts,....Vol. II,0 699, 700, 703. - ~powers of government,................-.Vol. I, presiding officers of Legislature, pay Of,. Vol. II, printing, et., for State,............. Vol. Ir,370, private property taken for public use,....'Vol. II, 5, 846. - + publi~ lands,............,....~Vol. tT, 748, 750, 'A INDEX. 1019 426 561 513 584 843 605 577 558 366 . 376 154 988 1004 267 376 395 - 469 4.0 - 238 238 378 164 784 736 .314 388 341 337 371 339 48 833 465 594 889 568 11 16 63 17 .966 427 569 394 889 299 96 569 698 103 365 373 4 751 1050~~~- DE.................... McCLELLAND, ROBERT,-Continued. remarks by, on railroad from'Detroit to Upper Peninsula, Vol. II, 426, 453, 454. railroads, etc., interest of State in,....V..Vol. II, railroads, municipal aid to,....VoL 11, 121, 179, 181, 185, 186, 193, 207, 215, 217, 218, 223. regents of the Univerity,....Vol. II, 434, 435, relief to contractors,..........Vol. II, 106, 111, removal of officers,......Vol. I, 352, 353, 354, 358, 361. returns of taxable property,..........VoL II, roads, vacation of,............. VoL II, rules of Convention,...... Vol. I, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 52,'57. salaries,....Vol. II, 609, 610, 611, 620, 628, 792, 794, 795, 817, 825, 902, 943, 963. school system,................... Vol.II, senators, term of.................Vol, I, 41, sessions of the Legislature,... Vol. II, 39, 43, 48, 708, 709, 710, 919. sinking find,............Vol. I, 2.99, 301, 302, State officers, etc.,...... VoL I, 585, 587; Vol. II, suffrage for people of color............ol. I, supervisors and county auditors,...Vol. I, 403, 464, 465, 466; VoL II, 311. taxation, uniform,..................Vol. I, veto power,......................Vol. II, McCONNELL, WILLARD M., a delegate from Oak land county, appeared and took his seat............. Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on finance and taxation....................... Vol. I, appointed a member of comn. on militia,..Vol. I, motions, etc., by,............Vol. I, 74, 153, 451, 501, 601, 613; Vol. II, 224, 230, 436, 505, 733, 936. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) resolution relative to discontinuing office of Lieut Governor, offered by,........Vol.I, remarks by, on hall, use of....................... Vol. II, military duty, persons liable to........Vol. 1, liquor traffic, V.................... ol.II, MoKER NAN, JOHN Q., a delegate from Houghton county, appeared and took his seat,.............Vol. I, appointed a member of com. on salaries,.. Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on miscella neous provisions,.-...............V... ol. I, appointed a member of committee on Upper Peninsula,................ Vol. I, motions, etc., by,.... Vol. I, 78, 79, 252; Vol. II, 165,466, 843. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) report from committee on Upper Peninsu la,....................Vol.1I, resolution offered by, relative to appointment of committee on Upper Peninsula,........ VoL I, resolution.relative to pay of State Librarian, Vol. II, 1020. remarks by, on-: adjournment over,................. Vol.I, corporations, granting and repealing charters of,..........Vol. I, 201; Vol.II, 565, 600, dams, construction of.................Vol.II, electors, qualifications of,..........VoL II, 252, Legislature, qualifications of members of, Vol. II, 28. railroads, municipal aid to,......Vol.II, 160, 897 180 436 112 357, 759 96 38 793 471 42 50 303 960 716 404 275 87 1 31 31 322 544 142 600 233 543 78 31 31 125 1 227 94 426 601 595 262 161 McKFERNAN, JOHN Q.,-Continued. remarks by, on representative districts,...... VoL.I, Upper Peninsula, com. on,.... Vol.1, 94, 96, MECHAMC' AND LABORERS' LIENS, (See Liens of me chanics and laborers.) MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF UNIVERSITY, (See University.) MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE, (See Senators and Rep resentatives.) MIESSENGERS OF THE CONVENTION, appointment and compensation of,.... Vol. I, 4, 42, 47; Vol. II, 971, 999. privileges of,.......... VoL I, 267, 297, 583; Vol. II, presentation by, to President of Conven tion..........................- Vol. II, 3 resolution of thanks to,.............V.. vol. II, MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, offer of special transportation to dedication of soldiers' mon ument........................ Vol. — I, MILEAGE OF DELEGATES...................1 I, 92, of members of Legislature,..... V.....ol. II, MILES, MARCUS H., a delegate from St. Clair county, appeared and took his seat............... ol. I, appointed a member of committee on cities and — .villages,....................... —... Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on couu ties,.'Vol. I, motions, etc., by,......Vol. 1, 3, 77, 78, 79, 152, 437, 611; Vol. II, 1, 60, 75, 81, 104, 247, 258, 331, 372, 373,415, 433,467, 479, 598, 599, 607, 965, 966, 970, 981. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) reports from committee on cities and vil lages,............ Vol. I, 113, 297; Vol. 11I, resolution offered by, relative to appointment of assistant sergeat-at-arms, etc.,......Vol. I, resolution relative to postage of members, Vol. I, resolution relative to arrangement of articles in the Constitution,................VoL I, remarks by, on adjournment over, etc.,............. Vol. I, aliens, rights of,...................Vol. I, assistant secretaries, appointment of,..... Vol. I, chaplains, in the Legislature......... Vol. II, Constitution, voting upon new,........ Vol. II, 955, 959, 993. Convention, pay of officers of,.........Vol. II, county buildings, taxes for,...........Vol. I, county officers,..............Vol. I, 394, county seats, removal of,.........Vol. I, 413, dams, construction of,...............Vool. II, debates and journals,....Vol. I, 6; Vol. II, 970, diagram of hall,..................VoL II, electors, qualifications of,........ Vol. I1, 255, 286, 287. equalization, State board of,.......Vo.l I, 292, freedom of speech and press,.........Vol. I, firemen, appointment of,............ Vol. IX Governor as commander-in-chief,......~Vol!. I, Governor, ineligibility of, to legislative appoint ment,...........................Vol. I, impeachments,.....................VoL I, Jameson's ConstitutionalConvent'n,.. Yol. I, 49, leave of absence, granting,,..........Vol 11, municipal officers, election of,......Vol.II, 298, organization of townships, cities, etc,....Vol.II, 298. postage of delegates,.. VoL1I, postmaster of Conv'n, appointment of,....Vol.I, 1050 -r-N. I L) - B X. 986, 97 896 124 354 1020 252 296 .60 1 31 31 274 330 923 105 5. 63 330 137 .612 6 119 .953 25'7 474 3.95 .415 593 971 239 284 293 590 . 5 340 36.6 524 50 237 355 .297 64 5 ;~~~~~~~IDX! 05_1 MILES, MARCUS H.,- Continued. remarks by, on private property taken for public use,.... Vol. II, 591. quorum, rule relative to,................ Vol. II, regents of the University........... Vol. I, 554, removal of municipal officers,............. Vol. I, -salaries,............VoL. II, sinking fund,................... Vol, I, 298, 299, supervisors,......voII, MILES, T. P., appointed Assistant Secretary,... Vol. I, MILITARY DEPARTMENT, article on, reported from stand ing commit tee,...................... IVol. 1, considered in committee of the whole,... Vol. II, reported from committee of the whole,.. Vol. II, referred to com mittee on arrangement and phr ase ology o I, b,....... Vol.,7 reported fr om co mmittee on arrangement and phraseology 6,................. Vol. II, passed,........................VoL IL, rTmTTAkRY DsPARTNENT, (militia,)com on....Vol. I, 9, report from,.......... Vol. I, MTT.TTARY DUTY, persons liable to. o.........Vol, o II, MLITARY SUBOR DINATE TO CVIoL POWEbeR,........ Vol. I, Vol. II, 246. Mrr'ITIA FINES.............................Vol. I) VTIT!A, ORGANIZATION ETC., of. Vol. II, MISLLER, HIRAMm L., a de legate from Saginaw county, appeared and took his seat,.......... Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on cities and villages,............................ ol I, appointed a member of committee on educa tion,. Vol. I, motions, etc., by,.. Vol. I, 136) 494, 582; Vol, II, 158, 180, 181, 239, 24:0, 276, 327, 366, 615, 745, 746, 757. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) remarks by, on contestants m the Legislature, Vol. II, corporations, granting and repealing charters of, Vol. II, deserters, disfranchisement of,.........Vol. II, homestead exemptions,.....Vol. I, 548; Vol. II, leave of absence, granting, Vol.II, Leg., qualifications of members of,. Vol. II liquor traffic,..................Yol.II population of representative districts;...Vol. II, railoads, mMunicipal aEd to,...VoL II, 152, 178, -197, 207. r^eief to contractors,.........:. ol. II, salaries,...... Vo1.II, 621,628;629, 813,825, suffrage for wpmen...........V.ol. II, MIINOR CHILDREN, homestead rights of,......Yo1. I, 527, 548. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS,com mittee On,:...Vol. I, 9, reports from,.................. ~ol. I, 65; Vol. II, resolutions of instructions to,........v..... ol. Is 75, 229, 297. sections of Constitut'n of 1850, refer'd to,..~ol. I, article on, reported from standing corn.,.. ~ol. II, 759.. -considered in corn, of the whole,.....VoL II, 572, considered in Convention,............ Vol. II, 74:1,-75~, ~~ recommnitted to standing omtmittee,.....Vol. IL, referred to committee on arrangement and phraseology,............... Vol. IT, 759, reported from comnmittee on arrangement and phraseology,................. ~ol. II, passied,...............ol. -I,X HONTGOmFRY, GFORGE' L., appointed assistant Ser geant-atArms................... Vo l. I, pMONUMENT, SOLDIERS', at Detroit, (See Soldiers' Mon ument.) MORTON, EDWARD G., a delegate from Monroe county, appeared and took his seat,............ VoL, appointed a member of committee on report ing,............................,.. Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on legislative department,........................ Vol. I, appointed a member of com.- on printing, Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on preserva tion of order,....... — Vol. I, rp rmotions, etc., by,w e...... Vol., I, 8, 26, 69, 71, 78, 127, 146, 161, 232, 242, 438, 545, 581, 595, Vol. II, 83, 87, 104, 223, 253, 254, 257, 267, 274, 276, 277, 279, 282, 283, 286, 288, 291, 295, 296, 320, 326, 329, 366, 367, 387, 545, 547, 583, 599, 614, 688, 719, 768, 895, 970, 997, 1005. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) reports from committee on prminting..... Vol. I, resolution offered by, relative to printing- Con stitution of 1850 in bill form, etc.,......Vol. I, resolution relative to publication, bindng,- tc., of debates and journals,... Vol. I, 61;-VoL1, -II, 1004. resol'n relative to postage of members,.... Vol. I, resolution relative to appropriations in aid of s6hools...Vol. 1I, resolution relative to use of Senate Chamber, Vol. I, -176. -: resolution relative to privileges of messenger boys,............... ol V 1I, resolution to recommit article on exemptions, ol. 1I, 535. resolution of thanks to official reporters, Vol. II, remarks by, on adjournment over, etc.., Vol. I, 429, 436, Agricultural College,..............Vol. II, 503, amendment and revision of the Constitution, Vol.- IIL 206. appeals from boards of supervisors,...... VoL I, bills in the Legislature, introduction of,..Vol. II, 722. - boundaries,.............. 1, 80, canvassers, State board of,..V ol. I, contestants in the Legislature,. Vol.-II, corporations, granting and repealing charters of,.....Vol.I, 211, 222; Vol. I, 567, 601, 602, county buildings, etc., taxes for,.........Vol. L, county seats, removal of,..............Vol. I, debates and journal-s,.................~ol. I,-60, 61, ~ol. II, 2,971, 995. — denominational schools,................Yol. II,115, deserters, disfranchisement of. Vol. II, diagram of hall,.......... V........^ol. II, electors, qualifications of,..........Vol. II, 765, exemptions,......Vol. I, 535, 536; Vol. II, 733, 737, 738. hall, use of,.......,.Vol. I, 196, leave of absence, granting,..............VoL. II, Legislature, election of members of,...Vol.-1 II, Legislature, expulsion of members of,....ol. II, rLegislature, pay of members of, Yol. II, Legislature, qualifications and privileges of mnembers of,........Vol. IT, 17, 21, liquor traffic,.........Vol. 1I, 389, 531, 878, manual of the Convention,........ Vol. 1, 281, .!N'DEX. 1051 15 240 570. 555 526 808. 301' 320 25 1 5 31 31 128 87 606 258 289 398'.. 919 5,07 232 237 763 281 763 ' 31 507 231 611 75 8 610 236, 971 64 9 167 - 31 -31 122 724 267 1020 727 615 508 603 77.7 760 237 31 642 708 .185 ill 946 774 523 497 721 159 559 78 604 417 410 124 116 778 239 791 735 31 453 76 113 453 197' 571 13 57 . 68 586 844 759 851 729 682 297 765 851 105: DE MORTON, EDWARD G.,-Continued. remarks by, on municipal offticers, election of,......61 Vol. II, 3 36, population of representative dist ricts,u.. Vol. II, 704. postage of members,.............. 2 Vol. I, 844 powers of government,................. Vol. I,t presiding offiEcers of Legislature, pay of,..Vol. II, 74, 75. printing, etc., for State,......... Vol. II 92, 93, public lands............................ Vol. II, railroads, municipal aid to,............ Vol. I, 246, Vol. II, 161, 178, 179, 230, 231. relief to contractors,.Vol. II, religious societies, lands held by, Vol. II, reporters, employment of,............. Vol. I, rules o f Convention,......... ol. I, 34, 52, 57, salaries,........ Vol. II, 618, 621, 806, 928, 929, 947, 964, 991. school-system,.......... Vol. II, seat of government,...................... Vol. I, sessions of the Legislature,............. Vol. IIt State officers, etc.,.................. Vol. I, suffrage for people of color,. (Vol.. II, 715, 788. MUNICIPAL AID TO RAILROADS, (See Railroads.) MUNICIPAL, CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN, committee on, (See Corporations other than Municipal.) IMUNICIPAL INDEBTEDNESS, State not to assume,... Vol. I, 303. MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, resolution relative to appointment of,............................... Vol. I, M/UNICIPAL OFFICERS, (See Cities and Villages.). MUNICIPALITIES, powers~of,.............Vol. I, 60, report of committee on judicial department upon,...............................~Vol. I, MURDER, DEATH PENALTY FOR,.......Vo. II, 310, MURDER, NUMBER OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF, sentenced to State prison,...............Vol. I, 323, 534, MURRAY, LYMAN, a delegate from Kent county appeared and took his seat,............ Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on impeach ments and removals from office, Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on crimes and punishments,..................Vol. I, motions, etc., by,...................I...ol. I, petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) remarks by, on legislative department, article on,.................Vol. II, MUSGRA,~E, JOSEPH, a delegate from Eaton county, appeared and took his seat,............V....... ol. I, appointed a member of the committee on sala ries,..................... ~ ol. I, appointed a member of the committee on finance and taxation,............. Vol. I, motions, ete,.,by,......V01. A~l. T.22; Vol. II, 209, 824, 876. petitions presented by, (See Petitionsr.) resolution offered by, relative to annual sessions of -the Legislature,................ *,... ~ol. I, MUSSE~, DEXTER, a -delegate from ~Macomb county, appeared and took his seat, Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on order of proceeding,.~ - ol. I, appointed a member of committee on executive departmlent,..... Vol.eI appointed a member of c ommittee on salaries, ~ol. I, 31. MUSSEY, DEXTER,- Continued. motions, etc., by,.....Vol. I, 2, 8, 15, 47, 60, 71, 75 77, 79, 87, 88, 90, 91, 97, 103, 134, 273, 399, 451 465, 466, 508, 521, 556, 563, 587, 606, 615 Vol. II, 3, 6, 31, 47, 75, 81, 84, 112, 127, 225, 464 533, 547, 599, 600, 706, 708, 885, 959, 961, 982 petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) report from committee on salaries presented by, Vol. II, 571. resolution offered by, relative to reports of com mittees,.......................,.. Vol. 1, 75 resolution relative to normal school appropria tions,...........161,.17,.179,.30,.1 tol. I, 297 resolution relative to distribution of New York debates, etc.,....................... Vol. II, 1002 remarks by, on adjournment. over, etc.,....Vol. I, 24, 139, 428, 429 435, 439, 614. age of judges.........................Vol. II, 560 Agricultural College,.................. Vol. II, 489 amiendment and revision of the Constitution, Vol. II, 605, 607. appeals from boards of supervisors,.. Vol. I1, 445 assessment of property................... Vol. I, 283 assistant secretaries, election of,. Vol. o I, 3, 5, 6 Auditor General, office of,........ V.ol. I, 581 bills in the Legislature,............Vol, II, 82, 83 boundaries........................... Vol. I, 159 chaplains in the Legislature,...........Vol. I, 73 civil and religious rights,... Vol. L. 588, 590 committees, standing, appointm't of,.. Vol.1I, 11, 14 contestants in the Legislature,.....Vol. II, 77 corporations, granting and repealing charters of,...Vol. I, 143, 146, 152, 171,172, 179, 180, 201 205, 212, 224, 225; Vol. II, 837. counties, boundaries of................ Vol. I, 468 counties, organization of new,... Vol. I, 377, 382 387, —390. county buildings, etc., taxes for,... -Vol. I, 422, 474 county officers,........................Vol. I, 393 county seats.........................Vol. 1, 415 -debates and journals,. Vol. I, 40, 62, 74; Vol. II, 971 denominational schools,... VoL 11, 113, 114, 379, 387 English language, preservation of laws, etc., in,................................. Vol. II, 578 equalization, State board of, Vol. I, 312; Vol. II, 826 exemptions...... Vol. I, 536, 540; Vol. II, 736 fines, etc., accruing to the State,........ Vol. 11, 950 l t p t c.freedom of speech and press,........... Vol. I, 590 Governor, ineligibility of, to legislative appoint — ment,.V ol. I, 366, 367, 370, 371 Governor, manner of electing,..........Vol. I, 339 -Governor and Lieutenant Governor, qualifica tions of,...... —.Vol.I, 374 hall, use of,.........Vol.I, 196 Jameson's Constitutional Convention, resolution to furnish,........Vol.1, 49 leave of absence, granting,........Vol.II, 237, 599 legislative department, article on,.. Vol. II, 853, 855 856, 857, 858, 880, 886, 888, 889, 890, 891, 896 Legislature, election of members of,.....1olI, 13 Legislature, interest of members of, in contracts, -Vol. II, 89, 90. Legislature, pay of members of,.....Vol. II, 62, 70 Legislature, qualifications of members of, Vol.II, 20 22, 28, 29, 30, 34:. libraries, city and township,... Vol, II, 419, 420, 421 422, 4:29, 4373, 474,. liquor traffic,...~.o1. II~ 199, 200, 388, 396, 397, 54:8 686, 867, 880. INDEX. 1052 .848 696 45 86 72 372 756 247 103 842 18 59 930 308 154 57 561 714 295 157 231 75 .692 558 I 31 125 595 853 I 31 .31 867 60 I 5 31 iDX. 1053 MUSSEY, DEXTER,-Continued. remarks by on military duty, persons liable to,........Vol. II, 233 militia officers, election of,.............Vol. II, 237 municipal officers, election of......Vol. II, 355, 356 names of persons, laws changing,...Vol. II, 119, 120 oath of office, constitutional,........ Vol. II, 573, 574 organization of cities, villages, etc.,.. Vol. II, 360,' 366 pardoning power,................. Vol. I, 346 postage of members.................. Vol. 1, 44, 125 powers of government,.................Vol. I, 108 presiding officers of the Legislature, pay of,.........................Vol. II, 72, 73 printing, etc., for State,....Vol. II, 90, 91,92, 93, 369 373. private property taken for public use,... Vol.II, 4 5, 586, 587, 589, 590, 845, 846, 849. quorum, rule relative to..............VoL II, 570 railroads, municipal aid to,....Vol. II, 122, 160, 174 175, 215, 217, 223, 373, 374, 689. removals from office................ 1I, 348 350, 360. representatives, number of,............Vol. II, 695 rules of Convention,.....Vol. I, 31,33, 34, 35, 51, 52 salaries,....Vol. II, 610, 611, 612, 615, 617, 618, 619 620, 622, 625, 628,629, 630, 793, 798, 799,801, 802 817, 819, 820, 821, 822,823, 824, 901,930,938, 939 944, 989. school system,..................... Vol. II, 408, 414 sessions of the Legislature....... Vol. II, 40, 44, 53 54, 55. :Sinking fund........... ol. I,-234, 235, 236, 237, 300 State officers, etc.,.....Vol. I, 586, 602; Vol. II, 125 126, 952. suffrage for people of color,....... Vol. 11, 712, 714 taxation, uniform,..............;- Vol. I, 274 township officers,..... VoL 1, 126, 135; Vol. II, 791 Upper Peninsula, committee on.......... Vol. I, 94 veto power........................ Vol. II, 86, 87 NEw YORK CONVENTION, debates, etc., of,.... VoL I,. 298 534; Yol. II, 251, 258, 330, 338, 1002. NEWISPAPER CRITICISMS ON MEMBERS, resolution relative to,..- -..Vol. I, 113 to............................Vl1 1 NEWSPAPERS RECEIVING COPIES OF DEBATES, Vol. I, 124, 157 NINDE, THOMAS, a delegate from Washtenaw county, appeared and took his seat............ Vol. I, 1 appointed a member of committee on arrange ment and p hraseology,............... Vol. I, 31 appointed a member of committee on intoxica ting liquors,..................Vol. I, 31 motions, etc., by,...................Vol. I, 15 43, 77, 190, 607; Vol. II, 75, 251, 367, 732, 832 833, 852, 995. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) reports from committee on arrangement and praseology, presented by,....Vol. I, 122, 141, 583 - Vol. I, 280, 281, 383, 711, 765, 796, 832, 854, 936 995, 996, 999, 1020. remarks by, on corporations, granting and repealing charters of,....................... Vol.I, 176, 186 exemption of personal property...Vol. I, 514, 515 preamble of the Constitution,..........Vol. I, 585 Vol. II, 931, 933, 934. rules of Convention,.............Vol. I, 32, 57 NORMAL SCHOOL, resolution relative to admission to.............................Vol. I, 142 appropriations for,.............Vol. I, 297, 476 NOR~MAL SCHOOLS, establishment of,...........Vol. II, 440 NORRIS, LYMAN D., a delegate from Washtenaw county, appeared and took his seat.............. Vol. I, 1 appointed a member of committee on order of proceeding...................... Vol. 1, 5 appointed a member of committee on the judi cial department,.............. -Vol. PI, 31 appointed a member of committee on schedule, Vol. I, 31. appointed a member of committee on crimes and punishments,...................Vol. I, 125 motions, etc., by,.....Vol. I, 27, 28, 39,'60, 114, 123 138, 167, 209, 230, 231, 238, 253, 296, 437, 439 442, 451, 466, 471, 557, 587, 610, 612; Vol. II, 1 3, 60, 232, 240, 257, 277, 278, 310, 513, 545, 5{7 55- 563, 615, 676, 757, 857, 858. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) report from committee on crimes and punish ments, presented by............. Vol II, 310 resolution offered by, relative to views of the State press on the revision of the Constitu tion,............................ Vol. I, 27 resolution relative to committee on crimes and punishments............... Vol. I, 93 resolution relative to proof-sheets of- de bates,... I,-V 123 resolution relative to petitions concerning liquor traffic....... Vol. I, 142 resolution relative to enrollment of new Consti tution............ Vol. I, 231 resolution relative to dedication of Soldiers' monument, Detroit,............. Vol. I, 595 resolution relative to judicial statistics of coun - ties,........................... Vol. 11II, 815 remarks by, on adjournment over, etc.,....... Vol. I, 29, 432, 441, 598 616; Vol. II, 546. Agricultural College,.... Vol. II, 495, 497, 498, 499 500, 502, 513. amendment and revision of the Constitu tion,......................Vol. II, 615 Auditor Genera], office of, etc.,.......... Vol. I, 564 capital punishment,........Vol. I, 93; Vol. II, 692 committees, standing,................Vol. I, 11' corporations, granting and repealing charters of,......-Vol. -I, 171, 172, 181, 187, 191, 199, 200 201, 202, 223, 226, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261 Vol. II, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 601, 603, 604, 835 836, 837. counties, organization of new,...........Vol. I, 390 county seats, removal of,............. Vol. I, 412 denominational schools,...........Vol II, 384, 386 elections, purity of,............Vol, II, 290, 291 electors, qualifications of,.....Vol. II, 261, 271, 272 273, 274, 295. equalization, State board of,.......Vol. I, 310, 318 judicial statistics of counties,....... Vol. II, 815, 816 liquor traffic,....Vol. II, 287, 389, 558, 559, 642, 643 646, 874, 878, 881, 884, 885, 907. military duty, persons liable to,.........Vol. II, 234 municipal officers, election of,......Vol. II, 343, 359 population of representative districts,... Vol. II, 704 postage of members,.............Vol. I, 44, 64 powers of government...........ol. I, 108, 165 private property taken for public use,>.. Vol. II, 743 public lands,..........Yol. II, 749, 751, 753, 755 railroad charters,................Vol. I, 836, 837 rules of Convention,.............V.ol. I, 36, 38, 57 salaries,................ Vol. II, 809, 810, 811, 814 seat of government,..................Vol. 1, 161 I 1 4 7 .8 37 I 1053 INDEX. 1054 INDEX. NORRIS, LYMAN D.,-Continued. remarks by, on — soldiers' monument, Detroit,........Yol. I, 384, State officers, etc.................... Vol. I, 601, supervisors,.......................... Vol. II, taxes, collection of specifiC,.............. Vol. I, Wayne county, auditors of,.............VoL I, NOTARIES PUBLIC, resolution relative to the number of,......................... Vol. I, OATH OF OFFICE, OF DELEGATES TO COmVENTION,.. Vol. I, 1, administered by Secretary of State,...... Vol. I,' OATH OF OFFICE, CONSTITUTIONAL,.............. Vol. II, OCCUPATIONS, ETC., OF DELEGATES....... VOl. 1, 13, 28 1, OFIn,cs RiEmOvALS FRoM, (See Removals.) OFFICERS, public, continuance of, under new Consti - tution,................... Vol. II, ORDER IN COENTION, resolution relative to preserv ing,................ Vol. I, 128, 167, 176, ORDER, com'e in regard to preservation of,...Vol. I, report from,........................ Vol. II, PAP.D0ONS, BOARD OF,.............. Vol. I, 47; Vol. II, PARDONS SINCE 1850,................... Vol. I, 210, PARDONS, REPRIEVES AND COMMUTATIONS, (See Governor.) PARSONS, S. TITUS, a delegate from Shiawassee county, appeared and took his seat,.............. Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on order of proceeding,..................... Vol. I, appoin ted a hember of committee on legis lative department, o e................. Vol. I, appointed a member of com'e on liquors,.. Vol. T, motions, etc., by,or. Vol.o 1, 8, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71, 74, 78, 295, 606, 613; V ol. II, 223, 224, 366, 676, 720, 722, 724. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) remarks by, on adjournment over, etc.,................Vol. I, assessment of proper ty,............ Vol. T. 281, debates and journal,...................Vol. I, 6, 7, denominational schools, Vol. II, equalization, Stat e board of,..........D...uco. -l I, hour of daily meeting,................Vol. I,' liquor traffic,...................Vol.. VII, 199, 201, 204, 205, 388. municipal officers, election of,........... Vol. II, postage of members,...................Vol. T. postmaster of Convention, appointment of, Vol. I, powers of government................. Vol. I, railroads, municipal aid to,........o r. FII, 131, 170, 218. -' returns of taxable property9.............V.... ol. I, rulies of CJonvention,.....................Vol. I, -Senators, term of,**-@......................e -VvoL II, suffrage for people of color,.......V...... ol. II, 713, supervisors,......................Vol. II, 311, township officers, etc.,............Vol.-I, 116, 118, PAy Or'DELEgATES DURING ABSENCE, (See Delegates.) PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS —. By Mr. Bradley,,........................r+******Vol.I, ,,,, Burtch,............. Vol. II, ,, Croswell, (the President,)................Vol. I, ,, "; Norris,.......................V ol. I, ,, " Turner,................................Vol. I, , "' Shearer,.....................,..Vol. T. ,, "s T. G. Smith,.............. *........VoL. I, ,,,, P. D. W arner,.............. ~........Vol. I, PEDDLERS, TAXATION OF, resol'n relative to,.... Vol. I, I)EiSON~ PROPEiRTY, EgEMPTION Or,........Vo1. I, -520, 527. PET~o0, BImHT oF,.................... I,......T1 PETITIONS, MEMORIAMS, ETC., presented by Mr. Aldrich, relative to -- liquor traffic, Vol...vol, 141, 166, 278 woman suffrage,................ Vol. I, 39, 56, 112 Mr. Alexander, relative to liquor traf fic........... Vol. I, 56, 166, 296, 373, 398 425, 534, 582. M Mr. Andrus, relative to liquortrafic,.................... Vol. I, 91, 295,. 323 Mr. Barber, relative to- - appointment of judges,................Vol. I, 373 disposition of fines and forfeitures. V...ol. I, 279 liquor traffic,.. Vol I,140, 209, 295, 556; Vol. 11, 31 woman suffrage,.......... Vol. I, 156; Vol. II, 59 Mr. Bills, relative to liquor traffic,........... ol. I, 91, 156, 295, 506, 596 Vol. II, 2. Mr. Birney, relative to liquor traffic..VoQl. I, 39, 141,166, 209 Mr. Blackman, relative to appointment of judges................ Vol. I, 278 fines and forfeitures,...................Vol. I, 79 liquor traffic,....Vol. 1, 56, 153, 209, 425, 476, 534 595. township elections of Bangor,.... Vol. I, -374, 425 woman suffrIage,.......Vol. I, 75, 167 . Mr. Bradley, relative to liquor traffic,............o.... Vl. I, 56, 64, 141, 556, 595 woman suffrage,.................. Vol. I, 450, 556 ]Kr. Brown, relative to liquor traffic,......................... Vol. I, 323 preamble...........................Vol. II,; 764 Mr. Burtch, relative to — liquor traffic......................Vol. I, 56, 91 Mr. Burtenshaw, relative to liquor traffic,................V.........ol. I, 209 Mir. Cas~, relative to liquor traffic,........Vol. I, 112, 155, 398, 476 Mr. Chapin, relative to liquor traffic, Vol. I, 175; 226 Mr. Coolidge, relative to appointment and salary of judges,...... Vol. I, 253 insutrafnce copanies,..........I.........Vol II, 209 liquor traffic..................Vol. I, 56, 112, 140 Mr. Conger, relative to- I liquor traffic,............ Vol. I, 26, 56, 140, 154, 157 municipal aid to railroads, etc.,......... Vol. I, 56 liquor traffic,..Vol.I, 56, 122, 153, 295; Vol. II, 367 Mr. -Crocker, relative to liquor trafc,.Vol.I, 91, 140, 153 DMr. Groswelt, (the President;,) relative to — liquor traffic,...........Vol.I, 65, 92, 322, 323, 870 suffrage,..................Vo. 1,31.. suVoL I, 65 Ivlr..Daniells, relative to_-_ woman suffrage,.. Vol.I,39, 79, 227, 374; Vol.II, 479 liquor traffic,.............Vol.I, 141, 374 Mr. Divine, relative to — liquor traffiC,.........Vol.I, 56, 153; Vol.II, 2, 59 Mir. Duncan, relative to —.f liquo traffic,......................VoL I, 65, 582 M~r. Du4ncomabe, relative to- -- liquor traffic,.Yol.I, 65, 279 MKr..Estee, relative to — woPan sufWrage,...............V.l...w..Vol.I, 153, 155 liquor traffic,............VoL I, 374 Mtr..Farmer, relative to - womran suffrage,......V..............Vol. I, 78 EiquorNtraf,.......................Vol.1, 209, -25 1054 INDEX. - 595 602 324 271 464 76 9 ~2 572 328 951 210 128 1004 568 323 I 5 31 31 72 297 598 285 63 379 312 76 200 331 45 4 105 160 319 52 726 18 313 121 64 250 507 114 506 322 77 507 155 509 611 1055 PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, ETc., presented by Mr. Ferris, relative'to liquor traffic,......~o1. I, 39, 122, 156, 227, 352, 534. public lands and exemptions,........Vol. 1., 79, appointments and salary of judges...... Vol. 1 Me It, woman suffrage....................... VOl. II, Mr. Germain, relative to- V liquor traffic,....... Vol. I,- 56, 92, 156, 166, 227, 295, 374, 398, 450, 556. woman sufrage............-..o1. I, Mr. Giddings, relative to — woman suffrage.......1.....Vol. 1, 64,: liquor traffic............... Vol., 122, 140, appointment of judges, Vo1. I, Mr. D. Goodwin, relative to liquor traffic,............. Vol. I, Mr. W. F. Goodwin, relative to liquor traffic,............. Vol. I, Mr. Haire, relative to liqu or traffic, d........ V ol. I, 57, Mr. Harris, relative to liquor traffic...................... VoL 1,.I39, appointment and salary of judges,.......Vol. I Mr. Hazen, relative to - liquor traffic,........39912 Vol. I, punishment for murder,.'............... Vol. I, Mr. Henderson, relative to' liquor traffic,......Vol. I, 112, 140, 279, 29.5, appointment and salary o f judges.......1....M. ol.cI, Mr. mixson, relative to'liquor traffic,..................Vol.I, Mr. Holmnes, relative to liquor traffic,...... Vol. I, 141, 153, 156; Vol. II, Mr. Holt, relative to liquor traffic,...Vol. I, 64, 139, 27,8, 295; Vol. II, appointment and salary Of judges,.......Vol. I, lands for actua Settlers,... -...d. Vol. II, Mr. Howard, relative to liquor traffic,..... Vol. I, 39, 91, 227; Vol. II, 181, 310. woman suffrage,....................... V1. I, tobacco smoking in public streets, Vol. I, Mr. Hull, relative to liquor traffic,....................... Vol. I, 156, woman suffrage,......... Vol. II, Mr..HustOn, relative to — liquor traffic,......................... Vol. I, woman suffrage,................Vol. I, -279, Mfr. Ingalls, relative to appointment of judges,................Vol. II, Mr. Kenney, relative to — liquor traffic,....................ol. I, 209, appointment of judges,................. VAoL; I, Mr. Lamb, relative to liquor traffic,,....... Vol. I, 39, 296, 556; VoL. II, appointment of judges,................Vol. I, woman suffrage,.................ol. I, 296, Mr. Longyear, relative to — -liquor traffiC,......... V0Vo. 1, 56, 166, elections in Lansing,....................V..Aol. I, womian suffrage;........... -Vol. I, 582; VoL. II, Mr. Lothrop, relativa to -liquor traffic,............V.ol. I, 92, 14:0, 556, Mir, Lovel!, relative to — liquor traffic,............ *...........Vol. I, election of judges,............ -..........Vol. I, Mr. Lute, relativeto — woman suffrage,..................VoL....,.. oT141, VoL II, 239. PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, ETC., presented by Mr. McClelland, relative to liquor traffic,............ Vol. I,1 112, 153, appointment of judges.................Vol. I mining associations.................. Vol. I, Mr. -HcConnell, relative to liquor traffic,.....V. Vol. I, 56, 75, 112, 140, 156, 425; Vol. II, 105, 123. woman suffrage......................... Vol. I, .Mr. McKernan, relative to — liquor traffic,...... Vol.1 I, 156, 227, senatorial representation of Upper Peninsula, Vol. I, 424. - Mr. Miles, rel ative to liquor traffic,................. Vol. I, 210, 425, Mr. Miller, relative to liquor traffic....... Vol. I, 176,,398; Vol. 1I, 59, Mr. Morton, relative to — liquor traffic,................. Vol., 1 22, 153, disposition of fines and forfeitures,. Vol. I, 122, Irish nationality, Vo.139799l. I, Mr. Hurray, relative to - liquor traffic..........Vol. I, 166, 425; Vol. I, wom an suffrage,..............Vol. I, 141, 166, Mr. Mussey, relative to liquor traffic,.. Vol. I9,39, 79, 92, 209, -226, — 279, Vol. II,'30, 59.' 38 47 widows' third of real estate of deceased hus bands,..........Vol. II, appointment of judges,....... Vol. II, Mr. Musgrave, relative to liquor traffic.................. Vol. I, 74, 166, disposition of fines and forfeitures,....... Vol. I1, M.. Ninde, relative to-. liquor traffic,............. Vol. I, 279; Vol. -II, Mr. Norris, relative to- liquor traffic,.Vol. I, 398, woman suffrage,................ Vol. II, appointment and saary of judges..... Vol. II,; wMr. Parsons, relative to - liquor traffic., Vol. I, 91, taxation of dogs,....................... Vol. II, Mr. Pratt, relative to- liquor traffic.......... Vol. I, 56, 153; Vol. II, disposition of fines and forfeitures,.. Y ol. I, 156; Vol. II, 84. woman ssuffrage,....................... Vol. I, Mr Pringle, relative to -- liquor traffc,-*.............~l; I, 26, 39, 83, appointmnent and salary,................ - ol.:I, Mr. Purcell, relativeto - liquor traffic,...................ol. I,153, MFr. 1%frtr, relative to'- -- liquor traffic,..................ol. I, 122, Mir. Richmond, relative to -- — ~ liquor trafflc,............e......Vol. I,122,^ woman suffrage,..................Vol. I, State University,.................ol. II, Hi'. Root, relative to liquor traffic,.........Vol. I, 91, 253, 323; Vol. II, -wom~an suffage,............. - Yol, I, Mr.;Sawyer, relative to —^ woman suffrage, V........ol. I, 78, 156, liquor traf fic,, ~.......... ol. I, 14:0, M~r. 8hearer, relative to — liquor traffic,'.......Vol.-T, 39, 253, 323; Vol.II, 181, 280. Hr. Sheldon, relative to-; pardons of persons convicted of- murder,.;...ol. T. taxation of dosg,............-. - ol. I, I - I IN,DEX'. i 398 323 556 253 398.ill 450 367 278 122 425 278 75 227 74 556 139 885 227 898 153210 253 3'52 227 153 153 2 582 450 398 209 30 31 122 176 1.66 209 123 59 556 966 I- 476. 31 31 12'3 122 '678 r 227 450 84 141 596 398 209 156 596 140 253 84 156' 153 278 253 832 .253 450 278 .155 309 352 166 181 105 -12.2 352 398 310 141 278 30 534 56 i .56 1056 PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, ETC., presented by Mr. Sheldon, relative to — liquor traffic.............. Vol. I, 476; Vol. oI, Mr. T. G. Smith, relative to liquor traffic,........Vol. I, 56, public lands,........................Vol. II, Mr. W. A. Smith, relative to liquor traffic,..........................Vol. I, Mr. Stockwell, relative to liquor traffic,... ol. I 1, 56, 140, 42 5; Vol. II, 30, election of State Prison inspectors,....Vol. I, election of superintendents of the poor,.. Vol. I, woman suffrage,.....................Vol. I, 7 9, Mr. Stoughton, relative to-: woman suffiage,.......... Vol., 112, 323, 534, liquor traffic....................Vol. I, 1 39, Mr. Su therland, relative to liquor traffic,......... Vol. I, 122, 139, 278, 476, Vol. II, 59. judiciary,.......... Vol. I, Mr. Thompson, relative to liquor traffic,............. Vol. I, 153, 476, 506, Vol. II, 2. Mr. Turner, relative to liquor traffic,...Vol. I, 39, 75, 91, 139, 175, 374, Vol. II, 1, 30, 495. woman suffrage,........... Vol. I, 425; Vol. II, appointment and salary-of judges,....... Vol. I, Mr. Tyler, relative to woman suffrage,........~. Vol. I, 78; Vol. II, 105, liquor traffic,......... Vol. I, 398, 556; -Vol. II, Mr. Utley, relative to_ X liquor traffic,.............. Vol. I, 352; Vol. II, public lands,......................... Vol. II, appointment and salary of judges,...... Vol. I, Mr. Van Riper, relative to liquor traffic,..................... VoL. I, 112, woman suffrage,.......................Vol. I, Mr. Van Valkenburgh, relative to liquor trafflic,.....V ol. I, 57, 75, 79,.91, 92, 141, 278. woman suffrage,......... Vol. I, taxation,..... Vol. I, preamble,...........................ol. I, Mr. Walker, relative to- - liquor traffic,..... Vol. I, 153, 278, 295; Vol. II, woman suffrage,............-.Vol. I, 323, Mr. P. D. Warner, relative to — liquor traffic,............~ol. I, 40, 65, 424, 506, Vol. II, 198. Mar. WE. E~. Warner, relative to — liquor traffic,..ol. I, 14:0,153, 278, 582; Vol. II, court of appeals,............Vol. I, woman suffrage, etc., V.........ol. IT, Mr..F.G(. Watkins, relative to — liquor traffic,....... Vol. I, 39, 155, 165, Mr. M.~ C. Watkins, relative to — liquor traffic,...... ~.ol. I, 57, 140, 279, Mlr. Mhite, relative to- - liquor traffic,.........VAol. I, 14l, 153, 209, 323, 534:, 582; ~ol. II, 2. -}r. Willard, relative to woman suffrage,...............Vol. I, 65, liquor traffic,.....................o. O1I, 140, appointment and salary of judges,................Vol. I, Mr. Winaris, relative to —: liquor traffic,..... ol. I, 139, 278; Vol. II, disposition of fines and forfeitures,......V.........Aol. I, Mr. Withey, relative to liquor traffic,.......,..........ol. I,~ 166, PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, ETC., presented by Mr. Wsiltams, relative to woman suffrage,................. ol. I, 79, liquor traffic.......... 1 I, Mr. Woodhouse, relative to liquor traffic........ Vqol. I; 39, 153, Mr. Wright, relative to-i liquor traffic,........... Vol. I, 57, Mr. Yeomans, relative to-: liquor traffic,......... Vol. I, 92, 141, 209, 253, 374, 398; Vol. II, 2. woman suffrage......... Vol. I, 112, PETITIONS RELATIVE TO LIQUOR TRAFFIC, number of, Vol. I, 142, 231; Vol. Ii, 614. PETITIONS RELATIVE TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE, resolution-rel ative to reporting number of......... Vol. I, PHRASEOLOGY, ARRANGEMENT AND, COMMITTEE ON, (See Arrangement and Phraseology.) PLANK ROADS,........... Vol. 1, 5, 268; VoL II, 122, POLICE COURT, continuance of, under new Constitu tion..............................Vol. II, POOR, PROVISION FOR................... Vol II, POOR FUND, crediting fines to....... Vol. II, PORTER, WILLIE, appointed messenger,......ol. I, POSTAGE OF DELEGATES.. V..... ol. I, 24, 26, 43, 63, POSTMASTER OF CONVENTION, appointment and compen sation of Seymour Foster, as, ot 3; Vol. ol II, POWERS of GOVERNMENT, article on, reported from - standing committee.................. Vol. I, considered in committee of the whole,...Vol. I, 83, 87, 97. reported from committee of the whole,... Vol. I, considered in Convention,.......... VoL I, 104, referred to committee on arrangement and phra seology,..... Vol. 1, reported from committee on arrangement and phraseology........... Vol. I, passed............................... Vol. 1, POWERS OF GOVERNMENT, eta., committee on,..VoL I, 31. resolution of instruction to commitee on,.. Vol. I, report from......Vol.1, 65, 77, 83, 87, 97, 103, 112, 122. PRACTICE IN COURTS, (See Gourts.) PRATT, DANIEL L., a delegate from Hillsdale ,county, appeared and took his seat.............. Vol. 1 appointed a member of committee on report iqog,..........1,40,.65, 424,506, -.. Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on bill of - rights,..........V ol. I, appointed a member of committee on judicial department,..Vol. I, motions, etc., by,. Vol., 15, 64, 69, 70, 74, 138, 209, 267, 273, 278, 279; Vol. II, 1, 3, 239, 240, 24:7, 256, 599, 614, 874:. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) report from committee on bill of rights,.. Vol. I, resoluti6n offered by, relative to map of Michi gan,............... ~ol. I, resolution relative to amending and repealing - charters,.Vol. I, resolution relative to reference of resolutions of instruction, etc.Vol. I, resolutions relative to corporations paying spe - cific tax.Vol 1, 124, resolution of thanks to clergymen of Lan sing, o.V.6.VoL II, remarks by, on e 'adjournment over, etc.,.....ol. I, 136, 428, INDE,X. 2 92 278 .91 181 227 166 79 209 79 79 112 352 156 582 323 534 231 151 596 .953 719 711 47 124 596 425 1 425 65 77 123 832 103 165 112 367 181 476 374 156 122 165 9 .253 . 92 156 585 -42 104 59 450 I 556 5 31 150 425 310. .31 ill 224 176 374 398 476 41 60 155 209 227 71 142 600 476 176 1020 429 1057 PRATT, DANTIELT L.,- Continued. remark s by, on- - alieons, rights of......................1, Ii amend't and revision of the Const'n,....~Vl.::II, 609. banks, taxation of,.....................Vol., 1, circuit court commissioners, etc.,.......~o.l-. oII,: corporations, g rant ing and repealing charters of, ta............V.......... Vol. I, 171, 186, 18 97,190,200, 205; Vol. II, 564, 565, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604. counties, organization of new,......~Vo. I, 378, 382, 391. denominational schools,.......... Vol. II, 113, drains and ditches..................... Vol. II, EngDish language, preservation of laws, etc., in,.........................ol. II, equalization, State board of,...... ~....~01. V. Governor, as commander-in-chief,....... Vol I, Jam'eson's Constitutional Convention, resolution to furnish,.......................... ol. I., judicial districts and circuits,....... VoL. II, -979, jurisdiction of probate judges,......... Vol. II, jury, trial by,.......................... II, leave of absence, granting,.......... Vol. lT, 238, liqihor traffic,............. Vol. II, 200, 663, 664, messengers, pay of, ol. II, private Propertry taken ~or publiC: use,... Vol. II, 5, 6, 249, 585, 586, 587, 590, 591. railroads, -municipal aid to,........ Vol. II, 174, 207, 208, 210, 213, 216, 217, 218, 219, 373, 689, 690. removal of officers,........Vol. I, reporters, employment of,..............Vol. I, rules of Convention,............. Vol.I, salaries, l.. II, 620, 624, sessions of the Legislature......Vol. II, 53, 54~, State officers, -etc.,....................Vo. II, taxation, uniform,..................Vol. I, 274, taxes, collection of specific,......... Vol. I,268, 271, 274. treason against the State,............... Vol. I, PR.YERS, STYLE oF,......................ol. II,, 240, PiAAYERn, clergymen invited to open Convention with,.............................Vol. I, P.RAYR BY Rev. ir. A_mstrong, Vol. I, 25, 74, 555; Vol. IL 544. Rev. Mr. Banwell,.. Vol. I, 39, 64, 77, 582;YVO. II, Rev. Fir. Bradley, (a memlber of Conven,'9tion,)......... Vol. I, 56, 79, 175, 226, 534:, Vol. II, 479, 1022. Rev. Mir. Eaze,'.......... Yol. II, Rev. Mr. Hickox,.....~..... ol. I, 8, 351, 373, 398, 4:75; Vol. II, 279,~ 310, 337. -Rev. Hr. McIntire,.......... Vol. I, 112, 136-; Vol. II, 398, 425, 514:,598, 599, 630, 678, 710, 739,935, .Rev. Mr. Olds,.. -..........O VII, Rev. Fir., Potter,.......~.. ol. I,152, 165; Vol. II, 764:,831, 885. Rev,- Hr. Spencer,.........Vol.I, 155; Vol. I, 1,:84:, Rev, Hr. Straub,.........Vol. I,278, 322; Vol. II, -123, 208. — Rev. Mr. W eed,.. VoL I, 15, 91, i22, 209; ~01. II, -366, 570. Rev.DHr. randriss,....Vol. I, 252, 295; V~ol. II, -181, 237, 966.-.PREAM.BLE O~F COl~STITUTION,... ol. I, 92, 585; Vol. II, 931. P^r~IDENT, TEMPoRAY, election of Mr. P. D. W arner, as,................ Vol.TI, Vol. 2 — o. 133, xPRESIDENT OF CO'NvENTIo, election: of Mr.- C. DI. Cros_ well, as,........................... Vol. I, communications presented by,... Vol. I, 19, 20, 66, 92, 142, 154, 157, 191, 229, 323,352, 451, 476, 534, 588; VoL iI, 31, 84, 251, 441, 870. decisions by, on-points of order,.. Vol.I,21, 25, 45, 50, 59, 60, 61, 64, 69, 70, 72, 74, 78, 79, 158,: 159, 160, 167, 176, 255, f61, 295, 298, 435, 436,- 480, 481, 484, 495, 507, 508, 529, 563, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 606, 614, Vol. II, 1, 26, 239, 240, 250, 251, 257, 311, -369, 370, 371, 373, 389, 393, 397, 398,- 457, 472, 475, 483, 484, 542, 550, 553, 568, 571, l599, 601, 615-, 686, 687, 715, 721, 722, 723, 737, 738, 740, 757, 825, 850, 857, 859, 873, 888, 895, 903,-904. petitions, etc., presented by,......... Vol. I, 92,.322, 323. presentation to................. Vol. II, resolution of thanks to..............Vol. II, remarks by, on- adjournment, sine die,.Vol. II, administ'g oath to members and officers,.. Vol. I, 15, 025. appointment of standing committees,....Vol. I, 13. reception of Hon. Schuyler Coifax,... Vol.I, reception of ladies of Soldiers' Monument Asso ciation.................. 1, 383, r,receiving present of Bible,......... Vol. II, taking the Chair,...................... Vo1. I, statement of questions, etc., by,.....Vol. I, 5, 6, 15, 22, 31, 40, 41, 46, 71, 72, 73, 93, 104, 106, 111, 113, 114, 125, 134, 138, 139, 141, 152,, 159, 160, 164, 165, 167, 168, 191, 195, 196, 209, 230, 232, 255, 260, 267, 280, 297, 298, 321, 322, 429, 432, 434, 437, 438, 439, 440, 450, 451, 467, 471, 477, 500, 505, 507, 528, 534, 544, 546, 547, 548, 550, 556, 561, 581, 596, 598, 605, 606, 607, 611, 616; Vol. II,1, , 24105, 124, 125, 126, 151, 182, 209, 223, 224, 237, 238, 239, 282, 309, 310, 314, 338, 355, 359, 360, 365, 367, 374, 376, 380, 383, 384, 388, 390, 396, 426, 453, 454, 458, 466, 467, 481, 492, 495, 510, 514, 516, 517, 518, 522, 527, 533, 545, 547, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 569, 570, 598, 600,614, 630, 633, 636, 637, 641, 646, Rev. M663, 676, 678, 681, 682, 685,i688, 692, 693, -nVl -696, 703, 704, 705, 713, 717, 719, 724, 726, 731,'32, 741, 745, 749, 754, 758, 759, 760, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766, 768, 769, 770, 797, 805, 806, 811, 812, 815, 817, 818, 819, 820, 825, 826, 832, 833, 834, 836, 837, 843, 844, 84:6, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 858, 864, 868, 870, 871, 873, 874, 875, 876, 894, 896, 897, 898, 899; 900, 902, 908o 910, 921, 922, 924, 926, 928, 931, 982, 984, 989, 997, 998, 999, 1005, 1006. :PRESIDENT: oF'SENATE, (See LieUtenant Governor.) PRESENT pro tern. OF SENATE, (See Senate, President pro temn. of.) PREss, resolution inviting suggestions of, relative to 3-6,50 amendment of Constitution,...-.Vol.1I, P~R.SS AND srr.EC~, F~rEDoM oF, (See Speech.); PRINGLE, EUGENE, a delegate from Jackson county,. appeared and took his seat,.Vol.1I, sappoVted a member of comnmittee on c orpora tions other than municipal,............... Y ol. I, IN 3 65 467. 246' 606" 186' .452:' 169 —l" 568 27 135 318 54.8 615 368 .471 .598 733 - 887 379 376 596 577 513 340 40 981 466 246 678 687 971 4 65 354 1020 1022 9 11 154 386 35,i 3 1 9 107 199 375. 355 18 32 626 705 126 275 269 155 197 303 442 530 584 3 225 356 387 479 524 559 597 654 694 728 761 801 823845 857 888 916 996 347" 282 4 506 453' 595 854 450 i .995 30 59. 90.8. 104. 257" 27 150' 851 1 I 31 1658~~ I g;D - - x.I PRINGLE, EUGENE,-Continued. appointed a member of committee on legislative department,'........................ Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on preser vation of order,..................... Vol. 1, motions, etc., by....Vol. I, 2, 19, 24,- 26, 39, 72, 113, 146, i59, 191, 165, 231, 278, 392, 422, 525,;606, 607, 611, 613, 615; Vol. II, 3,6d 7, 17, 22, 28, 30, 41, 46, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 62,63, 66, 70 o, 74,75, 83, 84, 85, 88, 91, 95, 96, 99, 104, 109, o111, 112, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 127, 139, 149, 150, 151, 153, 156,157, 158, 161, 167, 168, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181,, 182 184, 185, 195, 198, 199, 200, 205, 208, 224, 232, 246, 248, 331, 339, 398, 440, 466, 472, 479i 527, 533, 547, 899, 965, 993, 1006, 1008, 1019. petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) report from committee on reporters,.... Vol. I, reports from committee on corporations other than municipal,....... Vol. I, 75, 113; Vol. II, resolution offered by, relative to reporting de bates,...............I....... Vol. I, resolution relative to committee on arrangement and phraseology,.................... Vol. I, resolution to pay thirty dollars to A.'& W. H. Drapier,. Voi. I, resolution relative to recess of the Con.,. ~Vol. I, resolution relative to stationery for official reporters............. Yol. I, resolution relative to correction of engrossed Constitution,..................Vol. II, remarks by, on- - adjournment over, etc.,........... Vol. I, 28, 427, .Agricultural College,.. Vol; II, 483, 492, aliens, rights of,....... Vol. I, 613; Vol. II, 842, appeals from boards of supervisors,...... Vol.., 459, 487, 490, 491. assessment of propert.y,.... Vol. I, assistant secretaries, appointment of,.... Vol. I, Auditor General, office of; Vol. I, bills in the Leg., introduction of,....Vol. II, boundaries,.....................ol. I, 80, 81, chaplains in the Leg.,.... Vol. I, 73; Vol II, circuit court commissioners,.......Vol. II, 451, 461, 463. civil and religious rights,.......... VoL. I, 588, committees, standing,........... Vol. I, 13, Constitution, separate submission of provisions of,.............. -... -....,Vol.II, Constituxtion, votinag upon new,....Vol, II, 953, 961. corporal punishment,..........ol.-II, corporations, granting and repealing charters of, etc.,....Vol. I, 14:, 14:7, 14:8, 14:9, 168, 169, 172, 173,176,179,191, 197, 198, 207, 215, 220,~ -225, 226, 263, 267;' VoL II, 563, 564, 565,:566, : 836, 837.. counties, organization of,..:....Vol. I, 380, 388, county officers,....................Vol. I, county seats, remloval of,.......~...........-..ol..Q. I, debates and journas,....................Vol. I, 23, 24:, debts to repel invasion,.................,.-~ol. I, denominational schools,.-....r.*S.ol. II, disfranchisement for infamous crimes,... Vol. AI, 293.i elections, time of holding,-...........~o..... o II, electors, qualifications of,.........~..... ol. II, 253, 267, 271, 286, 287, 289. -English language, preservation of-laws, etc.,, in,X...... -.......... -ol. H,t PRINGLE, -EUGENE,-Continued. remarks by, on — examinations for adminission to the bar,..Vol, II,' 830. - executive power, definition of............ Vol. I, . exemptionlaws, e................ Vol.I, fines, etc., accruing to the State,........Vol. II, . freedom of religion, speech and press,.. Vol. I, 588, 590,591. Governor as commander.-in-chief,... Vol. I, 341, Governor, eligibility for,.Vol. I, Governor, manner of electirg,............Vol. I, homestead exemptions......... Vol. 1, 531, 546, inpeachments.......... Vol. I, 523, judicial districts,.V.. ol. II, 972, 980, 982, 985, jurisdiction of Supreme and circuit courts, Vol. II, jury, trial by............ Vol1. I, 593; Vol. II, law-terms of the courts............... Vol. II,' laws, reporting changes of, to Leg.,.....Vol. II, Legislature, authority of, to require opinions from the Supreme Court,............Vol. II, Librarian, State, pay of,....Vol. II, libraries, township and city,...... Vol. II, 431, liquor traffic,. Vol. II, 535, 549, 877, 879, military duty, persons liable to,.... Vol. II, 232, municipal officers, election of,. Vol.- I, 331, 348, normal schools,................ Vol. II,1 oath of office, constitutional,. Vol. II, 573, pardoning power.....................Vol. I, powers of government.Vol. I, 88, practice in circuit courts,..V.ol. II, 444, preamble of Constitution............. Vol. I, printing, etc., for State,... Vol. II, 368, 371, 372, private property taken for public use,... Vol. II, 587, 588, 592, 844, 845, 846, 849. public money, prohibiting use of, for private pur poses,............................Vol. I, raihlroads, municipal aid to,. Vol. II, 220, 221, 373,-374. railroad charters, Vol. II, 836, railroads, etc., interest of Stlate in, Vol. II, 896, regents of the University,...-Vol. II, 434, 436, religious societies, lands held by,....... Vol. II, 840, 841. reporters, employment of,. Vol. I, 15, rules of the Convention,..... Vol. I, 32, 33, 38, 58, 59. salaries,............. Yol. II, 811, 825, 962, 964, ofV: 1 school system,......Vol.II, 307, 468, 469, 515, Cnt o vseat of government,.............o!. I,83, 161, - sessions of the Legislature,..Vol. II, c sheriffs,.Vol. I, sinking fund, Vol.I,234, soldiers' monument, Detroit,...Vol. I, : State offices, etc.,.Vol.1I, 586, 600, 601, -Vol. II, 125. - suitors, rights of.....................-.Vol. I, supervisors...,Vol. I, 409; Vol.II, 812, 313, Supreme Court, terms of,...Vol.1II, taxation, uniform. Vol.1 2I, taxes, collection of specific,............ Vol. I, - township officers, etc.,..Vol.I, 116, 120, Upper Peninsula, committee on.....1Vo.I, 95, witnesses, competency of... Vol. I, 611; Vol.II. PRINTING, COMMITTEE ON.......1..........Vo. I, 9, resolution of instruction to,.......Vol. I, 24, 74, reports from,............. Vol. I, 60, 75, 156, PRINTING FOR STATE. V.Ol. II,88, PRINTER, STATE, resolution calling upon, for infor mation,... 1o. V1. 1058 .INDEX. 31 828 128 90 467' 16 65 100 -123 165 ,l.94 310 858 328 538 - 950 587 342 338 333 548 524 997' 243 447 992 15 479 1562 1001 481 923 233 349 441 574 344 165 585 373 580 4 13 24 28 31 1008 435 - 503 843 449 579 223 6 567 366 . 82 376 460-. 837 897. 439 839 16 39 991 .517 163 -3'61 401 1 235 385. 604 589 14, 330 987 247 170 .223 .834 .608 . 321 443 276 271 135 101 246 31 281 297 367 391 475 411 61 238 381 292 295 254 578, 124 fl.DEX. _-I9 PRISON, STATE, IN UPPER PENINSULA, resolution rela tive to......................... Vol. I, PRISON, STATE, supervision of, resolution relative to,............................ Vol. I, 157, PrIVATE PROPERTY t aken for public use........ Vol. I, 613; Vol. II, 3, 249, 579, 586, 741, 758, 762, PRIZER F OIGT RNG, disfranchisement for,... Vol. II, 292, PRIOBATE COURTS, o..............Vl........ V2 0 II, 465, PNIOBATE JUDGES, S resolution relative to abolition of,............ Vol. I, resolition relativeto qual ificati ons of,...Vol. I, terms of,............. Vol. II, PROPERTY, assessment of, (See Assessment.) PROPERTY, LIFE AND LIBERTY, security of,.......-Vol. I, PROPERTY OF RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES, taxation of, (See Religious Societies.). PROPERTY, PRIVATE, (See Private property.) PROPERTY, TAXIABLE, ASee eturns of taxable p roperty.) PROSECUTING ATTORNEY,.................... O1. II, (See County officers.) PUBLIC MONEY, public officers prohibited from private use of,....... V?ol. II, 59, 579, PUBLIC USE, private property taken for, (See Private -property.) PUmSHIME1T, CORPORAL,.................. V 1. II, 247, PuNISHMENTS, UNUSUAL AND CRUEL, prohibited,..Vol. I, PUNISHMENTS, (See Crimes and punishments.) PTUR.RCELL, WILLIAM, a delegate from Wayne county, appeared and took his seat,.............. Vol. T, appointed a'member of Committee on billi of rights,......................... Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on impeach ment,................................ol. I, motions, etc., by,.................Vol. II, 786, petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) remarks by, on — electors, qualifications of,.... Vol. II, privat-e property taken for public use,....Vol. I, PURrSTON, DAVID B., appointed temporary Sergeant at-Arms of Convention,.. Vol. I, QUORUM OF CONVENTION, motion to make forty mem bers a,.... Vol. II, QUORuM of each House of Legislature,....... Vol. II, RAFTER, WILLIAHM A., a delegate from Monroe county, appeared and took his seat,...........Vol. I, appointed a member of committee on corpora tions other than municipa,........ Vol.TI, appointed- a member of com mittee on exemp -:tions,.. Vol.-I, -motions, etc., by,.........Vol. I,77, 100,:210, 310, 557, 610; Vol. I!,106, $87, 458, 538, 551, 586, 7~3, 771, 776. petitions presented by, (See Petition s.)~ -resolution offered by, relativeto qualifications for oifice,.......................VG1.LII, remarks by, on — adjournment over, etc.,.....................Vol. I,30, -appealsfrom boards of supervisors,..................Vol.I, denominational schools,....o........ - ~~I,: eligibility to office,...........Vol.II, -Governor, term of,..........Vol. I, _tleave of absence,4-**@* ~o.-.!-s II, -libraries, city and township,-...............Vol. II, 423, liquor traffic,......................- Vol. II, 649, population for representative districts,...Vol. 17, -regents of the University,....................Vol. II, religious societies, lands held by,........V....... ol.II,: 839, 840, ~841. — RAFTER, WlILAM A., —Continued. remarks by, on religious societies, incorporation of,....Vol. II, salaries,........Vol. II, 611, 618, 799, 811, 902, school system,...................Vol. II, 418, State officers, etc.,...Vol. I, suffrage for people of color,.......... Vol. II, supervisors,...o..............-...... Vol.I, township officers, etc.,.............Vol., RAILROAD FROM DETROIT TO UPPER PFENINSULA,.. Vol. II, 425, 453. RAILROADS, MUNICIPAL AID TO,..... -1. I, 5, 63, 239, 267; VO1. II, 100, 121, 127, 139, 165, 182, 198, 209, 225, 373, 688, 724, 855, 925. BAILROADS RECEIVING GRANTS OF LAND, resolution of inquiry relative to................ Vol.I, communication from Secretary of State in rela tion to,..................Vol. I, 19, 20, 41, RAILROADS, resolution relative to board of commis - sioners of......................... VoL I, RAILROADS, TIME FOR COMPLETION OF,....Vol...... 1, II REAL ESTATE, restrictions relative to corporations holding;,..........................Vol. I, the sale of, not to be authorized by Legislature, -Vol. II, 100, 375. REBE LS AND DESERTERS, disfranchisement of, (See Deserlers.)... -. — RECESS, DAILY,......................... VO1. I, RECESS OF CONVENTION, resolutions relative to,.. Vol. I, 28, 78 136, 138, 425, 597, 614, 615; Vol. II, .545, 546. RECOGNIZANCES, BONDS, ETC., to the State or munici -palities,.......Vol.1, REGISTER OF DEEDS, county, (See County officers.) REGISTERS OF DEEDS FOR CITIES............. Vol. II, REGISTRY OF VOTERS,.Vol.1 II, RELIGION, FREEDOM OF,...............Vol. I, 75, 587, Vol. II, 240, 246, 247. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES, SCHOOLS, ETC., State aid to, pro hibited.................. I, 588; Vol. II, RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES, taxation of property of,. VoL I,1 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES, (See Corporations.) REMOVALS FROM OFFICE.................. Vo. I, 348,) REPORT OF DEBATES, ETC.,.(See Debateq, etc.) REPORTERS OF DEBATES, resolution for appointment of Messrs. Lord and Brown, as,...........Vol I, stationery for,...................... v-ol. I, -certifying.birsof..............Vol. II, resolution of thanks to,.................Vol.1II, atREPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS,..............Vo.11, 7, 6 696, 724, 982. -' bREPRESENTATIVES, NUMBER OF,.............11l. H, 7, term of...'..V VI, , apportionment of;.ol.1I, qualifications of,...........Vol. 11,15, 17, 360, ineligible to other office,...... Vol.....11o. I,15, fpersons not eligible to be,...... Vol.II, 22, - privileged from arrest,.....Vol. 1, 34, compensation of,. ol.II, 60, 364, continuance of, under new Constit'n,... Vol. I 9, REPRESENTATION FROM COUNTIES,..........V..ol.1I1, REPRIEVES, COMMUTATIONS AND PARDONS, (See Governor.) GRETURNS OF TAXABLE PROPERTY................ol1. I, Vol. II, 597, 759.' RESOLUTIONS OF INSTRUCTION AND INQUIRY, days for ofiuering,.....11. 6. offeri VoI. I, 73, REVISION OF CONSTITUTION, committee to report mode of proceeding as to.Vol 1, 4, - resolution relative to mode of proceeding in, 8..,.4...oL 1I, -T-NDEX. 1059. 75 837 949 516 550 717 497 132 327 476 113 844 779 953 -76 92 562 242 207 610 5 50 463 60 205 210 741 250 .610 47 64 31 951 31 795 719 291 588 766 84'a 112 .97 1 570 60 352 16 81 972 1020 695' 693 . 7 -1 14 704 17 31 728 719 951 59 1 31 31 504 599 105 434 .497 115 105 .355 599 424 874 700 838 318 '74 5 8 106 iNDEX REvISION OF CONSTITUTION, report of committee -on mode of proceedingin,................:o. Vol. I, 9 REVISION OF CONSTITUTION, Convenn for,., Vol. II, 606, 760 REVISION AND AMENDMENT, committee on, (See Amend - - mnent and Revision.) RiCr, BERNHARDT, appointed fireman,.........o1. V, 15 RICHMOND, CHARLES H., a delegate-from Wash tena w county, appeared and took his seat,............ Vol. I, 1 appointed a member of-committee on report ing,...................... 5 appointed a member of committee on educa- tion,......................1, 31 appointed a member of committee on Sfiance-and ..ta.ation, Vol. I, 31 motions,'etc., by,......Vo l. 1, 74, 322, 466, 475, 502 -533, 5.34:;'.~o1.. II, 383, 433, 440,'453 479, 503 petitions presented by, (See Petitions.) remarks by, on Agicultural College,..l.' II, 483,1484, 485,.486 488.6 homestead -exemptions, Vol. I, 520 geg., qualifications of members of,. V.ol.- II, 22, 361 memorial of Alumni of State University,. VYol.IT, 30 9 printing, etc., for State,................ 1 II, 372 railroad from Detroit to Upper Peni'nsula, Vol. II, 458 regents of the University,..... Vol. I, 437, 438, 489 remiovals of officers,................... Vol. I,-5 26, 6527 Wayne county, board of auditors of,...ol. I, 463, 464 ROADS, VACATIO OF,.........................Vol. II, 100, 3 75 ROADS, GRAYEL AND TURNPIKE,............Vol. II' b, 122( 151P ROOT, SIMEON P., a delegate - from Hillsdale county, appearedan d took his seat,................... Vol.I, 1o appointed a member of committee.on supplies and expenditures, Vol.' I, 31 appointed a member of committee on intoxicat ing liequors,.... Vol. I, 31 appointed aamember of committee on -preserva tion of order,........ - -ol. I, 128 motions, etc., by,..... Vol. I, 13, 134;,368, 450, - 520 - ol. II, 237, 388, 433, 599, 711, -736. petitions presented by, "("See Petitions.) report from committee on preservation:n of-;or der,...................., -.. -ol.-II, 1004 resolution offered by, relative to preser ation: of -ordbr,...... ~ -Vol. I, 128 resolution relative to medical- departtment;-in::the University,.......................... I, 297 resolution relative to pay of delegatesmdu,'mg :absence, V............ ol. I, 438i re~marks by, on:: — adjournment over, etc.,...:VoL. I, 29, 436-,597, 614: -Vol.:II,:54:5,-546. amend't~and revision of the.Cons-tifn,...~ol. II, 606 assessment of property,..............:.....~&o I, 291 commrittees, standing,..............;.......~.oL:I,- 12: co~unties, or-ganization of new, VoL.. Vc.I, 358: debates:;and journals,..~......... ol-. I,22; VoL II, 971 equlalization, State bo-ard of,............ "Yol.-I, 307 exemption of pe~'sonal —property,....,....~Vol. I, 51.3 leave —of absence, granting,..............~o....!... o.I, — 57.0 Librarian, State, pay of,....,. *.*..*.**.*..*..*oL.:II,'1001 libraries, city and townshzip,.........~o.:....; Vo.I,4:21, 422 -4:78. liquor traffiC,...~01.. VII,202,.20'5,-~18 524: 541, 64:4 646, 860, 861, 864:,876, 877, 878, 879,:9!7, 918, cobh of offlce, constitutional,..................ol.